the Latin versus the Teutonic Brain

[Larniavc]

Unlike the book-writers, I don't need to seek approval to get published.

An can therefor say pretty much anything you like without having to think too hard about its veracity.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

An can therefor say pretty much anything you like without having to think too hard about its veracity.

Like Graham Hancock.

 

[Larniavc]

there is no place called Hyperborea.

Oh yeah? Well where did Arnold Schwarzenegger and Darth Vader come from then?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Oh yeah? Well where did Arnold Schwarzenegger and Darth Vader come from then?

As a Robert E Howard fan (moreso Solomon Kane than Conan, have to admit), that was the Hyborian Age, not Hyperborea. However, there is the Hypberborean cycle in the extended Lovecraft mythos.

 

[Larniavc]

Like Graham Hancock.

Funnily enough I’ve read Entangled: The Eater of Souls. It was fun.

But so was Mission: Earth and Battlefield Earth.

 

[Larniavc]

As a Robert E Howard fan (moreso Solomon Kane than Conan, have to admit), that was the Hyborian Age, not Hyperborea. However, there is the Hypberborean cycle in the extended Lovecraft mythos.

Bah! Hoist by my own hubris. I shall be mindful of the difference in the future

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Funnily enough I’ve read Entangled: The Eater of Souls. It was fun.

But so was Mission: Earth and Battlefield Earth.

I've only watched the Milo Rossi and Professor Dave videos that really break down his arguments. Can't post them here since the two are very fast and loose with the language, but they're worth a watch.

 

[mindlight]

the Latin versus the Teutonic Brain

"The Latin (and Levantine) brain visualises the conclusion before it has collected all the premisses: it is therefore too intelligent to be archaeologically minded.
The Teutonic brain, on the contrary, is content to inspect all its hurdles before jumping them. It is willing to collect evidence even though it never draws any conclusions. And the mere collection of evidence was the first and greatest necessity before archaeology could become useful and effective. Winckelmann was a splendid instance of the unhurried Teutonic temperament brought into prolonged contact with the versatile and volatile humanistic traditions of Italy."
"That is one reason why it has taken so long to breed archaeologists among the Latin races of Europe to-day."
--Rhys Carpenter, Humanistic Value of Archaeology, Vol. 4, p. 3-4.

Anyone else think this is the truth?
And maybe see this as an explanation for the differences between the "Latin races of Europe to-day" and the Teutonic Germans?
What he means by intelligence: "It is difficult for a person of quick wit and lively intellect to become a good archaeologist."

The background and era of this book, in the 1930s, in the build-up to war, was heavily influenced by various racial theories from the Nazis, from British Imperialists, and from Americans in the era of Ellis Island racial profiling. That said, my take on the observation made here and from living in Germany is that "method" is indeed built into the culture, while a lot of Latin cultures have a more holistic perspective. It is part of what makes Germans great engineers. The archaeologist is required to follow a systematic and methodological approach if he is going to be taken seriously and someone who simply jumps to conclusions that fit a wider perception of reality but remain unproven will be taken less seriously, though they may well be more entertaining.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The background and era of this book, in the 1930s, in the build-up to war, was heavily influenced by various racial theories from the Nazis, from British Imperialists, and from Americans in the era of Ellis Island racial profiling.

That issue was pointed out heavily in the very first comments of the thread, but it was brushed aside, and it's something that does heavily need to be pointed out for this sort of thinking.

 

[Ophiolite]

And why is it still seemingly impossible for you to use any source written in the last 50 years or so?

I was about to invest a substantial amount of time in responding to his latest (and considerably delayed) reply to one of my posts, but the executive summary is captured concisely in your remark.

I would add, a point you also made earlier, that he responds - not to what is said - but to what he thinks was said, or would like to have been said, or just aligns best with what he wants to say. It's not a discussion, it's an individual who insists upon bringing a leather football to an F1 race: it's the wrong equipment and its outdated.

I'm all for diversity in thinking, but some people abuse the privilege!

 

[Nithavela]

A better question to ask is this: WHEN were the Druids in Britain?

Hundreds of years before the dawn of history.

 

[Kathleen30]

the Latin versus the Teutonic Brain

"The Latin (and Levantine) brain visualises the conclusion before it has collected all the premisses: it is therefore too intelligent to be archaeologically minded.
The Teutonic brain, on the contrary, is content to inspect all its hurdles before jumping them. It is willing to collect evidence even though it never draws any conclusions. And the mere collection of evidence was the first and greatest necessity before archaeology could become useful and effective. Winckelmann was a splendid instance of the unhurried Teutonic temperament brought into prolonged contact with the versatile and volatile humanistic traditions of Italy."
"That is one reason why it has taken so long to breed archaeologists among the Latin races of Europe to-day."
--Rhys Carpenter, Humanistic Value of Archaeology, Vol. 4, p. 3-4.

Anyone else think this is the truth?
And maybe see this as an explanation for the differences between the "Latin races of Europe to-day" and the Teutonic Germans?
What he means by intelligence: "It is difficult for a person of quick wit and lively intellect to become a good archaeologist."

I’m not sure if it was a Germanic problem . I think Archaeology really came into being in the 18th century and Germany certainly had many museums from the ancient worlds their archaeologists had explored and evaluated just as much as Europe and the UK did at the same time

 

[Ophiolite]

Hundreds of years before the dawn of history.

Well, hundreds of years before historical records were kept (or, at least, survived) in the British Isles. The Druids originated in the Iron Age, so say around 500 BCE. Thus, their alleged association with the building of numerous Neolithic and Bronze Age megaliths is purest fantasy. The nutters** who turn up for the Summer Solstice at Stonehenge are the original practitioners of cultural appropriation!

** It's a technical term in anthropology.

 

[apollosdtr]

Like Graham Hancock.

Like all writers have to do in order to get published. Like all college students are being taught to do, as well. There was a line in the old TV series of Dawson's Creek, where her college professor (in a congratulatory manner) tells Joey that she hadn't yet accepted the dogma of her chosen vocation. Luckily, taking the final exam and dismissing what you've been taught out of sanctioned textbooks is easy to do. It's the PhD that carves your brain into stone, apparently.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Like all writers have to do in order to get published. Like all college students are being taught to do, as well. There was a line in the old TV series of Dawson's Creek, where her college professor (in a congratulatory manner) tells Joey that she hadn't yet accepted the dogma of her chosen vocation. Luckily, taking the final exam and dismissing what you've been taught out of sanctioned textbooks is easy to do.

I've never seen an argument from "Dawson's Creek" before, so you've got that going for you.

It's the PhD that carves your brain into stone, apparently.

And your experience on this is what exactly?

 

[apollosdtr]

The background and era of this book, in the 1930s, in the build-up to war, was heavily influenced by various racial theories from the Nazis, from British Imperialists, and from Americans in the era of Ellis Island racial profiling. That said, my take on the observation made here and from living in Germany is that "method" is indeed built into the culture, while a lot of Latin cultures have a more holistic perspective. It is part of what makes Germans great engineers. The archaeologist is required to follow a systematic and methodological approach if he is going to be taken seriously and someone who simply jumps to conclusions that fit a wider perception of reality but remain unproven will be taken less seriously, though they may well be more entertaining.

I agree with your German thinking thing... "method" is all over President Trump. Kinda reminds me of the old 3 Stooges routine featuring the phrase "Step by step, inch by inch..."

I disagree with your take on Archaeologists, though. They are told where to go and what to look for by some Wizard of Oz behind the curtain. Take for example Sayce's astonishment when they found the Hittites in Asia Minor, rather than in what's called Palestine today. And a well-known Archaeology writer backs it up by showing Gergashites (sp?) in Asia Minor, too. In fact, the best examples of jumping to conclusions by Archaeologists is HOW they named the conquerors of the Hittite kingdom by the name of the conquested... and never changed it. All they did is confuse history by naming the Hittites the Hatti. Two identical names in two different languages, for two very different people. And how Schliemann blew up several layers of cities to get to what he pretended was Troy. Archaeology is full to the brim with these "systematic" methods. Who really knew where the places were that were described by the ancient authors? But one thing is sure, the modern place-names don't always match their ancient descriptions.

 

[apollosdtr]

Hundreds of years before the dawn of history.

Agreed.

If only the Romans and Monks hadn't destroyed the histories and historians of those they conquered. Don't forget the "stone-breakers". If Stonehenge hadn't been too huge for the common man to completely haul off, then all of the farmlands in Britain would have sacred stones in their foundations. People who say the farmers did it because they needed these stones must never have seen nor done any plowing.

And anyway, misplaced histories often show up pasted onto another landscape entirely. It's not for nothing that several nationalistic writers claimed Troy for their very own, because if the landscape doesn't match the text, then "something is rotten in Denmark". But these same authors serve the purpose of making the curious dig around for themselves.

Me too. I take my inspiration where I find it... and never stop looking. The more effort that's been done to bury the truth, the more valuable it must be to someone. (And sometimes finding the bury-er is worth the effort, all on its own. ;-) )

"They don't tell me nothing, so I find out all I can"-- Phil Collins, Take Me Home.

 

[apollosdtr]

I’m not sure if it was a Germanic problem . I think Archaeology really came into being in the 18th century and Germany certainly had many museums from the ancient worlds their archaeologists had explored and evaluated just as much as Europe and the UK did at the same time

Removing landmarks used to be illegal. But then, so was grave-robbing. Makes the locals hate the whole nation that does and allows this theft. Seems like I read about the modern-day efforts at repatriation... the robbed countries want their "artifacts" back, and rightfully so, IMO. I would hate to see a gang of Archaeologists show up at the cemetery where my ancestors are buried and start taking sculls and jewelry to display in museums.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Like all writers have to do in order to get published. Like all college students are being taught to do, as well. There was a line in the old TV series of Dawson's Creek, where her college professor (in a congratulatory manner) tells Joey that she hadn't yet accepted the dogma of her chosen vocation. Luckily, taking the final exam and dismissing what you've been taught out of sanctioned textbooks is easy to do. It's the PhD that carves your brain into stone, apparently.

Citing Dawson's Creek does nothing to oppose my view, and seemingly others too, that you're talking a load of crank and any book you have the temerity to publish on this topic would also be a load of crank.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The more effort that's been done to bury the truth, the more valuable it must be to someone. (And sometimes finding the bury-er is worth the effort, all on its own.

WHO is burying this so-called 'truth' and WHY?