Monday, January 19, 2015

Natural Law, Ancient Man: Astronomy, Land and Property

Think about property law and land ownership...
impossible without land survey viz. land "navigation" of some kind.

Our interest in ancient surveyors and early land and sea navigation is thus fundamental to an understanding of modern law and society. You have to know what land was measured and how that measurement was conducted, since that served as the inherited "land" basis for the nation-states which still exist today.

To understand the development of human civilization, it is important to recognize that mankind's first "scientific" technologies were arguably based on primitive "stargazing", i.e. what we modernly call "astronomy".

No less a thinker than Bertrand Russell wrote in Human Knowledge: Its Scope and  Limits (Simon and Schuster, Clarion Books, New York, 1948) that:
"Astronomy is the oldest of the sciences, and the contemplation of the heavens, with their periodic regularities, gave men their first conceptions of natural law."
Furthermore, in terms of both land survey and land or sea navigation, as written at the Wikipedia under Surveying:
"The primary way of determining one's position on the earth's surface when no known positions are nearby is by astronomic observations. Observations to the sun, moon and stars could all be made using navigational techniques. Once the instrument's position and bearing to a star is determined, the bearing can be transferred to a reference point on the earth and which can then be used as a base for further observations. Survey-accurate astronomic positions were difficult to observe and calculate and so tended to be a base off which many other measurements were made. Since the advent of the GPS system, astronomic observations are rare as GPS allows positions to be determined adequately over most of the surface of the earth."
Since human survival has at all times depended on either ownership, control of or access to actual physical territory on our planet Earth, that same astronomy served as the simplest way to map out that territory, with maps made to mirror the ever-present and ready-made sky map of the heavens, "as above, so below". At our Megaliths.net website on megalithic cultures we write:
"As observed by Alice Cunningham Fletcher (Alice C. Fletcher) in her 1902 publication in the American Anthropologist, there is ample evidence that some ancient cultures, e.g. the Pawnee in Nebraska, geographically located their villages according to patterns seen in stars of the heavens. FLETCHER, A. C. (1902), STAR CULT AMONG THE PAWNEE —A PRELIMINARY REPORT. American Anthropologist, 4: 730–736. doi: 10.1525/aa.1902.4.4.02a00050."
To the importance of astronomy for ancient peoples we can add timekeeping, as written at Curious About Astronomy:
"In ancient times, the practical need for timekeeping and navigation was one of the primary reasons for the study of astronomy. The celestial origins of timekeeping and navigation are still evident. "
In spite of the above observations, anthropologists and archaeologists worldwide generally proceed in their academic work as if the ancients knew more or less nothing of astronomy and, furthermore, placed little or no importance upon it for land survey, navigation, timekeeping and chronology, whereas the probative evidence that we have increasingly found presents exactly the opposite picture. Astronomy DOMINATED the ancient world.

Friday, January 16, 2015

Hiawatha as Orion, the Iroquois Aron-Hiawagon = Hiawatha, the "Holder of the Heavens", i.e. Atlas

If Hiawatha was the "Holder of the Heavens", as suggested in our previous posting, then "what" and "where" was he holding those heavens?

We think these were almost certainly the stars of Orion, with ORION = ARON and found in Iroquois language variants such as "Aron-Hiawagon" viz. "(Aron)-Hiawatha".** The Iroquois nations were Mohawk, Onondaga, Oneida, Cayuga, Seneca and Tuscarora. Cherokee is also an Iroquoian language.

The image below shows
-- in thick colored lines that we have added to our clip as taken from the astronomy software Starry Night Pro (http://astronomy.starrynight.com/) --
just how Orion "holds up the heavens", whether we apply this "holding up" concept to the ecliptic, celestial equator, or both of those "celestial spheres".


Compare Lee Lawrie's colossal bronze Atlas at Rockefeller Center, New York.


The positions of the ecliptic and celestial equator in our illustration are from 3117 B.C., but we remain uncertain about the exact era that this system began to be used in Native America, and that is a question to be resolved at some future time. Our purpose here is just to show how the concept of "holder of the heavens" fits Orion well in terms of groupings of its major stars.

These stars need not have been grouped by the ancients exactly as we see them today in the Orion constellation, but the main groupings of the brightest stars are quite prominent, and were so surely also seen in prehistoric times by ancient stargazers, so that they were likely grouped similarly.

Greek mythology had its "holder of the heavens" as in the image above, Atlas, a name whose root is traced to Indo-European terms. We quote the Wikipedia:
"Traditionally historical linguists etymologize the Ancient Greek word Ἄτλας ...as comprised from copulative α- and the Proto-Indo-European root *telh₂- 'to uphold, support' (whence also τλῆναι) .... [we add here to that analysis the Indo-European "r"-form as in Latvian tur-, turēt "hold", which is useful further below*]
A common misconception today is that Atlas was forced to hold the Earth on his shoulders, but Classical art shows Atlas holding the celestial spheres, not a globe...."
Greek myth states that Atlas tried to trick Heracles (Hercules) into carrying the heavens ... in astronomy, the stars of Hercules are directly opposite Orion. Moreover, the Orion-near Pleiades stars were said to be the daughters of Atlas, so that a link of Atlas and Orion is not impossible, though one may simply be the human mythological manifestation of the heavenly other. The key thing is that Atlas holds up "the celestial spheres", the ecliptic and the celestial equator as it were, as Orion also does.

Traditionally, in Europe, Orion was seen as a mighty giant of a hunter, perhaps the same mighty giant of a hunter that according to Cherokee legend allegedly came down from the mountains to carve the Judaculla Rock, which we also think marked Orion in the era of the Judaculla Rock's petroglyphs.

The above general astronomical understanding now puts us into position to embark upon a marvelous journey via Google Earth to attempt a reconstruction of what appears to us to be an ancient survey of "Native America" via the stars of the heavens, "as above, so below". We are not alleging point blank that it was as we shall describe it, but it could have been. At the least, "land survey by astronomy" should be considered in formulating an explanation of many of the petroglyphs, painted rocks and mounds in Native America.
 
By the way, what intrigued us initially to conduct this analysis was that Judaculla Rock was nearly straight South, but not exactly South, of the famed Serpent Mound in Ohio. Was there a large mound anywhere near Judaculla Rock that was on a nearly exact perpendicular line to the Serpent Mound?

Check out Google Earth to see if you can find it.

__________

* P.S. Atlas (A-Tlas) in the r- variant as in Indo-European Latvian turiens ("hold") could speculatively be related in language origin to Iroquois variant names of Hiawatha such as Tearon-hiaonagon, Taon-hiawagi, or Tahi-awagi ... Tayon-watha ... Thanna-wege. However, this is not a main query of our writing.

** P.S.S. The similarly of "Aron" in the Iroquois to our modern word "Orion" and to the ancient phrase "Aron Haberit" gives grounds for thought in view of the still mysterious origin of Haplogroup X in Native America. This anthropological question is not the main focus of our current writing and we leave the issue for now to genetic research, but we do mention here the perhaps chance similarity.


Wednesday, January 14, 2015

FINAL College Football Rankings FBS 2014-2015 by SportPundit


Final College Football Rankings FBS 2014-2015 After the Bowls and After the CFB National Championship Game in the 1st Ever Playoffs
(adjusments 14 Jan. 2015 due to final SoS at Massey Ratings)

Our 2014-2015 preseason rankings at this link had as the first five teams: Alabama, Auburn, Florida State, Oregon and Ohio State,
four of which were in the National Championship College Football Playoffs.

Accordingly, we beat all the major rating services known to us, except for Paul Myerberg at USA Today, who had Florida State, Oregon, Alabama and Ohio State as the top 4 with Auburn 5th, so that we agreed on the top 5. Almost all other prognosticators included Oklahoma in the top 4, but the Sooners fizzled.

A team's rating below is its net average yards per play advantage, minus a schedule difficulty calculation, minus a calculation for losses.
This system is a very simple, and yet amazingly effective tool for judging relative team strengths.

Our rankings are based on the NAYPPA of each team (net average yards per play advantage) minus our own special calculation based on the schedule difficulty as calculated at Massey Ratings. From the NAYPPA we subtract 3 x the schedule difficulty divided by 100, e.g. schedule difficulty 30 x 3 = 90 divided by 100 = .9, which is subtracted). We subtract also .2 for each loss.

We take the cumulative yards per play stat data from cfbstats.com and from the college and university football athletic pages online, as linked here for each team, if possible. Many schools have cumulative season statistics, but some have none, or are difficult to access.

Caveat emptor (Buyer beware): We make this material available in good fun out of interest for the sport of college football. Please do not rely on our material to place bets or wagers of any kind.  No one knows the exact outcome of a game or a season before it is played and that is what makes it so interesting. We disclaim any and all liability for the consequences of anyone relying in any way upon our postings, analysis, links or reasoning - for which we make no warranty of accuracy. May the best team win.

Final College Football Rankings and Ratings by SportPundit After the Bowls and Champ Game

Post-
Bowl

Final
Team
Rank
2014
-2015
by 
Sport
Pundit


TEAM
Name
(head
coaching
changes
marked
for 2014-2015

by
## link
and already
for
2015-2016
by
# link)


2014-2015
NAYPPA
net
average
yards per play
advantage
offense
over
defense
stats from
cfbstats.com

(our
calculation) 


yards
per
play
offense
cfbstats
.com

yards
per
play
defense
cfbstats
.com



Schedule
difficulty
rank


based
on
Massey
Ratings,
up to
10th
treated
as 10

*=

adjusted)

W-L
(won
-loss)
record
2014
-2015
season

Final
YPPSYS

2014
-2015

Team
Rating
by
Sport

Pundit

1 Ohio State 2.0

6.98
4.98

9
14-1
+1.5
2
Alabama
1.8

6.66
4.87

2
12-2
+1.1
3 Oregon 1.8

7.34
5.52

6
13-2
+1.1

4 TCU 2.0

6.68
4.66

28*
12-1
+1.1
5 Georgia 2.0

6.81
4.84

8
10-3
+1.1
6 Mississippi 1.4

6.03
4.67

3
9-4
+0.3
7 Michigan State 1.5

6.55
5.09

27
11-2
+0.3
Florida State
0.9

6.39
5.51

19
13-1
+0.1
9 UCLA 1.0

6.13
5.17

4
10-3
+0.1
10 Baylor
1.4


6.64
5.28


35

11-2

+0.0

11Stanford 1.7

5.89
4.21

22
8-5
+0.0
12 Wisconsin #
1.9


6.77
4.91


45

11-3

+0.0

13 Georgia Tech 0.4

6.72
6.32

26***
11-3
+0.0
14 Mississippi St.
1.0


6.67
5.65


13

10-3

+0.0

15 Clemson 1.3

5.36
4.03

33
10-3
-0.3
16 Auburn 1.0

6.71
5.67

1
8-5
-0.3
17 Missouri 0.6

5.39
4.82

10**
11-3
-0.3
18 USC ## 0.7

6.04
5.30

20*
9-4
-0.5
19 Kansas State 0.7

6.15
5.46

16*
9-4
-0.5
20 Oklahoma1.3

6.41
5.14

15*
8-5
-0.5
21 LSU 0.8

5.62
4.87

7*
8-5
-0.5
22 Marshall 2.9

7.59
4.73

109
13-1
-0.6
23Florida #0.7

5.24
4.55

18*
7-5
-0.8
24 Miami (Florida) 1.9

6.68
4.79

44
6-7
-0.8
25 Texas A&M 0.4

6.33
5.91

12*

8-5

-0.9

26 Arkansas 0.6

5.76
5.12

5
7-6
-0.9
27 Boise State ## 1.3


6.53
5.24

66
12-2
-1.1
28 West Virginia 0.5

5.92
5.43

17
7-6
-1.2
29 Notre Dame 0.5

6.11
5.60

30
8-5
-1.4
30 Arizona 0.0

5.70
5.66

23*
10-4

-1.5
31 Arizona State
0.3


5.90
5.62


36*
10-3
-1.5
32 Utah 0.0

5.35
5.34

24
9-4
-1.5
33 Louisville ## 0.7

5.46
4.77

46
9-4
-1.5
34 Nebraska # 0.9

6.22
5.37

52
9-4
-1.5
35 Colorado State # 1.4

7.09
5.74

77
10-3
-1.5
36 Texas ## 0.2

4.92
4.68

14
6-7
-1.6
37 Tennessee -0.4

4.93
5.31

11*
7-6
-1.7
38 South Carolina
0.1


6.09
6.22

21*
7-6
-1.7
39 East Carolina 1.4

6.48
5.10

81
8-5
-2.0
40 Utah State
1.1


5.89
4.76


80

10-4

-2.1

41 Oklahoma St. -0.3

5.43
5.79

29*
7-6
-2.1
42 Washington ## 0.0

5.40
5.38

50*
8-6
-2.1
43 Louisiana Tech 0.9

5.86
4.94

67
9-5
-2.1
44 Minnesota 0.0

5.45
5.43

42*
8-5
-2.1
45 Michigan # 0.6

5.32
4.77

43
5-7
-2.1
46 N.C. State 0.7

5.97
5.24

62
8-5
-2.2
47 Texas Tech 0.4

6.62
6.24

34
4-8
-2.2
48 Boston College 0.6

5.69
5.13

57
7-6
-2.3
49 Memphis 0.8

5.49
4.74

84
10-3
-2.3
50 BYU 0.8

5.70
4.93

72
8-5
-2.4
51 Georgia Southern 1.9

7.34
5.49

123
9-3
-2.4
52 Maryland -0.2

5.26
5.45

40
7-6
-2.6
53 Kentucky -0.1

5.43
5.50

37
5-7
-2.6
54 California -0.2

6.09
6.27

32
5-7
-2.6
55 Virginia Tech -0.2

4.93
5.15

47*
7-6
-2.7
56 Navy 0.5

6.36
5.83

76*
8-5
-2.7
57 Duke 0.1

5.38
5.28

65
9-4
-2.7
58 Iowa
0.2


5.47
5.28

61*
7-6
-2.7
59 Virginia -0.1

5.08
5.14

41
5-7
-2.7
60 Washington St. -0.1

6.12
6.18

31
3-9
-2.7
61 Oregon State # 0.2

5.57
5.76

51
5-7
-2.7
62 Cincinnati 0.3

6.33
5.98

69*
9-4
-2.7
63 Houston # 0.8

5.70
4.88

103*
8-5
-2.7
64 Pittsburgh # 0.6

6.17
5.59

63
6-7
-2.7
65 Penn State ## 0.3

4.60
4.27

60
7-6
-2.7
66 Toledo 0.9

6.54
5.69

96
9-4
-2.8
67 UCF 0.6

5.01
4.47

89
9-4
-2.9
68 San Diego St. 1.0

5.92
4.93

100
7-5
-3.0
69  Rutgers -0.4

5.99
6.39

55
8-5
-3.0
70 W. Kentucky ## 0.4

7.05
6.66

87
8-5
-3.2
71 North. Illinois 0.3

5.76
5.50

99
11-3
-3.3
72 Syracuse -0.1

4.90
5.00

49
3-9
-3.4
73 Rice -0.1

5.62
5.74

79
8-5
-3.5
74 North Carolina -1.0

5.56
6.53

39
6-7
-3.6
75 Illinois -0.6

5.41
6.01

53*
6-7
-3.6
76   West. Michigan 1.0

6.51
5.47

119
8-5
-3.6
77 Indiana -0.2

5.70
5.85

58
4-8
-3.7
78 Northwestern -0.8

4.50
5.25

56
5-7
-3.7
79 Appalachian St. 1.0

6.31
5.31

126
7-5
-3.8
80 Louis.-Lafayette 0.0

5.91
5.88

104
9-4
-3.9
81 Arkansas St. ## 0.5

5.96
5.51

110
7-6
-4.0
82 Nevada -0.5

5.35
5.86

78
7-6
-4.0
83 Air Force -0.3

5.43
5.73

108
10-3
-4.0
84 Temple 0.0

4.79
4.75

93
6-6
-4.0

85 Mid. Tennessee 0.1

5.93
5.85

97
6-6
-4.0
86 UAB - ##
-0.1


5.51
5.68


85*

6-6

-4.0

87 Old Dominion 0.3

6.44
6.15

98*
6-6
-4.0
88  Cent. Michigan 0.4

5.84
5.44

106
7-6
-4.0
89 Purdue -0.6

4.95
5.58

59
3-9
-4.2
90 Iowa State -1.6

4.90
6.53

25
2-10
-4.3
91 Vanderbilt -1.0

4.68
5.72

54
3-9
-4.4
92 Colorado -1.3

5.29
6.55

38
2-10
-4.4
93 New Mexico -0.3

6.52
6.82

86
4-8
-4.5
94 Texas State 0.3

6.06
5.71

127
7-5
-4.5
95 San Jose St. -0.3

5.25
5.52

90*
3-9
-4.7

96 Wyoming ## -1.0

5.55
6.54

70
4-8
-4.7
97 Tulane -0.8

4.83
5.65

68
3-9
-4.7
98  Kansas # -1.7

4.62
6.29

48
3-9
-4.7
99 South Alabama -0.5

5.12
5.60

105
6-6
-4.7
100 Hawaii -0.9

4.77
5.67

75
4-9
-4.9
101 UTEP -1.0

5.30
6.30

91
7-6
-4.9
102 Fresno State -1.1

5.19
6.27

73
6-8
-4.9
103 UTSA -0.7

4.48
5.23

82*
4-8
-4.9
104 Buffalo # 0.1

5.95
5.86

128
5-6
-4.9
105 South Florida -0.8

4.94
5.69

88
4-8
-5.0
106 Ohio -0.3

5.26
5.58

118

6-6

-5.0

107 UMass ## 0.2

5.75
5.75

116
3-9
-5.0
108 Louis.-Monroe 
-0.6


4.70
5.31


94

4-8

-5.0
109 Bowling Gr. ## -0.5

5.50
5.98

114
8-6
-5.1
110  Florida Atl. ##  -0.8

5.39
6.23

83
3-9
-5.1
111 Southern Miss -1.3

5.10
6.41

74
3-9
-5.3
112 Akron -0.2

5.03
5.18

125
5-7
-5.4
113 Wake Forest ## -1.8

3.38
5.22

64
3-9
-5.5
114 Ball State -0.7

5.17
5.87

120
5-7
-5.6
115 UConn ## -0.7

4.50
5.22

101
2-10
-5.7
116 Fl. Int'l FIU  -1.0

4.33
5.38

102
4-8
-5.7
117 Army ## -1.0

5.67
6.65

112
4-7
-5.8
118 Kent State -0.9

4.83
5.75


107
2-9
-5.9
119 Miami (Ohio) ## -0.6

5.45
6.03

111
2-10
-5.9
120 North Texas -0.6

4.87
5.48

121
4-8
-5.9
121 Troy # -1.0

5.34
6.38

117
3-9
-6.3
122 UNLV # -1.4

5.22
6.58

95
2-11
-6.4
123 Tulsa # -1.8

5.17
6.95

92
2-10
-6.6
124 New Mexico St. -1.0

5.48
6.50

124

2-10

-6.7
125 Georgia State -1.2

5.39
6.57

115
1-11
-6.8
126 SMU # -2.5

4.08
6.62

71
1-11
-6.8
127 Idaho -1.7

5.21
6.93

122
1-10
-7.2
128 E. Michigan ##  -2.3

4.46
6.75

113
2-10
-7.7





The ISandIS Network

Our Websites and Blogs: 3D Printing and More 99 is not 100 Aabecis AK Photo Blog Ancient Egypt Weblog Ancient Signs (the book) Ancient World Blog AndisKaulins.com Anthropomorphic Design Archaeology Travel Photos (blog) Archaeology Travel Photos (Flickr) Archaeo Pundit Arts Pundit Astrology and Birth Baltic Coachman Bible Pundit Biotechnology Pundit Book Pundit Chronology of the Ancient World Computer Pundit DVD Pundit Easter Island Script Echolat edu.edu Einstein’s Voice Energy Environment and Climate Blog Etruscan Bronze Liver of Piacenza EU Laws EU Legal EU Pundit FaceBook Pundit Gadget Pundit Garden Pundit Golf Pundit Google Pundit Gourmet Pundit Hand Proof HousePundit Human Migrations Idea Pundit Illyrian Language Indus Valley Script Infinity One : The Secret of the First Disk (the game) Jostandis Journal Pundit Kaulins Genealogy Blog Kaulinsium Kiel & Kieler Latvian Blog LawPundit.com Law Pundit Blog LexiLine.com LexiLine Group Lexiline Journal Library Pundit Lingwhizt LinkedIn Literary Pundit Magnifichess Make it Music Maps and Cartography Megalithic World Megaliths Blog) Megaliths.net Minoan Culture Mutatis Mutandis Nanotech Pundit Nostratic Languages Official Pundit Phaistos Disc Pharaonic Hieroglyphs Photo Blog of the World Pinterest Prehistoric Art Pundit Private Wealth Blog PunditMania Quanticalian Quick to Travel Quill Pundit Road Pundit Shelfari SlideShare (akaulins) Sport Pundit Star Pundit Stars Stones and Scholars (blog) Stars Stones and Scholars (book) Stonehenge Pundit The Enchanted Glass Twitter Pundit UbiquitousPundit Vision of Change VoicePundit WatchPundit Wine Pundit Word Pundit xistmz YahooPundit zistmz