Pete Clarke Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is a trend I've noticed before - academics
> that produce controversial hypotheses tend to
> speak at places where they will get, their
> opinion, a fairer hearing than in the academy
> (look at some of the places Schoch spoke). There
> is also a tendancy for them to produce more outre
> hypotheses as time goes on; I suspect this comes
> from the company they are keeping and the support
> that they get.
>
Schoch almost literally couldn't say no.
A bit more information:


Hugh Montgomery, to quote from I think one of his books, holds a Ph.D. in
Audiology, a Diploma in Contract Law and the professional qualification of
Inginiero Comercial (Chile). He is the author of a number of technical and
historical papers and books including; ‘The Montgomery Millennium’ and
‘The God-Kings of Europe’. He was a businessman and then became President
of Megatrend University in Belgrade.
His book The God-Kings of Europe (published by Book Tree who publish ET,
Atlantis, etc stuff and the Protocols of Zion) purports to trace the
lineage of Jesus from the 'Odinic' dyansty of Babylonic Kings whose name
was Ouoin (or rather part of the name of Babylonian kings from the Kassite
dynasty on.
To quote Montgomery, "Uouin means "Lord" in Aryan or "The One", and is the
same as the Hebrew "Adonai" or, in Kassite, Iddina or Agum. "

I can't find this name as part of any names in the two kinglists I found,
maybe it does exist but../..

The name, he says, became Odin, and he traces Jesus's lineage through
these Bablyonian kings to David, to Jesus, then on to the Knights Templar,
then on to the Angevin Dynasty, etc. His book The God-Kings of England
claims of course that the Angevin Dynasty descends from Jesus.

Unusally for such nonsense, I can't find any discussion of his books using
Google, just sites trying to sell them. Part of God-Kings of Europe is on
Google: [tinyurl.com]

Evan Jones is controversial but not a kook. Gunnar Thompson we have
discussed here before, and is similar to Gavin Menzies with whom he works.
Olshin -- well, here is an email of his to MapHist:
Dear "MapHist-ers":
I find myself writing yet again to get fellow historians, et al. to come
forward (as Geoff Wade has) and put a firm "no" on the ideas and
methodologies being put forward on this whole Menzies / 1421 debate,
which has now come to include the "Map with Ship".

Thompson has issued another e-mail posting (see below) about the "Map with
Ship", but I must repeat that he has not seen any of the other maps in the
Rossi collection, Marcian F. Rossi being the original owner of the "Map
with Ship". The maps have NOT been tested paleographically, nor have the
inks nor parchments been tested with modern methods. Nothing can be said
about them other than conjectures about their depictions and
representations. Only I have seen the other maps, and I have just drafted
a very cautious initial study of the collection, including the "Map with
Ship".

It is absurd, therefore, to conclude that Marco Polo was off venturing in
the Canadian Artic. There is no real evidence to support this. Nothing in
"Il Milione" would lead to such a conclusion, and the maps in the Rossi
collection while interesting, have not been validated. Moreover, if
Thompson were to look at all the maps, including the "Map with Ship", he
would notice how little connection, in fact, there is between Polo's
narrative ("Il Milione") and these cartographic works.

Thompson goes so far as to state in his e-mail posting that "Marco Polo's
map of the Canadian Arctic may have led Mercator to place the 'Mare Dulce'
in the Canadian Northwest. This geographical feature that is seen on the
1418 Ming Map is most likely an early portrayal of Mackenzie Bay,
Mackenzie River, and Great Bear Lake." This is absurd on a number of
levels. First, THERE IS NO MARCO POLO MAP OF THE CANADIAN ARCTIC. That is
simply a fabrication; none of the maps in the Rossi collection suggest
anything like the Canadian Arctic. Moreover, since there was no such map,
Mercator could not have looked at it. The "1418 Ming" map has been
addressed elsewhere in the MapHist discussion, so need I say more here?

Historian of cartography can only really work with two kinds of evidence:
maps and geographic/navigational texts. Marco Polo left us no maps -- the
Rossi maps may be related to his explorations, but as of this writing, we
are not in any way sure. As for geographic/navigational texts, Marco
Polo's narrative, in all the manuscript forms that are extant, contains no
maps, nor directions for a map, nor barely a suggestion of a map.

The Menzies-Thompson technique (like those of Graham Hancock and his
"Fingerprints of the Gods") is to "connect the unconnectable" through a
series of unsubstantiated conjectures. This makes great story-telling, but
it is not history of cartography, and should not be considered as such.

Finally, in another e-mail posting, Thompson says that "if a Chinese
Admiral sailed seven times between China and Africa, had ships 400-500
feet long, fleets of hundreds of vessels, thousands of mariners, and the
commercial and scientific support of countries from India to Egypt--then
this is someone who could have sailed to America and around the world."
Look, Thor Heyerdahl also showed us that navigators from the South Pacific
(and from Egypt) COULD have sailed great, trans-oceanic distances -- but
this does not prove that they DID.

The accusation is always leveled that scholars like myself are simply
"Eurocentric historians" (another Thompson term). I have great respect for
Chinese technological achievements, as I am sure Geoff Wade does. I have
taught in a Chinese university (in Taiwan), and Wade teaches in one now. I
am even married to a Chinese person, and speak the language. But facts are
facts, and there is NO cartographic evidence as of this writing that the
Chinese (or Marco Polo on behalf of the Chinese) came to America prior to
Columbus.

Thompson writes: "The public is holding us accountable; and we are
failing." If the public is indeed holding us accountable to anything, it
is to be the bearers of the proper investigation of history. Both
university-trained and amateur historians are welcome, by the way -- we
just need to all practice the same methods.

-Benjamin B. Olshin

Garth Norman - a Mormon archaeologist with some reputation but whose
Ancient America Foundation exists to prove the Mormon case.

Gerard Ludic -- retired biologist who then found Ogam in North America,
cairns, etc. but if this anti-semites site says:
"Gerard has stated that he believes that there was a race of "White
Aboriginals" in addition to the better known "Red Indians" of North
America. These people were, Gerard thinks, possibly related to the
Caucasian genetic stock represented by "Kinnewick Man" whose bones have
caused much recent controversy (see the "American Neanderthal" news item
on my Site Index). Gerard speculates that these "White Aboriginals" may
have come originally from Atlantis about 10,000 years ago."
[www.michaelbradley.info]

Steven Sora - secret societies, Templars, etc.



Doug Weller

Director The Hall of Ma'at
Doug's Skeptical Archaeology site::
[www.ramtops.co.uk]