Read Dr. Daniel Botkin's article, "Absolute Certainty is Not Scientific"

Today in the Wall Street Journal, UC Santa Barbara professor emeritus Dan Botkin -- a biologist who has helped solve major environmental issues and who holds degrees in physics, biology and literature -- published an excellent essay entitled "Absolute Certainty Is Not Scientific."

In his article, Dr. Botkin argues that the increasing number of scientists who declare absolute certainty in their conclusions, rather than discussing what the evidence does or does not suggest, appears to be growing, and that this trend represents an unscientific increase in dogmatism or absolutism and a move away from the true scientific method.

Using as his primary case-in-point the dogmatic assertions of many scientists about global warming, Dr. Botkin warns that, "'Period, end of story' is something that a scientist can say -- but it isn't science." He explains:

the key to the scientific method is that it is a way of knowing in which you can never completely prove that something is absolutely true. Instead, the important idea about the method is that any statement, to be scientific, must be open to disproof, and a way of knowing how to disprove it exists.

This is an extremely important reminder and one that more scientists should be bringing to public attention. It is certainly applicable to the current emotionally-charged "climate change" debate (particularly after the release of a second raft of emails over the past week showing even more evidence of scientists covering up and even deleting data from their reports when it did not support their belief system), and it has been shown to be applicable many other times in the past.

For example, we have pointed out previously that the currently-favored geological theory of plate tectonics was savagely ridiculed when Alfred Wegener first proposed it in the early 1900s (interested readers can learn more about those scientists who refused to admit the possibility that continents could ever move by simply searching the web for Alfred Wegener and reading about the scorn he endured).

We have also pointed out the recent change of opinion in the world of chemistry regarding the existence of quasicrystals, and the ridicule this year's Nobel Laureate in Chemistry endured from scientists who basically declared quasicrystals were impossible, "period, end of story."

If you want to personally experience the sort of absolutism these brave individuals faced, try walking into a modern university in the United States and declaring that, in order to be scientific, the statements of Charles Darwin must be "open to disproof" and that instead of declaring the general Darwinian paradigm to be established with absolute certainty, we should be discussing what the evidence does and does not suggest, and what other explanations might explain the evidence more satisfactorily.

When you are done with that, you can also try explaining that the general theory of tectonics may not be the best explanation for the evidence either, and that numerous pieces of evidence from around the world appear to be better explained with by a catastrophic global flood (for a list of some of this evidence, with links to discussions of each, see this previous post, among others).

If you're still hungry for more, you can visit some medical doctors next and ask whether the link between dietary cholesterol and heart disease has been proved to the point we can say, "Period, end of story" and whether there are any other hypotheses which might explain the evidence we have better than the reigning theory.

As we've pointed out in the previous post entitled, "Think politics and science don't mix?" there are plenty of examples from history of personal opinions and political dogmas forcing their way into "science" and being asserted as "scientifically proven" when in reality those opinions were the exact opposite of science.

Dr. Botkin may not agree at all with any of the conclusions offered in the Mathisen Corollary book or this blog, but judging from his arguments, he would certainly approve of the propriety of examining evidence and reaching conclusions other than those that have been declared to be absolute certainty, and with the statement by Edgar Smith Craighill Handy quoted in more than one previous post that "there is only one sure way of being in the wrong, and that is by asserting dogmatically what is not true."

Dr. Botkin has done us all a valuable service by pointing out that even scientists can fall into this trap, but that when they make such statements of absolute certainty, it is not science.

New discoveries at Stonehenge

Recently, researchers have announced that they have discovered the evidence of two large ancient pits within the perimeter of the Cursus directly north of Stonehenge. The pits were discovered using non-invasive technologies such as ground-penetrating radar and measure about 16 feet across (they have apparently been filled in for centuries or even millennia and cannot really be noticed with the naked eye).

Here is an article describing the location of the newly-discovered pits from MSNBC's "Cosmic Log." Here's another one from Discovery News describing the pits as well.

Both articles mention the fact that, for an observer at the Heel Stone (an important and distinctive stone located in the Avenue at Stonehenge), the pits would mark the sunrise and sunset points on the summer solstice. This third article on the pits, from the Huffington Post, contains a statement from the researchers that Stonehenge itself is "precisely due south" of the mid-point of a precession route they theorize took place on the Cursus.

These facts provide further confirmation that the overall site was precisely aligned to facilitate celestial observation. All articles also mention speculation that the Cursus (a long feature of two parallel mounds stretching for 1.5 miles east to west and joined in a narrow ring, named because early scholars mistakenly believed such mounds were the remains of ancient Roman running tracks) was used for processions of celebrants on the summer solstice day, although not much evidence is provided to support that hypothesis.


















Based on previous dating of material found below the Cursus and below some of the embankments at Stonehenge itself, scholars believe the Cursus predates the construction of Stonehenge proper by at least five centuries.

All of the analysis accompanying the newly-announced discovery of these pits is interesting, but more interesting to me are the following points which the new discovery appears to support:

• First and most obvious, the fact that these ancient pits can be calculated to align with the summer solstice sunrise and sunset to an observer at the Heel Stone raises the following question: have the British Isles somehow been immune to continental drift over the past fifty-odd centuries, or is the entire theory of plate tectonics incorrect? Readers of this blog will know that there is substantial evidence worldwide that the conventional theory of tectonics is incorrect (see here and here for starters).
  

• While conventional history argues that Stonehenge and other contemporary structures were built by neolithic or mesolithic peoples who were primarily hunters and gatherers, the size of the stones, the scope of the construction, and the sophistication of the astronomical and mathematical concepts preserved at these sites makes such assertions ridiculous. Some researchers claim to have found evidence that the very faint magnetic fields of the stones at Avebury are aligned in a deliberate fashion (they can't measure the fields on the Stonehenge stones, because these stones have now been secured with steel rods to keep them from falling over or being deliberately tipped). Martin Doutré's 1999 book, Ancient Celtic New Zealand presents compelling evidence that the circles of Stonehenge are related in size by a factor of phi -- a sophisticated mathematical concept. It is unlikely that mesolithic hunter-gatherers had the time or inclination to master such concepts as phi and the detection of faint magnetic polarities within stones, nor are such features likely to be coincidental -- they are clearly deliberate.

• As Mr. Doutré has also argued (backed up by extensive evidence and thorough analysis on his part), Stonehenge appears to contain a direct scale model in two dimensions of the Great Pyramid of Giza, with the apex designated by one of the post-holes in the Avenue adjacent to the Heel Stone itself (see here). If this analysis is correct, then there is a strong possibility that the Great Pyramid actually predates Stonehenge, meaning that it was not really built during the reign of Khufu as conventional historians insist. Even more significant, perhaps, is the fact that the Great Pyramid appears to represent a scale model of the northern hemisphere, designed and built by people who knew the earth was a globe (its base perimeter is proportionally related to the circumference of the earth at the equator by a factor of 1:43,200 -- a suspiciously important precessional number and not likely to be a coincidence). If Stonehenge relates to the Great Pyramid, and the Great Pyramid relates to the spherical earth, then the builders of Stonehenge are very unlikely to have been primitive mesolithic hunter-gatherers.

The detection of these new pits adds further confirmation that the designers of Stonehenge were dedicated astronomers, and probably had a very sophisticated understanding of the globe and its motions.

The synodic cycle of Venus, and why it is currently the evening star

The planet Venus is currently in position on its orbit to function as the beautiful evening star. No doubt you have noticed it in the sky at sunset, along with the waxing crescent moon. The moon is currently further and further behind the sun each evening, ever since the sun "overtook" the moon to cause a new moon on the 25th of this month (see explanation of the mechanics of this process here). Above is a picture of the first sliver of the moon after the new moon, following the sun towards the sunset on the 26th.

Venus spends part of its time as the evening star and part as the morning star. Because the orbit of Venus is interior to the orbit of the earth (closer to the sun than the orbit of the earth), Venus is always seen relatively near to the sun, either in the morning or the evening (the same holds true for Mercury). It will never be seen traversing the entire sky during the middle of the night the way the planets whose orbits are exterior to the orbit of the earth can be seen to do (Mars, Jupiter and Saturn in particular, with the naked eye).

The mechanics of this process are well explained in this webpage by astronomer John P. Pratt. That page contains a helpful diagram of the orbits of the earth and Venus which can assist in understanding these mechanics, and which is reproduced in simplified form below.

























In this diagram, the sun is obviously in the center, and the orbits of the earth (outermost) and Venus inner ring) are shown around the sun. The earth is indicated as a blue disc on the outer ring, and various positions of Venus are shown as numbered grey circles on the inner ring.

This diagram shows the "synodic" cycle of Venus. A "synod" is a gathering or meeting, and the term "synodic" denotes the period of time that it takes for a heavenly body to reappear at the same point relative to another heavenly body -- in this case, the synodic cycle of Venus relative to the sun as seen from earth. The synodic period of Venus is 584 days, as explained very clearly and helpfully on the webpage linked above.

The points of the synodic cycle marked on the diagram above are as follows:

• 1. Venus appears after being invisible due to passing behind the sun, from the perspective of the earth. Venus is invisible for about fifty days between point 6 and point 1. At point 1 and until it reaches point 3, Venus will be "east of the sun" and therefore will be trailing the sun, and thus it will be the evening star. You can easily verify that Venus is the evening star in the positions from point 1 to point 3 by looking at the blue disc of the earth and thinking of it turning on its axis, which you are looking down on from a point over the north pole (thus the disc is turning counter-clockwise). As a point on the edge of the disc turns around towards the sun, it is daytime to an observer at that point, and as the disc keeps turning counter-clockwise, the sun will eventually disappear from view to that observer, and Venus will still be visible to that observer.
• 2. Venus reaches its point of "maximum eastern elongation" -- the greatest angle of separation from the sun on this side of its orbit, as viewed from the earth (it will reach the same maximum angle again on the other side of its orbit, at point 5). This maximum angle of separation from the sun (or "elongation") is about 47^o for Venus.
• 3. Venus begins to be "swallowed up" by the sun and hence invisible. This is somewhat analogous to the new moon, except that the moon goes from being ahead of the sun to trailing the sun at the new moon, and Venus goes from being an evening star that trails the sun to being a morning star that leads the sun during this time. Venus will be invisible for approximately eight days between point 3 and point 4.
• 4. Venus emerges onto the western side of the sun, and will now be the morning star (it may be somewhat confusing to learn that Venus is termed "west" of the sun when it is a morning star, since morning stars are seen in the east, but the way to reconcile this terminology is to think about the fact that when Venus is the morning star, it will be closer to the western horizon than the sun at daybreak: it will be ahead of the sun when the sun comes up in the morning over the eastern horizon -- Venus will already be a bit ahead of the sun and on its way towards the west). Venus will be the morning star from point 4 through point 6.
  
• 5. Venus reaches its point of maximum western elongation, which is analogous to the situation described in point 2 above.
• 6. Venus disappears behind the sun for another fifty-day period, enroute to starting the synodic cycle over again.

There are various tables on the internet which show the dates at which Venus passes through various points on its synodic cycle over the years. Here is one from Wikipedia. It shows that Venus passed its point of maximum western elongation (point 5 in our discussion) on January 8 of this year 2011, and that it will get all the way around to its point of maximum eastern elongation (point 2 in our discussion) on March 27 of 2012.

The terms "superior conjunction" and "inferior conjunction" are used in reference to the two planets with orbits interior to earth, Venus and Mercury, to designate the points at which they pass the sun on the far side (superior) and near side (inferior) from the point of view of an observer on earth. Thus, superior conjunction is the point midway between point 6 and point 1 of our discussion and diagram, and inferior conjunction is the point midway between point 3 and point 4 of our discussion and diagram. As can be seen from the table linked above from Wikipedia, Venus passed the point of superior conjunction on August 16 of this year 2011, and thus we are seeing Venus currently between points 1 and 2, and closer to 1 than 2 right now.

Here is a link to another table which shows similar data for Venus going out to the year 2050 and back to the year 1900. To find 2011 and 2012, you can move up to page 10 in that online document.

There is a lot more celestial mechanics related to the motions of Venus, including the fascinating pentagram-shaped circuit of Venus over five such synodic cycles, which equates to very close to eight earth years, and the pattern of Venus transits across the sun (which do not occur every time there is an inferior conjunction, due to the slight difference in orbital plane between earth and Venus, just as the difference in orbital plane between the earth and the moon mean that we do not get lunar eclipses and solar eclipses every month at the full moon and new moon). Many more amazing aspects of the celestial mechanics of Venus can be seen with excellent diagrams and illustrations at this website by Nick Anthony Fiorenza.

Be sure to look to the west each evening this week and in the coming months for the beautiful planet Venus as the evening star.

Tutankhamun's DNA

In the previous post, we pointed out that the discovery of the tomb of Tutankhamun was significant for many reasons, especially for the largely intact nature of the tomb. Although it had apparently been robbed twice in antiquity (probably within a few months of Tutankhamun's burial), the tomb's entrance was later covered by huts built to house the workers building the tomb of Rameses VI almost two centuries later and forgotten.

The ancient robbers were apparently unable to penetrate the nested oak shrines housing the sarcophagi of the king, or else did not have time or the inclination to do so, and thus Tutankhamun remains the only pharaoh whose mummy was found in modern times where it was originally laid to rest by the ancients.

As a consequence, his tomb provides a remarkable window into ancient Egypt. Some of the clues that are preserved in Tut's tomb may turn out to be extremely important to arguments that mankind's ancient past differs from what is taught today in conventional history books.

For example, the magnificent golden funerary mask that was found over the head of the mummy itself -- by far the most famous artifact from the tomb of Tutankhamun, and one that might not have survived had the tomb not been lost to history for over 3,000 years -- appears to contain symbolism linking it to the mokos or facial tattoos of the Maori of New Zealand, according to the analysis of Martin Doutré (discussed in this previous post).

If Mr. Doutré's analysis is correct -- and I believe it is very convincing -- then there must have been some ancient contact across the oceans at dates far earlier than conventional history allows. It could be that the Egyptians themselves traversed the oceans (there is other evidence that may support this theory, such as possible Egyptian religious elements in the Maori haka, discussed in this post, as well as other epigraphical evidence that has been found in places such as North America), or that other cultures did so and then traded with the Egyptians (such as the Phoenicians, famous in antiquity for their maritime abilities, or the Anatolians and the Libyans, who also may have been accomplished seafarers), or that cultures directly descended from or heavily influenced by the Egyptians did so.

Recently, new evidence from Tutankhamun's tomb has emerged which -- if true -- could shed some more light on this fascinating topic (and further undermine the conventional history books). Genetic testing has been done on the mummy of Tutankhamun in order to gain greater clarity on his patrimony. Egyptologists have long suspected that Tutankhamun may have been the son of the famous pharaoh Akhenaten, who established the worship of the Aten instead of the traditional worship of Amon-Ra and the other deities during his reign (Tutankhamun appears to have been called Tutankhaten before changing his name -- some artifacts in the tomb bear evidence of the change, and others appear to have been missed altogether and still read Tutankhaten).

Now, through genetic testing, scientists can examine Y-chromosomal evidence that provides confirmation of shared paternal lineage. As this series of videos from the Discovery channel indicate, the tests establish a clear match between Tutankhamun, Akhenaten, and Amenhotep III. It is well-established that Amenhotep III was Akhenaten's father (Akhenaten's name was Amenhotep IV before he changed it). The new tests appear to confirm that Tutankhamun was either Akhenaten's son or his younger brother (Amenhotep can either be Tutankhamun's father or grandfather).

Following on this Discovery series, Swiss genetic research company iGENEA recently announced that they had determined the haplotype of Tutankhamun's Y-chromosome DNA and that "Tutankhamun belongs to the haplogroup R1b1a2, which more than 50% of all men in Western Europe belong to." Here is a related story from Reuters about the announcement.

There have been some significant arguments against iGENEA's conclusion, including the allegation that iGENEA has made sensational announcements before, possibly in order to increase sales of their genetic tests (as you can see from the link above, the Tutankhamun announcement came with a request that men have their DNA tested by iGENEA and if they match the DNA of the mummy, they will get a refund of the testing costs, which run from €129 to €399).

Other critics have been quick to throw down the race card, stating that the only people interested in Tutankhamun's haplotype are probably either "Nordicists" or "Afrocentrists." While it is of course true that there are those who try to elevate their "race" over others (race being a Darwinian fiction to begin with, as we have discussed previously), and while it is true that white racists and black racists may both be found trying to claim the accomplishments of ancient Egypt as proof of some form of racial superiority or identity, it does not follow that any DNA match between Tutankhamun's haplotype and that of western Europeans is the product of racist bias or propaganda.

A more basic criticism of iGENEA's claim is that they didn't have access to the DNA at all before they made their analysis. Although the DNA test which matched Tutankhamun to Akhenaten and Amenhotep III was done with the actual tissue of the mummy, iGENEA admits that they reconstructed the haplotype by watching the Discovery channel episode, where a computer screen shows the data that they needed to do their analysis -- the DNA itself has "been locked away" and is not available to other researchers.

One of the geneticists who was part of the team that did the original work on the DNA, Carsten Pusch, has denounced iGENEA's conclusion, as seen in this article from Live Science. That article admits that "Pusch and his colleagues published part of their results, though not the Y-chromosome DNA, in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in 2010."

The unanswered question not raised in that article (nor the others denouncing iGENEA) is the question of why the full Y-chromosome DNA results were not published and are apparently being kept secret? If iGENEA is wrong about what they deduce from the computer screen shown in the Discovery channel documentary, then what has anyone got to hide? Why not get the results out in the open?

Whether or not Tutankhamun's DNA actually shows commonality with the haplotype in question is not really conclusive one way or the other. If iGENEA's claims are correct, then this commonality of haplotype in one ancient Egyptian family of pharaohs is only one piece of evidence, and a solid case needs more evidence than a single clue. However, it may turn out to be an important clue.

Furthermore, there is other evidence in addition to this rather recent development which points to a very different timeline of ancient history -- and a complete reassessment of the scientific capabilities of the ancients -- as many other "alternative" authors and historians have alleged, as we have discussed numerous times in previous posts, and as discussed in greater depth in the Mathisen Corollary book.

It may be that Tutankhamun's family tree -- already quite interesting -- is more extensive than anyone suspected.

"Yes, wonderful things . . ."

November 25 is the date upon which, in 1922, the first breathless look into the Antechamber of the Tomb of Tutankhamun revealed treasures which had lain beneath the sand in the Valley of the Kings for 3,245 years.

British archaeologist Howard Carter (1874 - 1939), under the financial support of the Earl of Carnavon, George Herbert (1866 - 1923), had cleared the twenty-six foot passageway whose entrance had been discovered on November 5 and arrived at a sealed door.

They had no idea what they would find on the other side.

Carter relates the events that followed in his own words in his book, The Tomb of Tut-Ankh-Amen, Discovered by the Late Earl of Carnarvon and Howard Carter (1933):

With trembling hands I made a tiny breach in the upper left-hand corner. Darkness and blank space, as far as an iron testing-rod could reach, showed that whatever lay beyond was empty, and not filled like the passage we had just cleared. Candle tests were applied as a precaution against possible foul gases, and then, widening the hold a little, I inserted the candle and peered in, Lord Carnarvon, Lady Evelyn and Callender standing anxiously beside me to hear the verdict. At first I could see nothing, the hot air escaping from the chamber causing the candle flame to flicker, but presently, as my eyes grew accustomed to the light, details of the room within emerged slowly from the mist, strange animals, statues, and gold - everywhere the glint of gold. For the moment - an eternity it must have seemed to the others standing by - I was struck dumb with amazement, and when Lord Carnarvon, unable to stand the suspense any longer, inquired anxiously, "Can you see anything?" it was all I could do to get out the words, "Yes, wonderful things."

With that statement, the excitement over the discovery of this first intact tomb of an ancient pharaoh began to spread around the world. I have already related in a previous post the effect the artifacts from Tutankhamun's tomb had on me when they toured the world between 1972 and 1979.

The importance of this world-shaking discovery cannot be overstated. Not only did it spark intense interest in ancient Egypt that began almost immediately after the first press conference on November 30, 1922, but it revealed a wealth of information about Egyptian burial practices and beliefs from the period (Tutankhamun reigned in the 18th dynasty, and died in 1323 BC).

Carter carefully recorded the position of the wealth of artifacts in the tomb before removing and preserving them. Some of his photographs can be seen in his multi-volume description of the discovery and excavation of the tomb. In February of 1923, he and his team had cleared the Antechamber enough to reach the wall of the Burial Chamber and look inside. This wall was dismantled in order to enable them to begin removing the nested burial shrines which nearly filled the room and which contained the nested sarcophagi that held the king's mummy with its magnificent golden mask.

Today, the mummy has been returned to the burial chamber and rests (in a climate-controlled environment) in the same room where it slept for over 3,000 years.

On one page of his work describing the effect of his monumental discovery, Carter writes: "Thus we learn not to overvalue the present, and our modern perspective becomes less complacent and more philosophical" (20).

Happy Thanksgiving -- please pass the kumara!

Thanksgiving in the United States is a beloved and special holiday, on which we pause each year and gather with family and loved ones to consider all the many blessings we should be thankful for in our lives.

The traditional Thanksgiving feast contains elements stretching back to the first Thanksgiving in 1621, in which the Plymouth Bay colonists gave thanks for their first successful harvest, and were joined by Massasoit and members of the Wampanoag people who had taught them how to cultivate beans, squash and corn and who brought two deer and other food for the occasion.

One Thanksgiving staple that is part of nearly everyone's annual feast will be a dish made from the sweet potato, a traditional American cultivar unknown in the Old World prior to contact with the Americas which was known to the native peoples and an important dietary staple.

The sweet potato is also an intriguing clue in the question of whether Polynesia was originally settled from the east (the Americas) or from the west (through Melanesia or Micronesia), and may argue against an eastward expansion into Polynesia and for a westward expansion from the Americas, as Thor Heyerdahl has argued, and which is a theory for which there appears to be abundant evidence, in spite of the disdain with which this suggestion is regarded among conventional scholars today who flatly state that the question has been settled in favor of an eastward expansion from Asia.

In a 1946 essay entitled "How did the Sweet Potato reach Oceania?" anthropologist James Hornell explains the dilemma: "Botanists are agreed that America is the area within which the sweet potato was first brought under cultivation. One consequence arising from this conclusion is that the problem of the means whereby it became diffused throughout the island world of Oceania has given rise to great controversy" (cited in Heyerdahl's American Indians in the Pacific, 428).

Because the Polynesians widely cultivate the sweet potato from Easter Island to Hawaii to New Zealand and all places in between, and because it could not have come from Asia originally, ethnologists have long debated how the sweet potato became such an important part of the Polynesian diet and culture.

At first, many analysts who refused to consider the possibility that Polynesia was settled from the east (from the Americas) speculated that the first European vessels (primarily Spanish) must have brought the sweet potato across the thousands of miles of the Pacific from South America to the islands of Oceania.

The problems with this theory are quite stark. Chief among them is the extensive historical evidence, documented by R. B. Dixon in 1932, that the most remote and long-isolated Polynesian islands had extensive and ancient sweet potato plantations when they were first discovered by European voyagers (in "The Problem of the Sweet Potato in Polynesia," cited in Heyerdahl 430). He also points out that when Jacob Rogoveen became the first modern European to land on Easter Island / Rapa Nui in 1722, he and his men described "the sweet potato as abundant, grown in large plantations, and one of the mainstays of the native food" (ibid). Further, traditional history in both Hawaii and New Zealand point to cultivation in those islands by AD 1250 in Hawaii and AD 1350 in New Zealand, at the latest (Heyerdahl 431).

Another possibility that has been mentioned is the idea that a sweet potato somehow floated on its own from South America across the thousands of miles of ocean to the islands of the Pacific, and then was planted and spread to the rest of Polynesia. This speculative theory is difficult to maintain in light of the fact that the sweet potato propagates from its tubers as opposed to seeds that can be born safely along the ocean currents -- a sweet potato would not survive well on the open sea, especially because of the salt content of the ocean. Further, since the tubers grow underground, they are unlikely to simply fall into the sea like a regular seed might. Because new plants can really only be started from a tuber or a clipping, it is far more likely that sweet potatoes were deliberately carried across the oceans on ships and planted.

Nevertheless, Thor Heyerdahl records the suggestion put forward by some botanists that perhaps "a Peruvian sweet-potato might have been caught in the roots between a falling tree near the Pacific shore, and drifted with the tree" until washing up on a Pacific island thousands of miles away, to be planted in the ground by amazed islanders who had never seen one before but knew to bury it in order to get more.

Heyerdahl, however, points to a problem which puts to rest this wildly speculative, and that is the fact that "the sweet-potato was known as Cumar (Kumar) in the Quechua-dialect of Ecuador, whereas it was known in Polynesia as Kumara, with sundry dialectical variations" (429). Even if a tree managed to fall into the ocean with a sweet potato serendipitously lodged in its roots, this could not explain the fact that when it arrived in Hawaii or other points east, the inhabitants "recognized it by its original South American name" (Heyerdahl 429).

The sweet potato is known as the Cumara, Umar', Kumal, Umala, and Kuala in the Quechua language of the Andes and in variations found in other parts of South and Central America. The fact that the sweet potato is known to this day as the kumara in New Zealand (as well as in Easter Island, the Tuamotus, and Mangareva), and by variations such as Kuma'a in the Marquesas, Umara in Tahiti, Uala in Hawaii, Uara in Mangaia, Kuara in Rarotonga, Kumala in Tonga and Futuna, and 'Umala in Samoa argues strongly for actual ancient contact between the seafarers of Polynesia and the Inca and other people of South America (Heyerdahl 430).

Many today accept that the Polynesians could have journeyed to the Americas and brought the sweet potato back with them, while still originating in Asia. This theory is certainly a possibility, as it is no exaggeration to award the peoples of the Pacific with the title of "the greatest navigators our globe has ever seen."

However, Heyerdahl puts forward some powerful arguments for the alternate possibility, which is that the sweet potato was brought out of the Americas by the original settlers of the islands of the Pacific, who came from the east and sailed to the west (a possibility that in no way diminishes the argument that these seafarers became the greatest navigators our globe has ever seen, although some today seem to believe that a westward migration somehow robs the Polynesians of their seafaring accomplishments for some reason, and who call Heyerdahl's proposition "the ultimate insult" -- see the discussion in this previous post).

For one thing, Heyerdahl points out that the sweet potato's importance and cultivation was greatest in the most remote of the islands of Polynesia -- those on the very "points of the triangle" that define the vast region of the Polynesian culture: Hawaii, Easter Island, and New Zealand (431). Some scholars have concluded from this fact that this is just the sort of distribution that would be most likely if the kumara "had been brought during the initial period of voyaging" that brought the first settlers to the islands (431).

He also points out that there are no Polynesian traditions relating a voyage to the Americas in which the new foodplant was discovered and brought back to Polynesia. In fact, he points out that "there are a vast quantity of traditions to the contrary" (traditions which state that the important food crop came from the ancient ancestral lands -- Heyerdahl 432). Heyerdahl also points out analysis from early records that relate the are over sixty varieties of sweet potato in Hawaii (arguing that it has been grown there for long centuries) and Captain Cook's records of ancient plantations and "vestiges of former plantations on the hills" (citing an account from 1778).

In short, the sweet potato (or kumara) is an important piece of evidence in the examination of the origins of the people of the Pacific islands. Alongside other evidence (such as the items discussed in this previous post), it appears to enhance the possibility that the islands of the Pacific were settled from the Americas and towards the west, rather than from Asia and then towards the east. This possibility may help clear up some of the evidence suggesting a distant connection to some aspects of ancient Egypt in the culture of Polynesia (see for instance this previous post, this previous post, and this previous post).

So, while you are enjoying your sweet potato casserole this year at Thanksgiving, give some thought to the significance of this far-ranging tuber.

Happy Thanksgiving to all the Mathisen Corollary readers around the world!

Orion and the Winter Circle of mythologically important stars

The earth continues to race around its orbit track and as it does so, it is bringing into view the magnificent winter constellation of Orion dominating the eastern sky after dark and rising further into the sky with each passing hour (also, getting a bit further along each passing night, as explained here). H.A. Rey tells us in The Stars: A New Way to See Them: "No other constellation has so many bright stars, five of 2nd mag. and two of 1st mag.: reddish BETELGEUSE in the left shoulder and bluish-white RIGEL in the right foot" (page 46).

Now is an excellent time of the month to view Orion and the several impressive stars which encircle him belonging to other constellations, because the moon is out of the way for the next several days, on its way to a new moon on November 25th. Even after the new moon, it will still remain out of the pre-midnight skies for a few days.

The several bright and important stars which can be easily identified in an arc around Orion are sometimes referred to as the "winter circle" of stars. They are well worth identifying, and they are truly situated in a graceful arc, so that an observer starting at the top of the arc with Capella can easily envision a curving circular path leading to the next bright stars, then the next, and then the next (see the diagram below).





















To begin, simply find Orion -- he will be enormous in the east, far larger than you might imagine from the diagram above, which shows the night sky looking east at about 11 pm for an observer in the northern hemisphere (in this case, at a latitude of 35^o north along the California coast). The diagram comes from the very helpful free Interactive Sky Chart tool from Sky & Telescope.

Above and to the left of Orion you can locate Perseus and Cassiopeia -- tips for identifying them are described in this previous post. Below Perseus you will find Auriga the Charioteer. His constellation is best distinguished when you can identify the two long horns of the Bull, one of which comes so close to Auriga that it is easy to mistake it for part of Auriga until you become familiar with the two constellations. Then, it becomes a helpful way of picking out the distinctive jutting "jaw" of Auriga (in the outline method created by H.A. Rey -- see the discussion on finding Auriga in this previous post). The final diagram at the bottom of this post labels the constellations discussed herein, with a rough outline of each one.

Auriga contains two bright stars that begin the arc -- first, its brightest star, Capella, and below it another bright star in Auriga, Menkalinan or Beta Aurigae. These two are so bright that it would be easy to mistake Auriga for the constellation Gemini (the Twins) if you didn't know better.

Continuing toward the horizon, however, you will come across the actual constellation Gemini the Twins, and its two brightest stars, Castor and Pollux (Pollux is brighter). They are not as bright as Capella, and they are closer together than Capella and Menkalinan.

These two pairs (Capella-Menkalinan and Castor-Pollux) will enable you to visualize the arc of a large circle connecting them -- continue along this circle and you will curve over to another very bright star, the 8th-brightest in the entire sky, Procyon. It ranks just below Rigel in Orion and Capella in Auriga for brightness (Rigel is the seventh-brightest and Capella the sixth-brightest stars in the heavens).

Continuing along the same sweeping arc will bring you to the brightest star in the sky, Sirius (following Orion through the heavens). Some skywatchers continue past this point, but the arc does not hold up if you do, as the pathway becomes somewhat forced and irregular after this point (it is sometimes called the "winter hexagon" by those who continue on to Rigel and Aldebaran before returning to Capella, but this is a very unsatisfying hexagon and it is best to stop at Sirius).

They are also very important in the study of the ancient myths found around the world, and the evidence for advanced scientific knowledge which the ancients encoded in their mythologies.

For a discussion of the importance of Capella and Auriga, see this previous post.

For a discussion of the importance of Gemini, see the examination of the story of Ymir in this previous post, as well as a discussion of the Twins themselves in this previous post.

For a discussion of the importance of Procyon, see this previous post.

Sirius is perhaps the most important individual star in the sky for numerous reasons. Sirius is associated with Isis, the consort of Osiris (who is associated with the constellation Orion). The importance of Isis is discussed in this previous post and this previous post, as well as in more depth in the Mathisen Corollary book itself.

Sirius is also important to the discussion of the possible preservation of advanced ancient astronomical knowledge among the Dogon, and to the discussion of the possibility that our own sun is actually a binary star.

And of course, Orion is absolutely critically important, especially as he pertains to the myth of Osiris and Set (also taken up in much greater detail in the Mathisen Corollary book).

For all these reasons, and because it is just an awesome sight, it is an extremely rewarding experience to go out to a dark location with a good view to the east around 10 pm or even 11 pm and observe the beautiful arc of the "winter circle" of stars that surround mighty Orion.