11638 replies to this topic

[Otharus]

part 10

[Otharus]

part 11

[Otharus]

part 12

[Otharus]

part 13 (final)

[Abramelin]

Otharus, on 15 March 2012 - 04:23 PM, said:

Yep. It was one of the songs on my disk that had the right length and somehow fitted symbolically.

I made up a few new ones, and the 'words' are not all linear and 2-dimensional.

Indulging in creative expression sometimes helps me see things in new ways.

Yeah, I already assumed you created a few new letters because I recognized your name.

Btw, not the spoil the fun, but you have been posting many scans from Rolf Bremmer's Dutch article..... and I think I recognize here and there parts I have read online... but in English. I know I have posted links to online English books by his hand. You might want to check these online books first, and before you start translating.

.

Edited by Abramelin, 15 March 2012 - 06:19 PM.

[Otharus]

Abramelin, on 15 March 2012 - 06:18 PM, said:

Btw, not the spoil the fun, but you have been posting many scans from Rolf Bremmer's Dutch article..... and I think I recognize here and there parts I have read online... but in English. I know I have posted links to online English books by his hand. You might want to check these online books first, and before you start translating.

OK thanks, I hadn't started translating yet.

Have a good read of the last part, "Besluit".

The map about "twisken" (fig.4) is very interesting too.

[Abramelin]

Otharus, on 15 March 2012 - 06:36 PM, said:

OK thanks, I hadn't started translating yet.

Have a good read of the last part, "Besluit".

The map about "twisken" (fig.4) is very interesting too.

What you could do is this: translate a sentence with some very typical (= not general) words in it, using your best English. Then Google the whole sentence, add "Bremmer"" to the search terms (= that sentence, no quotation marks), and if it is online it will most probably be on the 'Booksgoogle' site (but always only parts of his books are online overthere). I will try it myself; I know it's a lot of work translating all this into English, and why not make it a bit more easy for yourself?

=

I found every of these book-scans interesting, lol.

[Abramelin]

Swede said:

Bold #1 - It is not personally believed that you have qualified data to support this bold proclamation. In addition, as has been previously presented, Masse utilized a methodology not unlike your own in regards to his utilization of oral histories. While this methodology is subject to scrutiny and not one that would be of my own personal preference, Masse's data base and expertise are notably more extensive than your own.

Alewyn, on 15 March 2012 - 09:02 AM, said:

Your continuous derogatory attacks on me, obviously bolstered by your anonymity, convinced me some time ago that your prejudices and a clear disrespect for the views of others prevent you from comprehending any alternative viewpoints. You denounce my expertise and data although you have not even read my book. Do not, however, waste your money now.

Alewyn, of all people who posts on this board, I think Swede is one of the most polite people I have had the pleasure to read posts of.

He doesn't agree with your theory based on what he knows, and that's about it.

A day ago you accuse the UM site of suppressing information (which they don't), and today again, you accuse Swede of a personal attack.

And it's not too long ago you accused me of 'deliberately' doing this or that, twisting your posts, having some sort of 'agenda', and all that paranoid (yes!) bullcrap.

If I posted all these remarks of yours to people who do not agree with your theory in one post, some other people reading my post might start worrying about your mental health.

Alewyn, you wrote a book about a controversial manuscript. You used scientific sources to prove your theory. Then you should expect people who live in that scientific community to be critical about your book.

That's how things go.

If you want to be taken seriously, you will have to accept that there are people who do not agree with your theory.

.

Edited by Abramelin, 15 March 2012 - 07:52 PM.

[Abramelin]

Puzz, I found a site (that's, amongst other things, about the Veneti) I think you will be interested in too.



When Julius Caesar conquered Gaul he also had to subdue the seaborne tribe of the Veneti.

The Romans bragged that they got them all, killing or enslaving them. This seems to be a very convenient piece of self-serving propaganda, and I for one do not believe it.

A tribe which specialised in ocean travel and the use of boats would be difficult, if not impossible, to bottle up. A good many of them would have been able to slip away in the face of an attempted capture by the Romans.

Name construction

A few centuries later the geographer Ptolemy notes that the Venicones lived in north-eastern Britain (in the region of Fife and on both banks of the Tay to the north), and a tribe called the Venicnii in north Ireland (Donnegal). To my eye this is quite obviously the same name, Venic + '-on' or '-n'.

=

Venet was probably pronounced 'Wened' by that time (AD 100-300), and soon enough, due to the addition of a 'g', settled into its modern spelling of Gwynedd.

=

Origins
    
Paul Johnstone's Sea-Craft of Prehistory involves a useful discussion of skin boats and leather sails. An interesting sidebar is the Veneti use of leather sails on their boats.

Julius Caesar remarked on the Veneti using leather sails, an odd practice from the viewpoint of anyone accustomed to Mediterranean ships. It indicates an origin for the Veneti far from civilisation and its woven sails - which sails they would have encountered if the tribe developed in situ in Armorica, as traders constantly sailed to nearby Dumnonia to purchase tin.

It also indicates an origin somewhere where ships would be needed, a shore or an island. This leaves us with the islands of Britain and Ireland, the shore of Gaul east of Britain, and the region of Scandinavia and the Baltic Sea. Their ships were wood, so an origin in Ireland is doubtful. Their sails were leather, so an origin in Britain is doubtful. Scandinavia itself was inhabited by Germanic and Finnic tribes. This leaves us with the areas of the Belgae in northern Gaul, the Jutland peninsula, and the southern/eastern shores of the Baltic.

Just such a boat seems to have been found at Bruges, Belgium, dated to the second or third century AD (see the Online Library). And from Bad Kreuznach, a mosaic showing such a boat is featured in figure 3 of an Archaeology Data Service report (see link on the right).

=

There were Veneti in the Baltic along the shore in the region of the Oder and Vistula rivers.

The name itself means 'white' in Common Gaulish. It is cognate to the English words 'white' and 'winter'. It might mean 'the winter people', or it might mean 'the blonds' (white hair). Or it more likely comes from an ancient leader or founder of the tribe who might have been blond and nicknamed 'White'.

One can envision a possible migration of Veneti from the Vistula by sea to Armorica. Then a flight of survivors from Armorica to Fife in Scotland and Donnegal in Ireland. Then Romanised Veneti of Fife move into western and northern Wales and found the kingdoms of Gwynedd and Ceredigion.

http://www.historyfi...Venicones01.htm

.

Edited by Abramelin, 15 March 2012 - 08:18 PM.

[Swede]

Alewyn, on 15 March 2012 - 09:02 AM, said:

Your continuous derogatory attacks on me, obviously bolstered by your anonymity, convinced me some time ago that your prejudices and a clear disrespect for the views of others prevent you from comprehending any alternative viewpoints. You denounce my expertise and data although you have not even read my book. Do not, however, waste your money now.

The following response is for the benefit of other readers.

Herewith the scenario around the Burckle impact:

1. Scientists from the Holocene Impact Working Group (HIWG) theorize that the Burckle Impact happened in the 3rd millennium BC.

2. They base their theory on the 200 meter high Fenambosy chevron dunes on the Island of Madagascar, some 1500 kilometers from the impact site.

3. The size of the dunes (after 4 to 5 thousand years), the distance from the impact site and the 3800 meter deep location of the impact crater in the Indian Ocean, tells us that the resultant tsunami must have been well over 200 meters high. In fact, these scientists tell us that the Burckle impact had the power of several million nuclear warheads.

4. The force of the impact would most likely have created numerous earthquakes which in turn would have created more tsunamis all around the globe.

5. The size of the initial impact tsunami and the resultant earthquake generated tsunamis would have advance several hundred kilometers, inter alia, up the Indus Valley.

6. It may well be that the impact disturbed the earth's tectonic plates, which in turn could also have resulted in volcanic eruptions as far away as Greenland (Hekla).

7. Evidence of all of the above is found in numerous paleoclimatic, geological and archaeological records. Dr. Benny Peiser referred to some 500 excavation reports, research papers and scientific abstracts already in 1997. Today there would be many more.

8. Dr. Abbot and Dr Masse are both members of the HIWG but they give different dates for the Burckle Impact. Dr. Abott gives a date of 2500 BC and Dr. Masse's date is 2800 BC. Clearly, both can be wrong but they cannot both be right.

9. It is generally accepted that the Harappan Urban Civilization in Pakistan was destroyed in ca 2200 BC.  As with the Akkadian Empire's demise around the same time, the increased salt content of the ground around these sites is indicative of sea water inundations which caused or contributed to their demise.

10. If either Dr Abott's date of 2500 BC (300 years before the demise if these civilizations), or Dr. Masse's date of 2800 BC (600 years before) is correct, there would not have been a Harappan Urban Civilization or an Akkadian empire to be destroyed in 2200 BC. They would have been destroyed earlier and there would not have been sufficient time to have recovered from an earlier catastrophe and to have developed to the level we find in the archaeological records. The Harrapan Urban Civilization, in any event, never recovered after the 2200 BC event.

11. In addition, if either Dr. Abbot or Dr. Masse is correct, then we must find another cause for the tsunamis that destroyed these civilizations (including China and Egypt). We have an abundance of evidence of global paleo-tsunamis in 2200 BC. What then cause these tsunamis, seismicity, resultant climate change and the 300 year aridification event, etc. etc.?

That, in a nutshell, and without quoting all the other evidence, is why I disagree with both Dr. Abbot's and Dr. Masse's dates.

  
Herewith the scenario around the Burckle impact:

1. Scientists from the Holocene Impact Working Group (HIWG) theorize that the Burckle Impact happened in the 3rd millennium BC.

2. They base their theory on the 200 meter high Fenambosy chevron dunes on the Island of Madagascar, some 1500 kilometers from the impact site.

3. The size of the dunes (after 4 to 5 thousand years), the distance from the impact site and the 3800 meter deep location of the impact crater in the Indian Ocean, tells us that the resultant tsunami must have been well over 200 meters high. In fact, these scientists tell us that the Burckle impact had the power of several million nuclear warheads.

  Yes, though keep in mind that the research of the HIWG is in its early stages and the Burckle crater is not yet even fully confirmed.

4. The force of the impact would most likely have created numerous earthquakes which in turn would have created more tsunamis all around the globe.

  This is generally speculation on your part and is not supported by the data of even the HIGW as per:

  http://elib.sfu-kras.ru/bitstream/2311/1636/1/03_.pdf

5. The size of the initial impact tsunami and the resultant earthquake generated tsunamis would have advance several hundred kilometers, inter alia, up the Indus Valley.

  This is simply incorrect and will be addressed below.

6. It may well be that the impact disturbed the earth’s tectonic plates, which in turn could also have resulted in volcanic eruptions as far away as Greenland (Hekla).

  More unsupported speculation on your part as per:

  http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/largeeruptions.cfm

7. Evidence of all of the above is found in numerous paleoclimatic, geological and archaeological records. Dr. Benny Peiser referred to some 500 excavation reports, research papers and scientific abstracts already in 1997. Today there would be many more.

  Abe has already addressed the Velikovskian bent of this particular group. While you may find their presentation to be sympathetic to your own, their “interpretation” of the data is not necessarily well accepted.

8. Dr. Abbot and Dr Masse are both members of the HIWG but they give different dates for the Burckle Impact. Dr. Abott gives a date of 2500 BC and Dr. Masse’s date is 2800 BC. Clearly, both can be wrong but they cannot both be right.

  Poorly phrased argument. One could also conclude that both of the researchers place the event in the early 3^rd millennium, and thus not at all supportive of your position.

9. It is generally accepted that the Harappan Urban Civilization in Pakistan was destroyed in ca 2200 BC. As with the Akkadian Empire’s demise around the same time, the increased salt content of the ground around these sites is indicative of sea water inundations which caused or contributed to their demise.

  This statement is intentionally inaccurate. 1) The urban centers of the Indus Valley Civilization (IVC) were not “destroyed”. Such hyperbole is hardly representative of the current research. The long-term effects of increasingly arid conditions in combination with local resource stress and potential socio-political factors led to a diffusion from the earlier population centers. 2) The IVC was at its height from 2600 BC to circa 1900 to 1800 BC, with a gradual decline following this point. For your edification:

  http://hzg.academia....arappan_decline

  https://sites.google...e/kalyan97/Nadi

  https://sites.google...e/kalyan97/Nadi

  http://find.galegrou...orm&source=gale

  10. If either Dr Abott’s date of 2500 BC (300 years before the demise if these civilizations), or Dr. Masse’s date of 2800 BC (600 years before) is correct, there would not have been a Harappan Urban Civilization or an Akkadian empire to be destroyed in 2200 BC. They would have been destroyed earlier and there would not have been sufficient time to have recovered from an earlier catastrophe and to have developed to the level we find in the archaeological records. The Harrapan Urban Civilization, in any event, never recovered after the 2200 BC event.

  As such claims as the “destruction” of the IVC have already been demonstrated to be inaccurate, this paragraph is of no consequence. One may wish to be conscious of faulty presumptions/presentations as a foundation for one’s case.

11. In addition, if either Dr. Abbot or Dr. Masse is correct, then we must find another cause for the tsunamis that destroyed these civilizations (including China and Egypt). We have an abundance of evidence of global paleo-tsunamis in 2200 BC. What then cause these tsunamis, seismicity, resultant climate change and the 300 year aridification event, etc. etc.

  There would appear to be no indication that the civilizations referenced were “destroyed” by tsunamis. 1) The civilizations were not “destroyed”. 2) Are you now suggesting that (for example) 4rth Dynasty Egypt was impacted by a tsunami?

That, in a nutshell, and without quoting all the other evidence, is why I disagree with both Dr. Abbot’s and Dr. Masse’s dates.

  As is apparent from the above, your argument is tragically flawed and based upon poorly understood/interpreted data.

  Due to potential formatting difficulties, the additional data referred to above will follow in a subsequent presentation.

  .

[Swede]

  Alewyn - While, as previously noted, the research of the HIWG is in its infancy and not yet well verified, let us utilize their data to investigate the validity of your speculations. From their research we can glean the following presumptive data:

  Diameter of the Burckle Crater = ~29 km. Depth of the crater ~3800 m.

  Utilizing the Earth Impact Effect Program of Purdue University and the Imperial College of London, a series of data values were inserted into the program in order to reach kinetic energy figures consistent with the generation of a crater of  ~29 km at a depth of 3800 m. The HIWG proposes that the impactor was a comet, therefore the following values were eventually reached.

  Inputs:

  Distance from Impact: 805.00 km ( = 500.00 miles )

  Projectile diameter: 3.55 km ( = 2.20 miles )

  Projectile Density: 1500 kg/m³

  Impact Velocity: 51.00 km per second ( = 31.70 miles per second )

  Impact Angle: 45 degrees

  Target Density: 1000 kg/m³

  Target Type: Liquid water of depth 3.8 km ( = 2.4 miles ), over crystalline rock.

             Final Crater Diameter: 29.4 km ( = 18.3 miles )

  Final Crater Depth: 819 meters ( = 2690 feet )

  
Energy:
  Energy before atmospheric entry: 4.57 x 10²² Joules = 1.09 x 10⁷ MegaTons TNT

  The average interval between impacts of this size somewhere on Earth during the last 4 billion years is 2.9 x 10⁷years

  Major Global Changes:

  The Earth is not strongly disturbed by the impact and loses negligible mass.

  The impact does not make a noticeable change in the tilt of Earth's axis (< 5 hundredths of a degree).

  The impact does not shift the Earth's orbit noticeably.

  

  Another series of data ranges were utilized in order to reflect the effects of an asteroid:

  
Inputs:
  Distance from Impact: 500.00 km ( = 311.00 miles )

  Projectile diameter: 2.50 km ( = 1.55 miles )

  Projectile Density: 3000 kg/m³

  Impact Velocity: 37.00 km per second ( = 23.00 miles per second )

  Impact Angle: 45 degrees

             Target Density: 1000 kg/m³

  Target Type: Liquid water of depth 3.8 km ( = 2.4 miles ), over crystalline rock.

             Final Crater Diameter: 29 km ( = 18 miles )

  Final Crater Depth: 815 meters ( = 2670 feet )

  
Energy:
  Energy before atmospheric entry: 1.68 x 10²² Joules = 4.01 x 10⁶ MegaTons TNT

  The average interval between impacts of this size somewhere on Earth during the last 4 billion years is 1.3 x 10⁷years

  
Major Global Changes:
  The Earth is not strongly disturbed by the impact and loses negligible mass.

  The impact does not make a noticeable change in the tilt of Earth's axis (< 5 hundredths of a degree).

  The impact does not shift the Earth's orbit noticeably.

  

  A third set of figures was generated utilizing the data in the first set above, with the exception of the distance from impact. In this case the distance utilized was the distance from the proposed Burckle crater to the mouth of the Indus River. Note the impact of the tsunami at the mouth of the river.

  
Inputs:
  Distance from Impact: 6250.00 km ( = 3880.00 miles )

  Projectile diameter: 3.55 km ( = 2.20 miles )

  Projectile Density: 1500 kg/m³

  Impact Velocity: 51.00 km per second ( = 31.70 miles per second )

  Impact Angle: 45 degrees

  Target Density: 1000 kg/m³

  Target Type: Liquid water of depth 3.8 km ( = 2.4 miles ), over crystalline rock.

  
Tsunami Wave:
  The impact-generated tsunami wave arrives approximately 9.1 hours after impact.

  Tsunami wave amplitude is between: 17.7 meters ( = 58.1 feet) and 35.4 meters ( = 116.0 feet)







To summarize - In your attempt to validate a more than questionable text, you have utilized methodology quite reflective of "fringe" methodology. The distortion of climatological, geological, archaeological, etc. data does not well support your position and, in fact, places the remainder of your understandings and position in great question. Just as with your clearly discounted position in regards to the Faroe's, your attempt to demonstrate the validity of the OLB via the proposal of a major planetary axial tilt is simply unsupported by any degree of accurate interpretation of the currently available data.




.

[Swede]

The Puzzler, on 15 March 2012 - 01:32 AM, said:

I agree a substantial axial tilt does not have much support.

WHat does it really mean by 'the sun rose higher' I wonder - one of the phrases used in the OLB that Alewyn thinks might support the axial tilt idea.

The Nordic Bronze Age was characterized by a warm climate that began with a climate change around 2700 BC (comparable to that of present-day central Germany and northern France). The warm climate permitted a relatively dense population and good farming, for example grapes were grown in Scandinavia at this time. However a small change in climate between 850 BC and 760 BC and a more radical one around 650 BC brought in a deteriorating, wetter and colder climate (sometimes believed to have given rise to the legend of the Fimbulwinter).
http://en.wikipedia....rdic_Bronze_Age

The climate was warmer from c. 2700BC and even though this next date of 850BC doesn't actually correspond to the OLB date of the colder climate setting in, it does show that some kind of weather change made it colder though - that grapes were once grown there and good farming was available, which may correspond to the notion of 'the sun rose higher'...

This essentially brings up a few of points in regards to aspects of cultural anthropology theory (a quite involved topic). First, one is faced with the questionable provenance of the text itself. Next, we have the numerous mythological elements apparent within the text. Then we have the aspect of the interpretation of oral histories and the methodologies that can be applied in order to distinguish between the original elements of the history and the additions/alterations that invariably occur over time. Lastly, we have the time-span itself and the rather cumulative compilation of "mutations".

A comprehensive discussion of the above is rather beyond the capacity of these pages. However, should you be interested in some thought-provoking papers on the topic of the utilization of oral histories as they apply to the interpretation of early historical and archaeological data, there are (from my perspective) two in particular that you may find of interest. While the two authors (Echo Hawk and Mason) approach the topic from quite diametrical perspectives, they essentially  do reach a common ground in that any utilization of oral histories must be subjected close interpretive standards, both culturally and temporally.

Access to the papers would likely involve working with your local library/university. Can provide citations should you wish to pursue such. Believe that you would find them quite interesting.

.

[The Puzzler]

Abramelin, on 15 March 2012 - 08:17 PM, said:

Puzz, I found a site (that's, amongst other things, about the Veneti) I think you will be interested in too.



When Julius Caesar conquered Gaul he also had to subdue the seaborne tribe of the Veneti.

The Romans bragged that they got them all, killing or enslaving them. This seems to be a very convenient piece of self-serving propaganda, and I for one do not believe it.

A tribe which specialised in ocean travel and the use of boats would be difficult, if not impossible, to bottle up. A good many of them would have been able to slip away in the face of an attempted capture by the Romans.

Name construction

A few centuries later the geographer Ptolemy notes that the Venicones lived in north-eastern Britain (in the region of Fife and on both banks of the Tay to the north), and a tribe called the Venicnii in north Ireland (Donnegal). To my eye this is quite obviously the same name, Venic + '-on' or '-n'.

=

Venet was probably pronounced 'Wened' by that time (AD 100-300), and soon enough, due to the addition of a 'g', settled into its modern spelling of Gwynedd.

=

Origins
    
Paul Johnstone's Sea-Craft of Prehistory involves a useful discussion of skin boats and leather sails. An interesting sidebar is the Veneti use of leather sails on their boats.

Julius Caesar remarked on the Veneti using leather sails, an odd practice from the viewpoint of anyone accustomed to Mediterranean ships. It indicates an origin for the Veneti far from civilisation and its woven sails - which sails they would have encountered if the tribe developed in situ in Armorica, as traders constantly sailed to nearby Dumnonia to purchase tin.

It also indicates an origin somewhere where ships would be needed, a shore or an island. This leaves us with the islands of Britain and Ireland, the shore of Gaul east of Britain, and the region of Scandinavia and the Baltic Sea. Their ships were wood, so an origin in Ireland is doubtful. Their sails were leather, so an origin in Britain is doubtful. Scandinavia itself was inhabited by Germanic and Finnic tribes. This leaves us with the areas of the Belgae in northern Gaul, the Jutland peninsula, and the southern/eastern shores of the Baltic.

Just such a boat seems to have been found at Bruges, Belgium, dated to the second or third century AD (see the Online Library). And from Bad Kreuznach, a mosaic showing such a boat is featured in figure 3 of an Archaeology Data Service report (see link on the right).

=

There were Veneti in the Baltic along the shore in the region of the Oder and Vistula rivers.

The name itself means 'white' in Common Gaulish. It is cognate to the English words 'white' and 'winter'. It might mean 'the winter people', or it might mean 'the blonds' (white hair). Or it more likely comes from an ancient leader or founder of the tribe who might have been blond and nicknamed 'White'.

One can envision a possible migration of Veneti from the Vistula by sea to Armorica. Then a flight of survivors from Armorica to Fife in Scotland and Donnegal in Ireland. Then Romanised Veneti of Fife move into western and northern Wales and found the kingdoms of Gwynedd and Ceredigion.

http://www.historyfi...Venicones01.htm

.

Cool thanks.

Gwynedd is the Breton name for Vannes, the name is the same, it is white - but it's more from bright, beautiful.

I bet Wendy's name in Peter Pan is based on this etymology too, from wened. Guinevere in King Arthur would also be based in this word imo and is probably very symbolic. Something like 'very fair' - as she was.

Edited by The Puzzler, 16 March 2012 - 04:14 AM.

[The Puzzler]

The Amber Road was an ancient trade route for the transfer of amber. As one of the waterways and ancient highways, for centuries the road led from Europe to Asia and back, and from northern Africa to the Baltic Sea.

An important raw material, amber was transported from the North Sea and Baltic Sea coasts overland by way of the Vistula and Dnieper rivers to Italy, Greece, the Black Sea, and Egypt thousands of years ago, and long after.

In Roman times, a main route ran south from the Baltic coast in Prussia through the land of the Boii (modern Czech Republic and Slovakia) to the head of the Adriatic Sea (modern Gulf of Venice). The Egyptian pharaoh Tutankhamun had Baltic amber among his burial goods,[citation needed] and amber was sent from the North Sea to the temple of Apollo at Delphi as an offering. From the Black Sea, trade could continue to Asia along the Silk Road, another ancient trade route.

The Old Prussian towns of Kaup and Truso on the Baltic were the starting points of the route to the south. In Scandinavia the amber road probably gave rise to the thriving Nordic Bronze Age culture, bringing influences from the Mediterranean Sea to the northernmost countries of Europe.


Or taking influences INTO the Mediterranean.


The Veneti were at the end point of the trade route at the Gulf of Venice. Amber was sent from the North Sea to Apollo's temple, which surely indicates to me a Northern origin for Apollo.

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Amber_Road

[The Puzzler]

Swede, on 16 March 2012 - 01:16 AM, said:

This essentially brings up a few of points in regards to aspects of cultural anthropology theory (a quite involved topic). First, one is faced with the questionable provenance of the text itself. Next, we have the numerous mythological elements apparent within the text. Then we have the aspect of the interpretation of oral histories and the methodologies that can be applied in order to distinguish between the original elements of the history and the additions/alterations that invariably occur over time. Lastly, we have the time-span itself and the rather cumulative compilation of "mutations".

A comprehensive discussion of the above is rather beyond the capacity of these pages. However, should you be interested in some thought-provoking papers on the topic of the utilization of oral histories as they apply to the interpretation of early historical and archaeological data, there are (from my perspective) two in particular that you may find of interest. While the two authors (Echo Hawk and Mason) approach the topic from quite diametrical perspectives, they essentially  do reach a common ground in that any utilization of oral histories must be subjected close interpretive standards, both culturally and temporally.

Access to the papers would likely involve working with your local library/university. Can provide citations should you wish to pursue such. Believe that you would find them quite interesting.

.

I would find them interesting, this is what I like to do, hence my wonderment on the context of the phrase. Phaethon is a good one.