Friday, January 29, 2016

Recalibrating Irish Archaeology

1) Recalibrating American Archaeology (very roughly), 2) Recalibrating Irish Archaeology

National Geographic : Top 10 Historic Sites in Ireland and Northern Ireland

"More than 5,000 years of history are revealed through colossal passage tombs, the beehive huts of early monasteries, and more iconic landmarks. Here are Irish places of curiosity, pilgrimage, and inspiration. —Kathleen M. Mangan"

built around 3,200 B.C, is said to contain more prehistoric art than any other site in Ireland"

- This small, now uninhabited island four miles off the Sligo coast has one of the most intact early Christian monastic settlements in Europe. Its establishment in the sixth century is attributed to St. Molaise ..." (incontroversial)

"Skellig Michael
- Built on a steep-sided, double-peaked rock seven miles off the coast of County Kerry, the monastery on Skellig Michael illustrates the extremes of early Christian devotion and discipline. Monks occupied the island from possibly the 6th century ..." (incontroversial)

"This remarkable Dublin museum
presents Ireland’s ancient treasures and artifacts, and with 9,000 years of human inhabitation, there are rich objects and archaeological discoveries on display. ... clothing fasteners dating from 2200 to 500 B.C."

"Dunluce Castle
... Dating back to the 13th century, for a time it was the seat of the Clan MacDonnell." (incontroversial)

"Carrowmore and Knocknarea
... Most of the tombs were built between 4,000 and 3,500 B.C., centuries earlier than Newgrange and Knowth, although radiocarbon assays from one tomb suggest a date of 5,400 B.C. ... "

"Kilmainham Gaol
... Opened in 1796" (incontroversial)

... two monumental court tombs (Cloghanmore and Farranmacbride) dating to approximately 3,000 B.C. with corbelled-roof inner burial chambers and an open-air court surrounded by colossal rock cairns; and 1,000 B.C. promontory forts on coastal headlands. St. Colmcille (known as St. Columba in Scotland) likely lived here in the mid-500s before going on to establish Iona." (last date incontroversial)

"Céide Fields
... The four-and-a-half square mile area is a unique Neolithic landscape of stonewalled farm fields, the remains of dwellings, and burial monuments constructed about 5,700 years ago."

- Northern Ireland's Derry (officially Londonderry) is the best-preserved walled town on the island of Ireland and is one of the finest examples of a walled city in Europe. Completed in 1618," (incontroversial)

Conventional date Locality or object Recalibration date
7,000 B.C.  Ireland inhabited  2,778-2,599 BC (Fib)
5,400 B.C.  one very early tomb of Carrowmore and Knocknarea  2,599 - 2,420 BC (Fib)
4,000 B.C.  early tombs of Carrowmore and Knocknarea  2,420 - 2,241 BC (Fib)
3,700 B.C.  Céide Fields  after 2,420 and closer to 2,241 BC (Fib)
3,500 B.C.  late tombs of Carrowmore and Knocknarea  before 2,241 BC (Fib)
3,200 B.C.  Knowth  after 2,241 BC (Fib)
3,000 B.C.  Cloghanmore and Farranmacbride of Glencolmcille  2,241 - 2,062 BC (Fib)
2,200 B.C.  early clothing fasteners in The National Museum of Ireland—Archaeology  after 1,883 BC (Fib)
1,000 B.C.  promontory forts of Glencolmcille  988 BC (Fib)

Skipping the Tas Walker and Multiples Échecs third table, and sticking to my Avec un peu d'aide de Fibonacci table.

Note, the implication of reducing 7,000 BC to between 2,778 and 2,599 BC is not that someone else we do not know of lived in Ireland in 7,000 BC, but that 7,000 BC is a date not just pre-Flood but even pre-Creation* and therefore a non-existing date. This recalibration is concerned with carbon dates, where the too old dates come from assuming the carbon 14 level was at least roughly the same back then. It was obviously not.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Francis of Sales

* Latin Liturgy with St Jerome place Creation in 5,199 BC, Old Church Slavonic dating is in Anno Mundi with an implication of Creation being 5,508 BC. Flood was in Latin Liturgic chronology 2,957 BC.

Thursday, January 14, 2016

Recalibrating American Archaeology (very roughly)

1) Recalibrating American Archaeology (very roughly), 2) Recalibrating Irish Archaeology

Timeline of Americas, with some dependence on Raff and Bolnick (who seem to depend on Rasmussen et al.) and on Ortmann and Kidder.

As with my French language recalibration of Pre-Nuraghic Sardinia, I use my tables from essays Multiples Échecs (but do not try to recalculate into BC, leaving BP, as originally, and with me here it means before 2015, not before 1950) and from Avec un peu d'aide de Fibonacci, marked ME and Fib., but I also first use an earlier attempt by Tas Walker, here marked TW. I had earlier used it for Chronologies Comparés sur le Progrès Post-Diluvien.

I have not tried to break it down very finely, but mostly been content to use the values given in tables even for very approximate dates.*

What When: conventionally TW ME Fib.
Early movement into NW Beringia 30,050 BC 2050 BC 4972 BP 2957 BC
Last Glacial Maximum begins 26,050 BC 2050 BC 4972 BP 2957 BC
East Beringia terminus post quem 24,050 BC 2050 BC 4972 BP 2957 BC
Mal'ta Siberia genome 22,050 BC 2050 BC 4842 BP 2957 BC
Solutrean Culture begins (b) 21,550 BC 2050 BC 4842 BP 2957 BC
Earliest Solutrean tools (a) 19,050 BC 2025 BC 4842 BP 2957 BC
East Beringia terminus ante quem 16,050 BC 2025 BC 4712 BP 2957 BC
Last Glacial Maximum ends 16,050 BC 2025 BC 4712 BP 2957 BC
Latest Solutrean tools (a + b) 15,050 BC 2000 BC 4582 BP 2778 BC
Deglaciation of Pacific, ante quem 15,050 BC 2000 BC 4582 BP 2778 BC
Monte Verde, Chile 12,650 BC 2000 BC 4452 BP 2778 BC
Icefree corridor between Cordilleran and Laurentide ice sheets, tpq 11,550 BC 1975 BC 4452 BP 2778 BC
Clovis Culture begins (b) 11,350 BC 1950 BC 4452 BP 2778 BC
Clovis Culture begins (a) 11,050 BC 1950 BC 4452 BP 2778 BC
Anzick-1 10,757 - 10,606 BC 1950 BC 4322 BP 2778 BC
Clovis Culture ends (b) 10,850 BC 1950 BC 4322 BP 2778 BC
Clovis Culture ends (a) 10,650 BC 1950 BC 4322 BP 2778 BC
Kennewick Man 6740 - 6450 BC 1900 BC 3802 BP 2599 BC
European gene pool unity since about 6050 BC 1875 BC 3802 BP 2599 BC
Mesolithic Spanish genome 5050 BC 1850 BC 3672 BP 2509 BC
Poverty Point [Earliest] Mounds** 4050 BC 1750 BC 3542 BP 2420 BC
Limit : Earliest inhabitants vs Later ones 3050 BC and earlier 1600 BC and earlier 3022 BP and earlier 2241 BC and earlier
Mid Siberian Migration (latest being AD) 2050 BC 1450 BC 3022 BP 1972 BC
Saqqaq genome 2050 BC 1450 BC 3022 BP 1972 BC

For this timetable, I used:

Genetic roots of the first Americans
Jennifer A. Raff & Deborah A. Bolnick
Nature vol. 506 13-II-2014, 162 - 163 +

Does Mitochondrial Haplogroup X Indicate Ancient Trans-Atlantic Migration to the Americas?
A Critical Re-Evaluation
same authors
PaleoAmerica 2015 Vol. 1 No.4 297 - 304 +


Building Mound A at Poverty Point, Louisiana:Monumental Public Architecture, Ritual Practise, and Implications for Hunter-Gatherer Complexity
Anthony L. Ortmann and Tristram R. Kidder
Geoarchaeology. An International Journal 28 (2013) 66-86 +

Obviously, I could have gotten same dates from a book or two, but here I am also referencing research, which, apart from time table (where I think me and Tas Walker would be more to the point), pretty interesting.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Hilary of Poitiers

* Meaning where originally given dates are varying, the recalibration dates may be same, just because I am not breaking it down to more exact correspondences. ** Actually it is earliest mounds which are from 6000 BP/4050 BC, conventional dates, while Poverty Point is from 4000 BP/2050 BC, conventional dates - like the Saqqaq genome. I looked for a year and overlooked the first one, which was the relevant one, and thought ... OK, got it wrong. Here is fixing it. And some more from Ortmann/Kidder, to make up for sloppiness:

Hiatus of mound building (p.67): 4800 BP/2850 BC to 3600 BP/1650 BC which started a new building time up to 3400 BP/1450 BC.


Tas Walker: 3600 BP/1650 BC to 3200 BP/1250 BC which started a new building time up to 3050 BP/1100 BC.

Multiples Échecs table: 3758 BP/1743 BC to 3455 BP/1440 BC which started a new building time up to 3412 BP/1397 BC.

Fibonacci inspired table: 2062 BC to 1525 BC which started a new building time up to 1346 BC.

Several pages later in the paper:

Fuller (calibrated) chronology, just recalibrating by the Fibonacci table:

Mound A Platform

Core A-26, 2Ab 2190-2181 BC, rec. bef. 1793 BC
Core A-15, Ab 1429-1257 BC, rec. 1346-bef.1167 BC
South Profile, Excavation 2Ab 1425-1252 BC, rec. 1346-bef.1167 BC

Mound A Cone, Core A-88 1374-1340 BC [closest I get by arithmetic means of years given in table on right hand side is 1363-1348 BC, later and earlier than your here given] bef. 1286 BC-af.1274 BC [reached by corresponding arithmetic means of years given in table on left hand side.]

1319-1110 BC [1326-1117] af.1256-af.1077 BC
1103-1072 BC [1107-1072] af.1068-1038 BC
1067-1056 BC [1067-1051] 1032-af.1024 BC

Bernard Gui, wiki franco-allemande, deutsch-französisch + English

Citant la wikipédie:

Son Liber sententiarum (Livre des sentences) recueille les actes de 11 sermons généraux (appelés sermo generalis) et ses 916 décisions de justice prises, pendant son mandat d'inquisiteur à Toulouse, contre 636 personnes (décisions individuelles ou concernant toute une communauté). Les sermons révèlent que le but premier de l'Inquisition est la conversion des hérétiques et non leur anéantissement. Contrairement à l'image de l'inquisiteur implacable, ce registre montre la variété de ses sanctions : 30 % des décisions sont des libérations de peine, environ 6 % sont des condamnations au bûcher (principalement pour les relaps), plus de 50 % sont des condamnations à la prison (prison perpétuelle avec mise aux fers pour les cas les plus graves) ou la pénitence du port de la croix jaune.

Référence: Julien Théry, Le livre des sentences de l'inquisiteur Bernard Gui, CNRS éd.,‎ 2010

Aus der Wikipädie:

Am 16. Januar 1307 wurde er zum Inquisitor von Toulouse ernannt und führte während seiner ersten Amtszeit bis 1316 zahlreiche Prozesse, aus denen neun "Sermones" (große öffentliche Predigten mit anschließender Urteilsverkündung) mit insgesamt 536 Urteilen belegt sind. Darunter befinden sich auch die unter Bernard Gui 1309 und 1310 vollstreckten Todesurteile gegen die Brüder "Pierre und Guillaume Autier", die Anführer der katharischen Erneuerungsbewegung. Am 11. September 1316 übergab er sein Amt an den Prior von Carcassonne, blieb aber weiter an Inquisitionsverfahren beteiligt. Von September 1319 bis 1323 amtierte er erneut als Inquisitor für Toulouse, Albi, Carcassonne und Pamiers. Aus dieser zweiten Amtszeit sind neun Sermones mit insgesamt 394 Urteilen bekannt. Während seine Amtsvorgänger im Ruf der Korruption und Bereicherungssucht gestanden hatten, ging Bernard Gui zwar nicht mit dem Fanatismus, der ihm später von Umberto Eco angedichtet wurde, aber doch mit der Effizienz eines gut organisierten und der Kirche gegenüber loyalen Bürokraten an die Verfolgung der Katharer, Beginen und Juden in seinem Amtsbezirk.

In den insgesamt überlieferten 930 erlassenen Urteilen Bernard Guis gegen Ketzer wurden 42 Hinrichtungen ausgesprochen, 307 Urteile lauteten auf dauernde Kerkerhaft. Alle anderen Strafen bestanden aus unterschiedlichen Bußleistungen. Einem Drittel der Verurteilten wurde das Tragen von am Gewand aufgenähten "Ketzerkreuzen" auferlegt.

Referenz: Zahlen aus: Schwerhoff: Die Inquisition, S. 55.

From the wickipeejuh:

Working in the area of Toulouse (in modern France), his inquisition of those examined as suspected, known, reputed, or accused of the crime of heresy or support to heretics, led to over 900 guilty verdicts in fifteen years of office. People convicted of heresy during the time of the Inquisition were turned over to the secular arm (nobles and city leaders) for punishment. Out of all those convicted during examination by Gui, 42 were executed. The four sects of Christian heretics Gui wrote about in his Inquisitor’s Guide were the Manicheans, the Waldensians, the False Apostles, and the Beguines. Other groups which were not considered Christian but were cited in Gui’s Inquisitor’s Guide as “treacherous” were Jews, as well as Sorcerers, Fortune-tellers, and those who summon demons.

Source cited: Julien Théry, Le livre des sentences de l'inquisiteur Bernard Gui, CNRS, 2010.

On the Meaning of German Words - and a Latin one

6.107 Irving was critical of the reliance placed by the Defendants on such documents as are said by them to cast light on the allegedly genocidal use to which the camps were put. Much time was spent in evidence and argument on discussing the meaning and true significance of a number of German words to be found in the speeches of Hitler and others and in contemporaneous documents generally. There was prolonged cross-examination of Longerich by Irving as to the meaning of certain German words which he listed in a glossary prepared for the purpose of these proceedings. Those words include ausrotten, vernichten, liquidieren, evakuieren, umsiedeln and abschieben. A considerable number of documents were scrutinised in an attempt to ascertain whether the words in question were being used or understood in a genocidal sense. Irving contended that most of these words are properly to be understood in a non-genocidal sense. Longerich's agreed that most, if not all, of these words are capable of being used in a non-genocidal sense. For example ausrotten can bear such anodyne meanings as "get rid of" or "wipe out" without connoting physical extermination. But he asserted that its usual and primary meaning is "exterminate" or "kill off", especially when applied to people or to a group of people as opposed to, for example a religion. He contended that all depends on the context in which the words are used. Another example is Umsiedlung, which can mean no more than resettlement in a ghetto but more often embraces a homicidal meaning as well. Whilst Longerich was prepared to concede that some of the words in question may be used in a non-genocidal sense in the years leading up to 1941, he argued that from about that date onwards the words are invariably used in a sinister sense to connote killing on a major scale. For instance he contends that when, in a document dated 20 February 1942 the Reichsicherheitshauptamt (RHSA) use the term Evakuierung in connection with the issuing of guidelines for the implementation of the evacuation of Jews to Auschwitz, the word is being used in a genocidal sense.

The Nizkor Project
VI. Justification: Evidence of the attitude of Hitler towards the Jews and of the extent, if any, of his knowledge of and responsibility for the evolving policy of extermination

Are Jews "a group of people" or "a religion"?

Albigensians were mostly "ausgerotted" (if at all) by conversion to Catholicism, at least external such, the burning on the stake being decidedly rarer (see for instance the 900 plus cases tried by one inquisitor*, of which 45 or 48 were ending on stake).

Were Jews mainly "ausgerotted" by dying of gas in gas chambers? Or were they mainly "ausgerotted" by abjuring Judaism in gas chambers while being threatened with gassing?

There is a story about how Jews "sued God for breach of Covenant" and ther was a process. When all that Jewry involved in that process walked into a gas chamber, they were singing psalms of King David in Hebrew. Whom do we know this story from?

Well, if they all survived the gas chamber (for one reason or another), like Jo Wajsblat did, we know it from themselves, of course.

If on the other hand they all died, who told us?

Their guards?

Note that if "evakuieren", "umsiedeln" and "abschieben" may on THIS occasion have been used euphemistically for killing, this is very certainly not the primary meaning of the words, they all mean relocation, the last of these enforced relocation outside borders of strangers. An immigrant or refugee refused entry into a country is "abgeschoben", and so is a foreign citizen expulsed after serving prison for a crime.

For "vernichten" and "ausrotten", I will certainly say the most common meaning on a population of animals is physical killing. For human populations it is rarely used, and for a race or ethnicity it would mean physical killing. But for a religion, it could be enforced conversion (or apostasy : in Hitler's case, unlike the Simon of Montfort one, I don't think the end product needed to be orthodox Catholicism, just non-Jewishness, non-Talmudism).

As to "liquidieren" it is a current XXth C. euphemism for often individual killing - both in camps (when occurring) and by spies, both by Communists and presumably Nazis, if they used the word, and probably by other secret services than KGB as well. I can imagine a CIA or an FBI agent using the word "liquidate", and in German that would be "liquidieren".

Note that for Latin "exterminare", the cognates of which are in modern languages synonyms or translations of "ausrotten", the Medieval Latin sense (ok, Middle Ages may be defined as age between First and Second coming, but for Latin grammar, there are two "Medieval" periods, the post-Classic one and this one, between Carolingian and Humanistic Renaissances) was probably closer to "abschieben".

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Hilary of Poitiers

* Forgot his name while writing this. Wait, can it have been Bernard Gui? Btw, in Ancient Israel, they would hardly have been left in peace either. Their beliefs would have made them open to stoning, unless of course repenting from them - which was also the priority with Bernard Gui and colleagues. Update: yes it was. But the death sentences carried out were only 42, not 45 or 48.

Wednesday, January 13, 2016

Propos pour une définition du Moyen Âge

Puisque la phrase implique une période intermédiaire, et puisque "l'Antiquité Romaine" et "la Renaissance" ne sont pas aptes à représenter les époques entourants, vu qu'elles n'ont pas davanatage d'importance que le Moyen Âge, comme normalement ainsi défini lui-même, pourquoi pas le définir comme l'époque entre la Première venue de Notre Seigneur (on est aujourd'hui l'Octave de l'Épiphanie, AD 2016), et le Second Avènement, que nous attendons encore? Ça nous fournit aussi la joie d'être encore au Moyen Âge.

Sérieusement, la seule époque dans laquelle on avait l'impression de vivre dans le Moyen Âge (comme normalement défini) était précisément celle-ci. Intermédiare entre un Ancien Testament inférieur, car pas encore racheté, car à part les Hébreux souvent païen, et la Gloire Finale./HGL

Thursday, January 7, 2016

Redatant la Sardaigne pré-nuraghique avec mes tables?

Les articles de la wikipédie cités sont abordables à partir de:

La wikipédie : Culture prénuragique

La Culture d'Arzachena
(ou Culture corso gallurese) est une culture prénuragique, une branche de la culture d'Ozieri qui s'est développée en Sardaigne de 4300 à 3700 av. J.C.

Cultura di Filiestru :
Ne 1971 il prete speleologo Renato Loria scoprì nel territorio di Mara, tra Villanova Monteleone e Bosa, un anfratto di circa sessanta metri quadri dove sono stati fatti dei ritrovamenti risalenti al Neolitico antico.

La grotta fu successivamente indagata dagli archeologi V.R Switsur e David H. Trump i quali analizzando un deposito archeologico dello spessore di tre metri e mezzo, scoprirono un susseguirsi di varie culture che abbracciavano in arco temporale molto lungo, da quella più antica, di tipo cardiale, a quella più recente già in epoca nuragica (cultura Sa Turricola). Quella più antica è stata datata alla fine del V millennio a.C.; i reperti mostrano una cultura evoluta composta da genti dedite all'agricoltura, all'allevamento, alla caccia e alla pesca. Viene notata inoltre la quasi totale scomparsa delle precedenti forme di decorazione vascolare mentre compaiono gli anelloni in pietra verde che trovano riscontri in Corsica e nella penisola italiana: questi ritrovamenti inducono gli studiosi a sostenere che durante quel periodo le popolazioni sarde intrecciarono stretti rapporti commerciali con le comunità neolitiche mediterranee coinvolte nel commercio dell'ossidiana abitanti in Francia meridionale, nella penisola iberica, in quella italiana e in Sicilia.

Civilisation de Bonuighinu
Cette civilisation (-3730 à -3300) est caractérisée par l’apparition des Dee Madre (déesse mère), qui sont des divinités féminines représentées par des figurines obèses en pierre, que l’on appelle aussi dea nuda (déesse nue). Cette arrivée coïncide avec celle des domus de janas, qui sont des grottes artificielles creusées dans la roche et qui servent de tombe. Les Hommes de cette époque se regroupent en petites tribus qui se côtoient, cultivent le blé et pratiquent l’élevage.

La cultura di Bonu Ighinu, le cui prime manifestazioni certe sono databili al 4000 a.C., si impose sicuramente fino al 3400 a.C. circa.

La culture d'Ozieri (ou culture de San Michele)
est une culture préhistorique de la fin du Néolithique qui s'est développée en Sardaigne entre 4300 à 3700 av. J.-C. [probablement confusion du rédacteur avec Arzachena] La population vit essentiellement de l'agriculture et de l'élevage. La chasse et la pêche sont également attestées4. Différentes activités artisanales, comme la réalisation de longues lames de silex, étaient pratiquées.

La culture d'Ozieri : Cette époque (-3300 à -2480) voit émerger la civilisation la plus importante de l’ère prénuragique, à cause de l’évolution technique qu’elle apporte dans de nombreux domaines, et ceci dans pratiquement toute l’île, contrairement aux précédentes civilisations. Ainsi on peut constater la grande qualité des vases, des céramiques, des décorations colorées, mais aussi des outils de chasse. Les habitations circulaires se trouvent au sein de villages et sont construites en pierre et placées en hauteur, mais sont dépourvues de fortifications. Le peuple se nourrit grâce à l’élevage, à l’agriculture, et à la chasse. On observe également l’apparition de sépultures collectives de types domus de janas plus complexes, et de dolmens, ce qui révèle un développement important des cultes.

La cultura di Ozieri (o di San Michele) fu una cultura prenuragica che si sviluppò in tutta la Sardegna durante un periodo di tempo che va dal 3200 a.C. al 2800 a.C[1]. Il suo nome deriva dalla località in cui sono state rinvenute per la prima volta testimonianze importanti e precisamente in una grotta chiamata di San Michele, presso la cittadina di Ozieri nella Sardegna settentrionale.

Civilisations d’Abealzu-Filigosa et de Monte Claro
Ces deux civilisations se sont développées lors de la même période (-2480 à -1855), mais dans des lieux différents. La première est localisée au centre occidental de l’île (vers la commune de Macomer), alors que la seconde se trouve dans le sud (vers Cagliari).

La culture d'Abealzu - Filigosa est une culture prénuragique ayant perduré en Sardaigne entre -2480 et -1855 et dont le nom est issu des localités dans lesquelles ont été retrouvées les plus nombreuses et importantes pièces archéologiques : Abealzu près de Osilo et Filigosa près de Macomer.

La cultura di Abealzu - Filigosa è una cultura prenuragica sviluppatasi in Sardegna tra il 2700 e il 2400 a.C.[1] e prende il nome dalle località in cui sono stati fatti i più importanti ritrovamenti: Abealzu presso Osilo e Filigosa presso Macomer. È considerata tra quelle che hanno lasciato più testimonianze della sua evoluzione.

Fin des citations. Les dates réelles seraient lesquelles? Selon mes tables, j'envoie à deux essais différents, ceci:

 Arzach. 4300 - 3700Filie. c. 4000 Bonuigh. 4000 - 3730 - 3300 Ozieri 3200 - 2800 - 2480 Abealzu 2700 - 2480 - 1855
ME c. 1977 - 1917 apr. 1932 c. 1932 - 1917 - 1852 c. 1852 - 1744 - 1657 c. 1744 - 1657 - 1527
Fibon. apr. 2375 - c. 2285 c. 2330 c. 2330 - 2285 - apr. 2241 apr. 2241 - c. 2062 - 1883 apr. 2062 - av. 1883 - 1614

Et le 6000 avant Jésus-Christ dans le début de la première citation? 1722 selon la première, après 2599 dans le second.

Je ne prétend pas savoir laquelle de mes tables reflète la mieux le taux de carbone 14 à cette époque, quoique le second donne un meilleur modèle d'ensemble de la montée. Mais les dates conventionnels se basent sur l'hypothèse, invérifiable, du taux à peu près constant depuis des millions d'années, et donne par là des dates trop vieilles.

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre
Retour du garçon Jésus d'Égypte

Trends just happen, right? Nobody ever was ever behind any trend, right?

C'MON! True, trends do happen. True, many are more moved by a trend than moving it. But never ever in all world history did a trend JUST happen without ANYONE EVER doing ANY choice.

If Scanian original retroflex R became uvular R, and that, unlike in Smaaland, before a retroflex R+S could become a retroflex S (=Engl. SH), so that in Scanian, like in Finland Swedish, R+S are still two separate sounds, this certainly was a trend. But it would NOT have happened, like the trend further North to blend retroflex R+S into SH, unless someone had chosen to think it sounded cool. In US there is a trend to pronounce the words "plenty" and "pretty" as "plenny" and "priddy" (or even "purdy"). That also would not have happened, if it hadn't been someone who thought it sounded cool.

Those someones may be people with overt, that is socially bourgeois-obvious, prestige, or they may be people with covert, that is paradoxical, prestige, the one an antisocial person enjoys among antisocial persons. But if all persons with any kind of prestige had stuck to - in Swedish language retroflex R + separate S, as still in Finland, in English "plenTy" and "preTTy" with real T sounds - the Scanian and certain US dialects would not have had these phenomena.

So, all prestige comes spontaneously, right? And all prestige is used in a spontaneous way, right? No. Especially overt prestige is manipulable by whoever in practise rules a society from the outside, has a position to put someone into it and into a position of overt prestige in it.

In the case of Scanian, it may be the case that the non-Swedish R started out as a way of maintaining a kind of Danish identity, despite the Swedish takeover after the peace in Roskilde. That is, if it had just started to get into Danish. In that case, the uvular R as such would have enjoyed a covert prestige, and if people were not actually avoiding it when enjoying overt such, they were at least not appointed for using it.

Or it may be some decades older, from when Scania was still Danish. In that case, it came woth very obvious overt prestige, as uvular R's were a 17th C. innovation going from Paris over most of France and Germany into Netherlands Denmark and Scandinavia's South tip. People marked themselves as the nobles they were by using it. People not nobles marked themselves as the wannabees they were by using it. People who were not nobility wannabees, but upper bourgeoisie wannabees, would imitate the upper bourgeoisie who were nobility wannabees. And so on until the retroflex R was extinct as far as Scania as well as neighbouring still Danish Zealand was concerned. Before the Swedes took over. Then it spread to Smaaland afterwards, when Scania was a more opulent part of Sweden than Smaaland. When R+S in Smaaland had already become an RS pronounced as English SH. But using Swedish as opposed to Danish vocabulary and as far as possible endings, that was certainly introduced (and has by now resulted in Scanian being a Swedish dialect, especially urban Scanian) very centrally, very intentionally, when Danish Church clergy were required to be Swedish Church clergy. Danish was persecuted out of Scania, as a written language and as the standard of the spoken language. University of Lund, founded in 1666 (!), which is also where I studied, was part and parcel of this process.

If uvular R came later, it was probably given overt status in Scania by an effort to maintain local patriotism, once the Swedification process had made them loyal Swedish subjects. Otherwise, it was maintained for such a purpose. This does not mean pronunciation of R was the main criterium for appointments, but it does mean that after a certain time, someone who came with a more central Swedish R would be considered as "affected" or even boorish, and get a carreer chance looked over. So, Scanian élite has both persecuted Danish grammar, and Swedish Rs. At least the former process was conscious and part of living up to the peace treaty of Roskilde and - when getting to the Riksdag - not looking too boorish in Stockholm (where Scanian Rs are boorish enough, but outright speaking Danish would have been worse). Even so, it was a clear trend, and a demographic one.

Why do I say this?

Because some Evolutionist* - one of the kind who thinks that Miacis Cognitus evolved into both cats and dogs by trends, no common creator at all - has just uttered a certain idiocy, as if proving sth is a trend would mean disproving it is, on some parts, intentional, or meant as a kind of discouragement.

Why try to understand complicated things like demographics for the decline of your faith when you can blame gays and liberals for waging a ‘war on religion?’

Demographics may indeed be complicated, but their trends do connect with (social as opposed to clearly military or police headed) wars on certain phenomena.

Why has this bizarre myth that Christianity is under assault in the most religious developed country on Earth been so successful? Because, in a way, it’s true. American Christianity is in decline—not because of a “war on faith” but because of a host of demographic and social trends. The gays and liberals are just scapegoats.

Well, no. Social trends do have voluntary causes. Scanian became a Swedish dialect because a concerted effort, and Christianity is declining in US because of a concerted effort.

And it is no big secret that liberals and gay movement are very much into this concerted effort.

The idea that Christians are being persecuted resonates with millennia-old self-conceptions of Christian martyrdom. Even when the church controlled half the wealth in Europe, it styled itself as the flock of the poor and the marginalized. Whether true or not as a matter of fact, it is absolutely true as a matter of myth. Christ himself was persecuted and even crucified, after all.

This is also not quite the case.

First of all, even when Popes were as mighty in Europe as Obama is in US, or as influential, poors (not all of them) did look up to them, and for a reason, just as much as blacks (not all of them either) do look up to Obama, and for a reason.

Second, "marginalised" was, as such, not a category in Christian Middle Age Europe. Marginalised because of what, St Thomas would have asked a modern, had he come in a time machine, once the word had been explained to him.

Third, persecuted the Church was. Think of how Obama fans may be persecuted in rural Texas or South Carolina, that kind of thing happened to the Catholic Church, more than once. And if you would like to cite McCarthyism, well, Papacy suffered a similar persecution during Investiture battle, it came out victorious, but before that there had been times when German Kings and Roman Emperors had funded Antipopes and when real canonical Popes had to be on the run in order not to be put in chains or forced to make concessions.

Also, there were martyrs. St Thomas Becket was martyred because one Henry wanted to control who was bishop, rather than let the Pope do it, as far as the Sees in England were concerned, and because St Thomas Becket duly opposed it. St Jan Nepomucký was martyr for the secret of confession, since the "Arthur" of Bohemia had less courtesy about the possible "Lancelot" and the "Guinevere" of Bohemia than the post-Roman British counterpart. He had wanted the Queen's confessor to be the King's spy. St John of Nepomuk had also backed another papacy than his temporal sovereign, and therefore suffered in a manner similar to that of St Thomas Becket. Sts John Fisher and Thomas More, plus about as many other Catholics as the Protestants claim martyrs of Reformation, were martyred among other reasons for having refused to call Henry VIII "Head of the English Church", later also for standing by the Catholic Mass, as opposed to new Protestant service. So, "controlling" or not half the wealth in Europe (in actual fact there was not a centralised control of all this wealth, whether the statistic be true or not), the Church remained a persecuted body. Yes, in the area of Albigensians too, Catholics had been persecuted before persecuting Albigensians back.

So, the supposed "victimisation" prior to that of Ted Cruz' supposed such, was not really one either.

Let us take one more quote, and see about the example:

Take, as an example, Christmas. The weird idea that there is a “War on Christmas” orchestrated by liberal elites—Starbucks cups in hand—is, on its face, ridiculous, even if it is widely held on the right. Shop clerks saying “Happy Holidays” aren’t causing the de-Christianization of Christmas—they’re effects of it. Roughly half of Americans celebrate Christmas as a cultural, not a religious, holiday: Santa Claus and Christmas trees, not baby Jesus in a manger. So that’s what businesses celebrate. It’s capitalism, not conspiracy.

Chesterton and Belloc would have replied that Capitalism is a conspiracy in its own right.

But still, the idea rings hollow that everyone backing a certain trend is ONLY the effect, and none of them EVER is actually bent on promoting it.

Unfortunately, even if the war on religion is fictive, the “defense” against it is very real and very harmful. This year alone, 17 states introduced legislation to protect “religious freedom” by exempting not just churches and religious organizations (including bogus ones set up to evade the law) from civil rights laws, domestic violence laws, even the Hippocratic Oath, but also but private individuals and for-profit businesses. Already, we’ve seen pediatricians turn children away because their parents are gay, and wife-abusers argue that it’s their religious duty to beat their spouses, and most notoriously that multimillion-dollar corporations like Hobby Lobby can have religious beliefs that permit them to refuse to provide health insurance to their employees on that basis.

Whether you consider turning away child patients because these are raised by gay parents or beating wives as typical, it would certainly hardly be arguable that the legislation of 17 states had in mind to promote precisely that.

Or, if you will have it so, why should that move suddenly be intentional, just because you see some of the movers in the news of media published this or last year, while the move being complained about may for instance have actors as stone age old as the Kitzmiller case?

Or, if you will say that Christians getting discriminated against in certain areas (say, NY or Los Angeles, urban districts, or Chicago) is just an unfortunate side effect of a trend, why not let these things be so too?

Well, obviously you are measuring by two measures!

We shouldn’t think of Kim Davis and her ilk as motivated by hate. Actually, they are motivated by fear, which is based in reality but expressed in fantasy. Christianity is, in a sense, losing the war—but the fighters on the other side aren’t gay activists or ACLU liberals but faceless social forces of secularization, urbanization, and diversification.

Sorry, but "social forces" are NOT faceless.

There’s not really a villain pulling the strings of social change, but like the God concept itself, mythic thinking creates a personification of evil who is fighting the war on religious liberty, the war on Christmas, the war on Christianity. These malevolent evildoers are like a contemporary Satan: a fictive embodiment of all of the chaotic, complex forces that threaten the stability of religious order.

OK, Barrack Hussein Obama promoting late pregnancy abortions or even partial birth abortions - a faceless social force, or a villain?

OK, judges in Kitzmiller vs Dover case, appointing one Ken Miller as witness representing at once "science" (he's a scientist and an Evolutionist, and represented Evolution in that case) and "traditional Catholicism"** (his Catholicism is anything BUT traditional, he may be practising, but in US that is no guarantee any more than in France of theological conservatism) - were they faceless social forces, or were they live villains? Ken Miller at least has his villainous name recorded.

OK, judges fining bakers who refuse to bake "wedding cakes" for gay weddings, and judges NOT fining bakers who refuse to bake wedding cakes inscribed with words referring to God's marriage (for marriages, real ones, which can be described as such), are THEY faceless social forces or are they villains?

OK, school masters who have hammered into children and into teens, perhaps even more so, that a CLEAR preference for NORMAL sex is "hate", are THEY faceless social forces or are THEY villains? Dito when saying Creationism is not science and when saying Billions of Years is.

And the gay men who entered anything from the Order of Chaeronea (Charles Kains Jackson, Samuel Elsworth Cottam, Montague Summers, and John Gambril Nicholson) to the Stonewall Inn (40°44′01.67″N 74°00′07.56″W - creds to wiki for both infos!) - were THEY faceless social forces, or were THEY villains?

And the politicians who catered to them by removing sodomy laws, were they faceless social forces or were they villains?

And psychiatrists who did so twice over, first by extending an insanity defense to sodomites by creating or accepting "homosexuality" as a mental disorder and then once again by removing it too, so as to spare them (but not everyone else concerned) the chore of mental hospital, were they faceless social forces or were they villains?

Jeremy Bentham, an early advocate for the decriminalisation of homosexuality. Also an advocate of the Thirteen Colonies INdependence movement, which was bloodier than that which made Ireland independent of England (excepting six counties, of course)*** - was HE a "faceless social force" - or was he a villain?

As Jay Michaelson mentioned capitalism - what about John Stuart Mill? Was he a faceless social force? Or was the man right who wrote of him:

John Stuart Mill
by a mighty effort of will
overcame his natural bonhomie
and wrote Principles of Political Economy.

I would say, whether living or dead, we are dealing with villains, not with "faceless social forces". Sometimes the author of a social trend is forgotten. Many good folksongs have the composer Anon. But that anonymous person to us, was really a person with a face and a name to those who first heard him. But when evil gets as efficacious as a folksong, perhaps it is faceless from the first?°

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
Coming Back of Boy Jesus from Egypt

* Richard Dawkins net : The Religious Right Is Right to Be Scared: Christianity Is Dying in America
Jan 5, 2016, by Jay Michaelson

From: The Daily Beast : Same title and author
The Devil You Know, 12.26.1512:15 AM ET

** Not sure if THAT misanalysis of his role should be blamed on the judges who certainly were not faceless in themselves but are to me, or to AronRa, in his acocunt of Kitzmiller case, where I have this description from.

*** So sorry, I got carried away and confused him with Benjamin Franklin! Perhaps because both are a bit too faceless to me!

° Like face under a hood, as in Ku Klux Klan ... but whoever went to such a meeting (Klan or other hooded or masked) and came back from it with a new social trend (whether burning crosses or parading gay pride), he was recruited to it by a man with some face, and he was acting on behalf of it also as a man with a face. Sometimes by pretending that the social trend he was trying to create alrady was one. Back before it actually was.

Update, excellent analysis:

The government, too, will no longer leave us alone. As I wrote previously concerning Ontario’s war over sex education, the government needs the ability to re-educate children into the values of their secular system, and will go to war with parents for the right to do so. In some European countries, children are being taken away from their parents because Christian beliefs could “harm” the children—and some academics are already suggesting that Christianity could, one day, be “treatable.” Conservatives want to be left alone to raise their children. The unfortunate fact is that we won’t be.

From:LifeSite: Dear Christians: It’s no longer enough to work hard, raise a family, and hope to be left alone
Mon Jan 4, 2016 - 4:07 pm EST by Jonathon Van Maren

Tuesday, January 5, 2016

Dwight Longenecker and the Bildungsroman

1) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Fable and Allegory, 2) Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Dwight on Definition of Fundies, 3) Dwight Longenecker Not Knowing What Computers Are, and Not Answering a Challenge On It, 4) With Dwight on Fundies, Again, 5) One item on Dwight, related to Teen Marriages, 6) Was Dwight Ever Outright Heretic? If So, it is Here I Blamed him, 7) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica (again) : Dwight Longenecker and Bildungsroman

It seems Dwight makes the assumption, that the literary form of Wilhelm Meister meets the kind of soul to whom is said "mitis depone colla Sigamber":

The theological theory of Indiana Jones goes like this: The films reflect the religious and spiritual growth of humanity as Jones develops positively as a human being. ... To understand the theory it is necessary to start with Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom—which is the second film to be made, but as a prequel is the first of the stories chronologically. ... [L]ike the pagans he is countering, Jones replies, “Fortune and glory, honey. Fortune and glory.” In other words, in the first film Indiana Jones’ main concern is Indiana Jones. Jones for the money. Jones for the show. Jones for the showgirl. Temple of Doom was criticized for its nihilistic tone, dark themes and violence, but whether the film makers intended it or not, the bloodthirstiness and dark terror are a fitting reflection of the pagan world view and Jones’ own lusty, greedy, bloodthirsty self.

The second film in the chronological sequence is Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark. As Judaism is an advance on paganism, so Dr. Jones is now not only pursuing a Jewish artifact, but he is also engaged in a moral battle against evil incarnate—the Nazis. ...

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade takes the storyline into Christian territory. From being a selfish grave robber to being a world savior by finding the lost ark, Indiana Jones now continues his personal crusade not only to recover the holy grail, but to find his father. The final film in the trilogy therefore echoes with Christian symbolism and themes. The cross or “X” always marks the spot. The guardians of the grail are willing to be martyrs to defend the holy relic, and Indy comes to realize that the quest is about eternal life and reconciliation with the father, not just the pursuit of “fortune and glory, honey.” The climax of the film (and arguably the whole trilogy) is when Jones Sr. is shot and the villain Donovan says, “It’s time to ask yourself what you believe Dr . Jones.”

To save his father’s life Jones must face three tests, which are the marks of becoming a Christian. He must be penitent. He must hear the word of God and he must take the step of faith.* ...

I am not sure there was all that kind of character development in the real Sigambrian, in Clovis. When he is bowing down for baptism, he is not really distanced from "fortune and glory", he is thanking the God who provided it for him. And afterwards, he is not behaving in a perfectly Christian way either. His wife on the other hand hardly needed such a conversion, though she needed her husband's. She is Saint Coltilde.

Hollywood believes in character development, not because Hollywood is Christian, but more like because Hollywood is Jewish. What is wrong with being Jewish and believing in character development? That it is un-Christian. Especially it is un-Christian to make bets on someone else's character development provided you stop him from remaining himself, time after time, whatever little he may have done to merit a persecution, just because he is still not the character you would like. How is it said this is un-Christian?

Matthew 23:15 Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you go round about the sea and the land to make one proselyte; and when he is made, you make him the child of hell twofold more than yourselves.

Or Jude: [22] And some indeed reprove, being judged: [23] But others save, pulling them out of the fire. And on others have mercy, in fear, hating also the spotted garment which is carnal.

Obviously, if you hate someone's spotted garment, you are not counting on his character development. And if you pull someone out of the fire, you do it pretty quickly, like the Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and Future did on one night with Mr. Scrooge. You do not spend years tracking him over land and sea to convert him to your view of what a Christian should be.

Here is the Challoner comment:

[22] Reprove, being judged: He gives them another instruction to practice charity in endeavouring to convert their neighbour, where they will meet with three sorts of persons:

  • 1 st, With persons obstinate in their errors and sins; these may be said to be already judged and condemned; they are to be sharply reprehended, reproved, and if possible convinced of their error.

  • 2 d, As to others you must endeavour to save them, by pulling them, as it were, out of the fire, from the ruin they stand in great danger of.

  • 3 d, You must have mercy on others in fear, when you see them through ignorance of frailty, in danger of being drawn into the snares of these heretics; with these you must deal more gently and mildly, with a charitable compassion, hating always, and teaching others to hate the carnal garment which is spotted, their sensual and corrupt manners, that defile both the soul and body.

Here is Dwight again:

While the theological theory of Indiana Jones works cleverly, what is mysterious about it is that it is very unlikely to have been intentional. The character and idea for the films were conceived by George Lucas, but Steven Spielberg was soon heavily involved. The story and first two screenplays were written by Lucas, Philip Kauffman, Lawrence Kasdan, Willard Huyck, and Gloria Katz. Spielberg increasingly took charge, and the third movie went through various stages of development with input from Lucas, Spielberg, and five different writers who, among other things, were wrestling with an earlier concept called Indiana Jones and the Monkey King, while also trying to weave in the ideas of stars Harrison Ford and Sean Connery.

I think it is very naïve not to expect such a Bildungsroman motive to have been intentional, at least for the last item. If items one and two were kind of unintentionally leading up to a third, this would pretty certainly have been explicitly known by those making third. But even the "one" being a prequel to the already extant "two" means it may have been meant for such a buildup. Jews are great moralists, great believers in character development, great optimists who may expect a real Pagan like Indiana Jones of the Temple of Doom to just develop (at least in response to necessities of the peripeties) into the Indiana Jones of the Last Crusade.

I have a very deep gut feeling, while some Jews were indeed killed in the camps, many, even most, where pushed into a process intended for character development. Because someone may have experienced that Jews, although great moralists, were not always as moral as they expected others to be. Auschwitz may have been built in order to mainly bring Jews of that type to develop from the one Indian Jones into the other one, over the in between one.

Someone has suggested Hitler was antisemitic due to reading Karl May. When it comes to his hating economic injustice, this may be true. Or it may be he was an Austrian. But no one has suggested (or if I did, I seem not to have been heard) he believed a little too much in character development after reading Karl May and also a little too much after probably failing as an artist because some Jewish Connexion believed his character development depended on that.

Now, in the sense of character development, Karl May did take the adventure hero into the Lehrjahre of Wilhelm Meister a bit before Hollywood did so after Karl May.

And I think it has been done to others, including to me, including by Catholic ecclesiastics (if you will call such Catholics) who are interested, along with Jewish friends, in my "character development". In another article, on his own blog, Dwight is basically stating God is sometimes not hearing prayer because He is interested in - very basically - our character development.

Now, Father Bryan Houghton, he once wrote and wrote to refute an idelogy about prayer in which "God is more eager for our moral progress than for our praise". No doubt, after certain backslidings, certain progresses must needs be made. One is not praying correctly if praying in a state of mortal sin. But the human life, like the angelic life, is mainly made for praising God. Not for "moral progress". Father Bryan Houghton in Unwanted Priest also diagnosed this new idea about prayer as, first of all, not due to any Jesuit before dissolution and reorganisation of the order, and second as the root cause of the Liturgic Reform. Which he considered a thoroughly bad one. He also entitled one of the chapters - since I read the French translation, not the original, I must translate back - L'église du bavardage, presumably The Church of Babbling. Close enough to "Church (? or whatever) of Babylon".

Unlike how I see Dwight, I consider Father Bryan Houghton to have been a thoroughly Catholic Catholic.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
Vigil of Epiphany

* Same link as yesterday.

Monday, January 4, 2016

Fable and Allegory

1) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Fable and Allegory, 2) Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Dwight on Definition of Fundies, 3) Dwight Longenecker Not Knowing What Computers Are, and Not Answering a Challenge On It, 4) With Dwight on Fundies, Again, 5) One item on Dwight, related to Teen Marriages, 6) Was Dwight Ever Outright Heretic? If So, it is Here I Blamed him, 7) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica (again) : Dwight Longenecker and Bildungsroman

Dixit Dwight:

When Tolkien vociferously denies that LOTR is an “allegory,” he seems to be denying that it is a fable: that is, he is reacting against stupid people who were inclined to say, “The ring is the atomic bomb. The Shire is England. Minas Tirith is the United States. Mordor is Nazi Germany. Isengard is Fascist Italy. Wormtongue is Neville Chamberlain. Eowyn is Vera Lynn.”

But if you really knew the fables of La Fontaine and of Aesop, they are very much less allegorical than that.

Of course Animal Farm is BOTH a fable (as in a story with an Esop where animals talk) and an allegory (as in a story where Russian Revolution and its subversion by Stalin is presented by another story).

Bunyan has an allegory where Popery as a toothless old giant stands for Catholicism which had become harmless in England due to Reformation (which is horribly unfair to Catholicism, but indeed Bunyan's intent, and probably more charitable than Titus Oates, at least). And everything else in it is an allegory. A City called Destruction is allegory of "state of sin" combined with "community of sinners"/"civitas diabolis". Not totally clearly - in Bunyan, as opposed to St Augustine - distinguished from "civitas terrena".

C. S. Lewis made one book which really is an allegory - Pilgrim's Regress (some reference to Bunyan not quite out of place, but not a Puritan work). In it red and black dwarfs obeying the same King Barbarian are allegorical of Commies and diverse Fascists (including Nazis) to same spirit of ruffians leading to totalitarian revolutions (a trace of this is found in the atheist Red Dwarf Trumpkin in Prince Caspian and the occultist Black Dwarf Nikabrik in same book).

In a fable, the story as a whole conveys a specific moral - called an Esop.

In an allegory every detail corresponds to some detail of the main allegorical plan. Like Romance of the Rose corresponds to a plan of making inner feelings of the beloved + her circumstances persons whom the main character encounters when trying to "pluck a rose". Or like in Animal Farm everything corresponds to a main plan in which "man" = oppressors and "animal" = proletariat. Including a pig (animal, therefore proletarian) ending up walking on two legs (like a man, therefore like an oppressor). By the way, the sheep in Animal Farm who asks "aren't all animals equal" and gets a reply "yes, but some are more equal than others" also has an echo in a Narnia book, namely The Last Battle. And the horse slaughtered in Animal Farm corresponds - as literary reference, not as allegory - to talking horses driven off to the Tisroc in Last Battle.

Unlike Romance of the Rose, Voyage of the Dawn Treader is not an allegory. Unlike Pilgrim's Regress and Animal Farm, Prince Caspian and Last Battle are not allegories.

So, an allegory is like a fable with a lot of fables in it. And a fable is a story built around an Esop.

Each parable of Our Lord may be a fable or an allegory. But one could take The Prodigal Son into two kinds of extensions. One of them would add the kind of detail which was needed to make it a realistic novel. One other would add the kind of detail which would include further niches of fable-Esops or other correspondences with what one considers the story is about (as in conversion to God, as in conversion of Gentiles while Older Son walks sadly and Pharisaically away etc.) into the details, just as the main story has an Esop.

C.S. Lewis also denied that his Narnia stories were allegorical, but did not deny his intent for the stories to bear a theological reading. He used the word “analogy” to explain how the Narnia stories reflected an underlying theological system.

Did he really use the words "the stories reflect an underlying theological system"?

I doubt it. They presuppose it. And the system is ambiguous, insofar as author could state that Aslan is a parallel incarnation of God the Son (highly problematic as a theological concept), while this fan fic writer has preferred the idea that God the Son, incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth, seated at the Right of the Father is present under the species of a lion's body in the world of Narnia, just as He is present under the species of bread and of wine on the altar. That might break down on some of the stories (The Horse and His Boy), but at least makes Bethlehem the place "where Aslan was a lion cub" and therefore keeps uniqueness of Incarnation. As His sacrifice is present on the altar, so also on the Stone Table, with the difference that the altar shows His sacrifice performed by a priest like Him according to the Order of Melchisedec, the Stone Table shows how Satan plotted for the Crucifixion. I do not know if C. S. Lewis would have approved this reinterpretation of inherent theology in the stories, and I have some difficulty in accepting as orthodox the one he had in view.

So, there is - somewhat ambiguously, perhaps - a theological system presupposed in Narnia Chronicles. This does not mean the stories are there only to reflect it.

So, Calvary and Empty Tomb are shown at the Stone Table - but the four thrones and the children who had grown up as adult kings and queens returning as children and doing so at the chase of a stag, what does that refer to in terms of theology? Nothing. The reason why Narnia stories are NOT allegories is precisely this, there is SO much which cannot be explained in them by the real or supposed theological meaning. Or, if it is a beaver who is telling the four children of their tasks - what has a talking beaver to do with the Theology of Christian Easter?

These things are there for the story and not for a theological meaning.

Can the same kind of analogy to truth be detected in the Indiana Jones films? Let me give it a try.

I will spare you the details of his try. But the kind of spiritual progress traced in a story in a somewhat allegorical way he has in mind works a thousand times better for The Tower of Geburah than for Indiana Jones. The chapter "wishes don't wash" means that regretting your sins doesn't clean you, as long as you don't turn to "Gaal", which VERY transparably is Christ, as seen by Evangelicals.

Not meaning the idea he gives about Indiana Jones cannot have been a kind of inspirational backbone shared between writers - who would surely have talked to each other - but they only give a kind of "character arc" for Dr. Jones, they have nothing to do with the "story arc" of the stories, apart from that.

With such obtuseness about matters of literature, I am not quite surprised he can be unduly impressed by people claiming Genesis 1 to 11 have a kind of literary genre which is incompatible with story being meant to be taken as literally true.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
Octave of Holy Innocents

I nearly forgot to link to his work:

The Imaginative Conservative : The Theological Theory of Indiana Jones
by Dwight Longenecker, Published: Jan 3, 2016