by
Damien F. Mackey
Expanding Akhimiti,
diminishing Archimedes
I have had cause to question the very historicity of Archimedes, about whom so very little is really known, I having gone so far to suggest in my article:
King Hezekiah and the strong Fort of Lachish. Part Two: Akhi-miti’s short tenure
https://www.academia.edu/31685343/King_Hezekiah_and_the_strong_Fort_of_Lachish._Part_Two_Akhi-miti_s_short_tenure
that the concept of ‘Archimedes’ may actually have arisen from a stalwart Judean official of earlier ancient history (c. 700 BC), namely, Akhimiti, who survived several sieges by the Assyrians.
Akhimiti as Eliakim son of Hilkiah
Eliakim son of Hilkiah is generally thought to have been King Hezekiah’s Major Domo, but who was actually the High Priest.
For more on this, see e.g. my article:
Hezekiah’s Chief Official Eliakim was High Priest
(5) Hezekiah's Chief Official Eliakim was High Priest | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
Before we can proceed any further, though, I need to add a further crucial dimension to Eliakim son of Hilkiah from the contemporary Assyrian records.
In my university thesis (2007), I tentatively identified Eliakim with Akhimiti, whom Sargon II established at “Ashdod” (Lachish) after he had deposed the rebellious Azuri.
Akhimiti (Mitinti) of Ashdod
Here follows the dramatic sequence of events at Lachish as we learn about them in the records of the Assyrian king, Sargon II/Sennacherib, following Charles Boutflower (The Book of Isaiah, Chapters I-XXXIX, in Light of the Assyrian Monuments, London, Soc. for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge, 1930).
I wrote this in my thesis (Volume One, pp. 156-158):
Was it that Sargon II - hence, that Sennacherib - had instead referred to Lachish by the descriptive title of ‘Ashdod’, whose capture Sargon covers in detail?
Let us now follow Boutflower in his reconstruction of this somewhat complex campaign, referring to the fragment Sm. 2022 of Sargon’s Annals, which he calls “one particularly precious morsel”:
The longer face [of this fragment] ... has a dividing line drawn across it near the bottom. Immediately below this line, and somewhat to the left, there can be seen with the help of a magnifying-glass a group of nine cuneiform indentations arranged in three parallel horizontal rows. Even the uninitiated will easily understand that we have here a representation of the number “9”. It is this figure, then, which gives to the fragment its special interest, for it tells us, as I am about to show, “the year that the Tartan came unto Ashdod”.
Boutflower now moves on to the focal point of Assyria’s concerns: mighty ‘Ashdod’:
The second difficulty in Sm. 2022 is connected with the mention of Ashdod in the part below the dividing line. According to the reckoning of time adopted on this fragment something must have happened at Ashdod at the beginning of Sargon’s ninth year, i.e. at the beginning of the tenth year, the year 712 BC, according to the better-known reckoning of the Annals.
Now, when we turn to the Annals and examine the record of this tenth year, we find no mention whatever of Ashdod. Not till we come to the second and closing portion of the record for the eleventh year do we meet with the account of the famous campaign against that city.
What, then, is the solution to this second difficulty Boutflower asks? And he answers this as follows:
Simply this: that the mention of Ashdod on the fragment Sm. 2022 does not refer to the siege of that town, which, as just stated, forms the second and closing event in the record of the following year, but in all probability does refer to the first of those political events which led up to the siege, viz. the coming of the Tartan to Ashdod.
To make this plain, I will now give the different accounts of the Ashdod imbroglio found in the inscriptions of Sargon, beginning with the one in the Annals (lines 215-228) already referred to, which runs thus:
“Azuri king of Ashdod, not to bring tribute his heart was set, and to the kings in his neighbourhood proposals of rebellion against Assyria he sent. Because of the evil he did, over the men of his land I changed his lordship. Akhimiti his own brother, to sovereignty over them I appointed. The Khatte [Hittites], plotting rebellion, hated his lordship; and Yatna, who had no title to the throne, who, like themselves, the reverence due to my lordship did not acknowledge, they set up over them. In the wrath of my heart, riding in my war-chariot, with my cavalry, who do not retreat from the place whither I turn my hands, to Ashdod, his royal city, I marched in haste. Ashdod, Gimtu [Gath?], Ashdudimmu … I besieged and captured. …”.
Typical Assyrian war records! Boutflower shows how they connect right through to Sargon’s Year 11, which both he and Tadmor date to 711 BC:
The above extract forms ... the second and closing portion of the record given in the Annals under Sargon’s 11th year, 711 BC., the earlier portion of the record for that year being occupied with the account of the expedition against Mutallu of Gurgum. In the Grand Inscription of Khorsabad we meet with a very similar account, containing a few fresh particulars. The usurper Yatna, i.e. “the Cypriot”, is there styled Yamani, “the Ionian”, thus showing that he was a Greek. We are also told that he fled away to Melukhkha on the border of Egypt, but was thrown into chains by the Ethiopian king and despatched to Assyria.
....
In order to effect the deposition of the rebellious Azuri, and set his brother Akhimiti on the throne, Sargon sent forth an armed force to Ashdod. It is in all probablity the despatch of such a force, and the successful achievement of the end in view, which were recorded in the fragment Sm. 2022 below the dividing line. As Isa xx.1 informs us - and the statement, as we shall presently see, can be verified from contemporary sources - this first expedition was led by the Tartan.
Possibly this may be the reason why it was not thought worthy to be recorded in the Annals under Sargon’s tenth year, 712 BC. But when we come to the eleventh year, 711 BC, and the annalist very properly and suitably records the whole series of events leading up to the siege, two things at once strike us: first, that all these events could not possibly have happened in the single year 711 BC; and secondly, as stated above, that a force must have previously been despatched at the beginning of the troubles to accomplish the deposition of Azuri and the placing of Akhimiti on the throne. On the retirement of this force sedition must again have broken out in Ashdod, for it appears that the anti-Assyrian party were able, after a longer or shorter interval, once more to get the upper hand, to expel Akhimiti, and to set up in his stead a Greek adventurer, Yatna-Yamani. The town was then strongly fortified, and surrounded by a moat.
It is at about this stage, Year 11, that Sargon was stirred into action:
Meanwhile, the news of what was going on at Ashdod appears to have reached the Great King at the beginning of his eleventh year, according to the reckoning of the annalist .... So enraged was Sargon that, without waiting to collect a large force, he started off at once with a picked body of cavalry, crossed those rivers in flood, and marched with all speed to the disaffected province.
Such at least is his own account; but I shall presently adduce reasons which lead one to think that he did not reach Ashdod as speedily as we might expect from the description of his march, but stopped on his way to put down a revolt in the country of Gurgum. In thus hastening to the West Sargon tells us that he was urged on by intelligence that the whole of Southern Syria, including Judah, Edom, and Moab, as well as Philistia, was ripe for revolt, relying on ample promises of support from Pharaoh king of Egypt.
We find, as we switch to what I believe to be Sennacherib’s corresponding campaign (his Third Campaign) to discover how Assyria dealt with the Egyptian factor, that a ringleader in this sedition was king Hezekiah himself:
The officials, nobles and people of Ekron, who had thrown Padi, their king, bound by (treaty to) Assyria, into fetters of iron and had given him over to Hezekiah, the Jew (Iaudai), - he kept him in confinement like an enemy, - they (lit., their heart) became afraid and called upon the Egyptian kings, the bowmen, chariots and horse of the king of Meluh-ha (Ethiopia), a countless host, and these came to their aid. In the neighborhood of the city of Altakû (Eltekeh), their ranks being drawn up before me, they offered battle. (Trusting) in the aid of Assur, my lord, I fought with them and brought about their defeat. The Egyptian charioteers and princes, together with the charioteers of the Ethiopian king, my hands took alive in the midst of the battle.
Charles Boutflower was able to deduce from the record of Sargon’s Year 10 what he considered to have been the reason why the first expedition against ‘Ashdod’ was led, not by Sargon in person, but by his ‘Turtan’.
This was because “Sargon was busy over his darling scheme, the decoration of the new palace at Dur-Sargon.
… It was with this object in view that Sargon remained “in the land”, i.e. at home, during the year 712, entrusting the first expedition to Ashdod to his Tartan, as stated in Isa xx.1”.
Boutflower’s detailed chronological reconstruction of the events associated with the siege of ‘Ashdod’ seems to be right in line with Tadmor’s more recent, and more clipped, reconstruction of the same events. ….
[End of quotes]
This series of dramatic incidents will be what I think is right at the forefront of what we read about Urukagina of Lagash and the invasions of his time. See my article:
Sumerian History in Chaos: Urukagina, first reformer, or C8th BC ruler of Jerusalem?
(5) Sumerian History in Chaos: Urukagina, first reformer, or C8th BC ruler of Jerusalem? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
Next, I attempted to identify the succession of officials at Ashdod, as named in the Annals of Sargon II, with leading figures during the reign of King Hezekiah of Judah (thesis, pp. 161-162):
Now if Sargon’s ‘Ashdod’ really were Lachish as I am proposing here, and his war were therefore being brought right into king Hezekiah’s Judaean territory, then we might even hold out some hope of being able to identify, with Hezekian officials, the succession of rulers of ‘Ashdod’ whom Sargon names. I refer to Azuri, Yatna-Yamani and Akhimiti. The first and the last of these names are Hebrew. The middle ones, Yatna-Yamani, are generally thought to be Greek-related, as we saw above; but Tadmor supports the view of Winckler and others that Yamani at least “was of local Palestinian origin”; being likely the equivalent of either Imnâ or Imna‛.
….
Hezekiah had, much to Assyria’s fury, enlarged the territory of his kingdom by absorbing Philistia, and had placed captains over key cities. This would no doubt have included those governors with Jewish names in the Philistine cities. Thus Sennacherib, as we saw, refers to a Padi (Pedaiah) in Ekron and a Tsidqa (Zedekiah) in Ashkelon. As for Lachish, we could expect that the king of Jerusalem might have entrusted to only a very high official the responsibility of so important a fort. I propose to identify Sargon’s:
• AzURI with the high priest URIah … most notably in the time of Hezekiah’s father, Ahaz (2 Kings 16:10-11; cf. Isaiah 8:1-4);
• YatNA with the ill-fated ShebNA … of Hezekiah’s time; and
• AKHI-Miti (Azuri’s brother) with Hezekiah’s chief official, EliAKIM …. Akhi-miti correspondingly appears as Mitinti (thought to be Hebrew, Mattaniah … as the ruler of ‘Ashdod’ in Sennacherib’s Third Campaign account.
[End of quote]
The prophet Jeremiah
The final piece to be fitted into the jigsaw will be to recall my further identification of Eliakim son of Hilkiah with the great prophet Jeremiah son of Hilkiah (of numerous other alter egos as well). For the Eliakim/Jeremiah connection, see e.g. my article:
Jeremiah was both prophet and high priest
(5) Jeremiah was both prophet and high priest | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
This fusion, Eliakim/Jeremiah son of Hilkiah, can be achieved only with my radical identification of the reforming King Hezekiah of Judah with the reforming King Josiah of Judah. This connection is perhaps best explained in my article:
Damien F. Mackey’s A Tale of Two Theses
(5) Damien F. Mackey's A Tale of Two Theses | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
My conclusion so far: ‘Archimedes’ was a Greco-Roman fictitious composite based (largely) upon Ahhimiti = Eliakim/Jeremiah, son of Hilkiah.
The fight was against the ancient Assyrians, in Judah, not the Romans, in Syracuse.
Moreover, the water screw invention, falsely attributed to Archimedes, was already known to the Assyrians of the very era of Akhimiti. On this, I wrote:
Archimedes
Did the Greeks appropriate the C8th BC official, Akhi-miti, and re-cast him as Archimedes, about whom “… very little is known about the early life of Archimedes or his family”? http://archimedespalimpsest.org/about/history/archimedes.php - and, about whom there are “… many fantastic tales surrounding the life of Archimedes”.
Given that Dr. Stephanie Dalley has now proved that the water screw, thought to have been invented by Archimedes, was in use as early as the time of the Assyrian king, Sennacherib (“Sennacherib, Archimedes, and the Water Screw”: https://muse.jhu.edu/article/40151), we have to be very doubtful, I think, of the historical reality of this Archimedes.
Famed for his supposedly having held off the besieging Romans, this may be just another of the many legends that have arisen from the historical dramas at the time of King Hezekiah of Judah, at both of which Eliakim (= Akhi-miti) was present: namely Sennacherib’s aborted siege of Jerusalem, and the later siege by the Assyrian army as recorded in the Book of Judith.
[End of quote]
On this, see also my article:
Beware of Greeks boasting inventions
(3) Beware of Greeks boasting inventions
If my estimation of Archimedes is correct, then this would make ‘him’ a most unsuitable model for comparison with Leonardo da Vinci, whether the latter be considered a genius or not.
How Genuine is Leonardo?
“Over 1500 years before Leonardo Da Vinci became the Renaissance Man, antiquity had its own in the form of Archimedes, one of the most famous Ancient Greeks”.
Charles River Editors
If Leonardo da Vinci has been modelled to some degree upon a likely fictitious Archimedes, then how much of what we have about Leonardo is truly reliable?
Or, to put it another way, we might ask: What is the real Da Vinci Code?
The two names, Archimedes and Leonardo, are constantly found mentioned together.
For instance, there is this article, “Archimedes and Leonardo Da Vinci: The Greatest Geniuses of Antiquity and the Renaissance”: https://www.createspace.com/4430132
Authored by Charles River Editors
….
“Give me a place to stand, and I shall move the world.’"– Archimedes
“Iron rusts from disuse; stagnant water loses its purity and in cold weather becomes frozen; even so does inaction sap the vigor of the mind.” – Leonardo
Over 1500 years before Leonardo Da Vinci became the Renaissance Man, antiquity had its own in the form of Archimedes, one of the most famous Ancient Greeks. An engineer, mathematician, physicist, scientist and astronomer all rolled into one, Archimedes has been credited for making groundbreaking discoveries, some of which are undoubtedly fact and others that are almost certainly myth. Regardless, he’s considered the first man to determine a way to measure an object’s mass, and also the first man to realize that refracting the Sun’s light could burn something, theorizing the existence of lasers over two millennia before they existed. People still use the design of the Archimedes screw in water pumps today, and modern scholars have tried to link him to the recently discovered Antikythera mechanism, an ancient “computer” of sorts that used mechanics to accurately chart astronomical data depending on the date it was set to.
It has long been difficult to separate fact from legend in the story of Archimedes’ life, from his death to his legendary discovery of how to differentiate gold from fool’s gold, but many of his works survived antiquity, and many others were quoted by other ancient writers. As a result, even while his life and death remain topics of debate, his writings and measurements are factually established and well known, and they range on everything from measuring an object’s density to measuring circles and parabolas.
The Renaissance spawned the use of the label “Renaissance Man” to describe a person who is extremely talented in multiple fields, and no discussion of the Renaissance is complete without the original “Renaissance Man”, Leonardo da Vinci. Indeed, if 100 people are asked to describe Leonardo in one word, they might give 100 answers. As the world’s most famous polymath and genius, Leonardo found time to be a painter, sculptor, architect, musician, scientist, mathematician, engineer, inventor, anatomist, geologist, cartographer, botanist, and writer.
It would be hard to determine which field Leonardo had the greatest influence in. His “Mona Lisa” and “The Last Supper” are among the most famous paintings of all time, standing up against even Michelangelo’s work. But even if he was not the age’s greatest artist, Leonardo may have conducted his most influential work was done in other fields. His emphasis on the importance of Nature would influence Enlightened philosophers centuries later, and he sketched speculative designs for gadgets like helicopters that would take another 4 centuries to create. Leonardo’s vision and philosophy were made possible by his astounding work as a mathematician, engineer and scientist. At a time when much of science was dictated by Church teachings, Leonardo studied geology and anatomy long before they truly even became scientific fields, and he used his incredible artistic abilities to sketch the famous Vitruvian Man, linking art and science together.
[End of quote]
Then there is this one by D. L. Simms, “Archimedes' Weapons of War and Leonardo” (BJHS, 1988, 21, pp. 195-210): https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S0007087400024766
INTRODUCTION
Leonardo's fascination with Archimedes as well as with his mathematics is well known.
There are three fairly extensive and eccentric comments in the surviving notebooks: on his military inventions; on his part in an Anglo-Spanish conflict and on his activities, death and burial at the siege of Syracuse.
Reti has examined the first of the three, that about the Architronito or steam cannon, mainly considering the origin of the idea for the cannon and its attribution to Archimedes, but with comments on the later influence of Leonardo's ideas. Marshall Clagett has produced the most comprehensive attempt to try to identify Leonardo's sources for the third. ….
Reti's analysis can be supplemented and extended in the light of more recent comments and Sakas' experimental demonstration of a miniature working model, and Clagett's proposed sources modified. The origins of the other reference, Leonardo's belief that Archimedes played a part in an Anglo-Spanish war, can also be rendered slightly less baffling.
Any conclusions must necessarily be tentative given the generally accepted opinion that much less than half of Leonardo's manuscripts survive. ….
ARCHITRONITO
Leonardo's earliest surviving mention (late 1480s-1490) of Archimedes' weapons of war is perhaps the most startling (Ms.B 33r): ….
Architronito. Gunsight. Ensure that the rod en is placed over the centre of the table fixed beneath so that the water can fall with a single shot on to this table.
The Architronito is a machine of fine copper, an invention of Archimedes, and it throws iron balls with great noise and violence. It is used in this manner:—the third part of the instrument stands within a great quantity of burning coals and when it has been brought to white heat you turn the screw d, which is above the cistern of water abc, at the same time that you turn the screw below the cistern and all the water it contains will descend into the white hot part of the barrel. There it will instantly become transformed into so much steam that it will seem astonishing, and especially when one notes with what force and hears the roar that it will produce. This machine has driven a ball weighing one talent six stadia.
….
Origins of the attribution
Reti demonstrated that Leonardo's source of the idea for this weapon was the drawings of cannons in De Re Militari by Valturius, who stated that the cannon had been invented—ut putatur—by Archimedes. ….
[End of quote]
And here is another one, with an interesting question posed at the end of it:
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/159447
In 1499 Leonardo da Vinci is hired by Cesare Borgia as a military engineer.
Mackey’s comment: Whoops, Cesare Borgia?
Before we go any further, see my comment on Cesare and the Borgias in my article:
Achitophel and Machiavelli
(3) Achitophel and Machiavelli
[Leonardo] begins to work on a steam canon that had originally been an idea of Archimedes 1500 years earlier. Leonardo tells Cesare the story of Archimedes and how he made many discoveries in mathematics and science.
Archimedes visits Alexandria and falls in love with Princess Helena, and in spite of their age difference, they marry and return to Syracuse. Soon Helena gives birth to their only child, a daughter they name Arsinoe.
For nearly fifty years of peace, Syracuse is drawn into the war between Rome and Carthage. Archimedes must use all his vast knowledge to defend Syracuse and his very family.
Cesare offers to purchase the chest of ideas from Leonardo but he declines the offer. Who knows which of Leonardo de Vinci’s inventions were really the brainchild of Archimedes of Syracuse?
[End of quote]
Yes, indeed, who knows just how much of what is attributed to Leonardo da Vinci really belonged to Archimedes - a possibly fictitious character, anyway?
Or was borrowed from an even earlier period of history, such as the neo-Assyrian era of c. 700 BC, when Archimedes’ supposed Screw Pump was already in effective use by the Assyrian king, Sennacherib?
What is the real Da Vinci Code?
‘Geniuses’ with clay feet?
“Da Vinci is universally hailed as one of the greatest geniuses of all time.
He is celebrated for his art, inventions, science, and being multi-talented.
Leonardo da Vinci is the most overrated genius of all time mainly because of the many outlandish claims made about how much of a genius he was”.
Shakker Rehman
By way of complete contrast with the standard assessment of the so-often compared Archimedes and Leonardo da Vinci, as we have read above, is the following cheeky view by Shakker Rehman, which ranks Leonardo da Vinci as the most over-rated of geniuses:
https://itsnobody.wordpress.com/2011/09/03/the-top-10-most-overrated-geniuses/
….
The Top 10 Most Overrated “Geniuses”
….
Here is my top 10 list of the most overrated geniuses. The rankings are based upon how overrated the “geniuses” starting from the lesser overrated geniuses ending with the most overrated genius.
#10 – Bill Gates
….
#9 – James D. Watson
….
#8 – Michio Kaku
….
#7 – Stephen Hawking
….
#6 – William James Sidis
….
#5 – Benjamin Franklin
….
#4 – Thomas Edison
….
#3 – Albert Einstein
….
Damien Mackey’s comment: On Stephen Hawking, see e.g. my article:
Stephen Hawking. Lord of a diminished cosmos
(6) Stephen Hawking. Lord of a diminished cosmos | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
And see also my series:
Albert Einstein's Parallel Universe
https://www.academia.edu/27634847/Albert_Einsteins_Parallel_Universe
“Anxious theologians scan the latest scientific theories to see if they do or do not support the existence of God. Grave scientists issue their pontifical pronouncements. Sir James Jeans tells us that God is a great mathematician; Einstein says ‘God is slick but not mean’; Laplace, answering Napoleon who taxed him with not mentioning God in his Mécanique Céleste, said: ‘I have no need of that hypothesis’.”
GAVIN ARDLEY, Aquinas and Kant
Albert Einstein's Parallel Universe. Part Two: It’s all relative
"Difficulties of a common sense and philosophical nature are frequently encountered in the acceptance of fundamentally new principles of physics, as e.g. on the introduction of relativity and quantum theories. These difficulties should not be experienced henceforth when it is realised that, in spite of misleading terms, the physical principles are not about the real world which we know so well. The physicist should become more conscious of the power he possesses to mould his subject when he is fully aware of his autonomy".
Albert Einstein’s Parallel Universe. Part Three: A Near Perfect Theory?
Now, continuing with the count-down of supposed geniuses we arrive at no. 2:
#2 – Pythagoras of Samos
Continuing with the count-down of supposed geniuses we arrive at no. 1:
#1 – Leonardo da Vinci
So who’s the most super-overrated genius of all time? It’s Leonardo da Vinci.
Da Vinci is universally hailed as one of the greatest geniuses of all time. He is celebrated for his art, inventions, science, and being multi-talented.
Leonardo da Vinci is the most overrated genius of all time mainly because of the many outlandish claims made about how much of a genius he was.
Many different sources have “estimated” Da Vinci’s IQ to be over 200. This however is quite impossible. It’s literally impossible that Da Vinci had an IQ of 200+. Whenever asked for legitimate reasons as to how Da Vinci could of [sic] had an IQ of 200+ people will usually respond with an appeal to authority saying something like “this expert said so” or “this person said so”.
Da Vinci himself said “Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory”.
In order to correctly estimate IQ you have to estimate how well someone would be able to answer the most difficult IQ-style questions.
I know that Da Vinci’s IQ would not be any higher than 160 based on some simple observations:
– At least half of Da Vinci’s inventions failed when tested, this does not show high IQ at all
– Da Vinci tried to learn mathematics but didn’t really get very far
– Da Vinci was not a super-fast learner (the main sign of high IQ)
– Da Vinci’s works do not require a high IQ
Nothing Da Vinci did demonstrates that he had an IQ of 200 or higher or even close to that. Da Vinci is so overrated that people think his IQ was higher than Newton’s. But how could that be possible? Newton did things like solving the brachistochrone problem in a few hours, but what did Leonardo da Vinci do to demonstrate his intelligence? I would be surprised if Da Vinci had an IQ higher than 140.
Da Vinci’s inventions have also been grossly exaggerated. Da Vinci drew drawings and different people have personally interpreted some of the same drawings to mean different things.
This has been the case with Da Vinci’s supposed calculator. Objectors once again claim this device wouldn’t actually work and isn’t actually a drawing of a calculator, but people personally interpret it to be so.
This is also the case with Da Vinci’s supposed helicopter. It’s not really a helicopter, it’s just an aerial screw. Helicopters are closer to Chinese bamboo toys than they are to Da Vinci’s sketches. The media and others simply overrated Da Vinci so much they decided to call it a helicopter (some how).
Da Vinci never actually built or tested most of his inventions and at least half of them failed when tested. The vast majority of the models of Da Vinci’s designs that really do work are modified versions of Da Vinci’s designs or strange interpretations of what Da Vinci’s designs mean. In order to get most of Da Vinci’s designs to work modifications are necessary.
The more people test out Da Vinci’s designs the more people find that his designs don’t work. What’s genius about coming up with failed designs?
Basically anyone who has artistic talent, an IQ of 130 or higher, and spends all their time focusing on inventing new machines would be able to come up with lots of inventions (and having half of them fail).
Da Vinci being far ahead of his time is also an exaggerated claim. Da Vinci was born in the year 1452 AD, not the year 287 BC like Archimedes. Basically everything Da Vinci had done had been independently re-discovered without much effort by others within 200 years or less or had been done prior to Da Vinci. Since at least half of Da Vinci’s designs didn’t work I’m not sure how much it would have mattered if Da Vinci’s writings had been discovered much earlier. During Da Vinci’s time being ahead of your time didn’t take much.
Other much better engineers like Heron, Archimedes [sic], Al-Jazari, and Tesla are ignored in the media.
Al-Jazari for instance pre-dates Da Vinci by more than 200 years, he invented one of the first programmable analog computers, camshaft, segmented gears, and more. His book is much more detailed than Leonardo da Vinci’s drawings, all of his designs work, and even though he pre-dates Da Vinci he is completely ignored in the media.
[End of quote]
This rater of genius does not question Archimedes, however, here considered to have been an ancient “super-genius”: “Or what about the super-genius engineer and mathematician Archimedes, who pre-dates Da Vinci by more than 1600 years. He is also ignored in the media”.
Understanding the Priory of Sion
Andrew Gough shows the Priory of Sion to be quite a modern invention:
https://andrewgough.co.uk/articles_sulpice/
SAINT SULPICE AND THE SYMBOLISM OF THE PRIORY OF SION
By ANDREW GOUGH
March 2016
What if some of the most haunting symbolism of the twentieth century was the invention of a shadowy figure who pirated innocuous images from a famous church in order to construct the mythos of a secret society?
On a recent trip to Paris, France, I discovered that this supposition just might be true, and could help explain the origins of the infamous Priory of Sion.
First, a Rant
Despite some rather weighty evidence to the contrary, belief in the Priory of Sion remains inexplicably stout. The notion that the Priory of Sion is a secret, members-only club which has propagated and protected the holy bloodline of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene for nearly two thousand years remains a popular topic in esoteric discussion forums.
The smart money has always been on the belief that the Priory of Sion was the invention of Pierre Plantard, an ambitious Frenchman who cobbled the essence of the story together in 1956. Although Plantard had political aspirations, there is always the possibility that it all came down to his personal amusement. The truth is, his motivation probably included both.
Plantard claimed to be the Grand Master of the Priory of Sion, before recanting it all under oath. Funny how the threat of prison will do that to a man. Thus, believers insist that he had to lie in order to protect the integrity of the order, and that the Priory of Sion is an ancient society that grew out of L’Ordre de Sion (The Order of Sion), as founded in 1090 by Godefroy de Bouillon (the medieval Frankish knight who was one of the leaders of the First Crusade), and that it has been fronted by an illustrious list of Grand Masters: thought leaders such as Nicolas Flamel, Leonardo da Vinci, Isaac Newton, Charles Radclyffe, Claude Debussy, Jean Cocteau, and hordes of others. Clearly, these are accomplished individuals of great renown. However, it remains to be seen if any was the grand master of anything other than his own discipline. Given the character of those who claim to hold the position of Grand Master today (men of absolutely no notoriety or accomplishment – individuals who live in shadows and who have never contributed to society in any discernable way), it is hard to believe they are part of the impressive list of thought leaders who challenged the religious, scientific and artistic dogma of their day. In fact, it strongly suggests that the entire tradition is dubious at best.
The men who claim to hold the office of Grand Master today appear to suffer from delusions of grandeur.
If the Priory of Sion were real, should not its recent Grand Masters include the likes of Stephen Hawking, and not Gino Sandri and Nicolas Haywood? Who? That is exactly my point. Actually, the same goes for Pierre Plantard.
Alas, I have drifted from my thesis. It is not my desire to conduct character assassinations or disparage people with ambition, as delusional as it may be.
Nevertheless, let me be clear: I believe the Priory of Sion, as recounted by Plantard, is a modern-day creation which has artificially manipulated its charter, and history, and to that end I will attempt to show that its evocative symbolism is not ancient, and that it came from one place, Saint Sulpice church in Paris, France. So, who was the person who drew upon the symbolism of Saint Sulpice and incorporated it into the Priory of Sion? The answer will not surprise enthusiasts of the subject one bit.
However, I will refrain from revealing their name a little longer.
The official emblem of the Priory of Sion is partly based on the fleur-de-lis, which is found throughout Saint Sulpice and represents a bee, and the tradition of long-haired kings of France known as the Merovingian dynasty, including Childeric, who was found with 300 gold bees in his tomb ….
Read this most informative article.
See also my somewhat related article:
Not the Templars, but the enemies of the Jews, arrested on the 13th day of the month
(6) Not the Templars, but the enemies of the Jews, arrested on the 13th day of the month | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
No comments:
Post a Comment