New Book By Simon Options

Let me take some time to answer your points.

I'm not going to sit here and tell you that your experiences are not valid. I won't say that the Necronomicon is evil and that nothing good can ever come from it. I can say that I've heard many experiences at variance with yours, but that is hardly convincing either way.

Taking on the role of John for a moment - he's not available - I might, however, suggest alternative interpretations. Many of the gods and beings in the Necronomicon, such as Enki, might already be available in the Akashic record, or whatever you might want to call it, where they can be accessed. Perhaps only some parts of the book are flawed in some manner, and the rest can be worked with safely. I'm not the one for such arguments, however.

With regard to the question of efficacy, that in itself doesn't guarantee the accuracy of the material. After all, there have been people who have rebounded from horrible, life-threatening diseases after being put on sugar pills, succeeding in healing themselves through sheer will and belief. Likewise, the history of religion tells us of many ideas of dubious origin that nonetheless helped people to lead meaningful and powerful lives. An idea that has no basis in truth can often bear surprising fruit.

All of this might apply to our situation, and it might not. I only ask that it be considered.

Is the Necronomicon dangerous? I will not comment in a magickal sense. Nonetheless, there are passages in the book, such as the one about the sword of Hubur, that are not part of Necronomicon practice as most magicians perform it. As the book appears to me, for many different reasons, to be a modern creation, I then must ask whether publishing a passage promising power through human sacrifice was the best idea. The last widely-circulated magical manual to do that was the Picatrix. If nothing else, the book is dangerous in the sense that it puts that idea into the minds of those who can use it to justify their actions.

I don't agree with the view that people who commit crimes based on the Necronomicon are "doing it wrong." I'm sorry, but it sounds too much like those people who say that a criminal who uses a belief to justify their deeds isn't a "real" X. It's a matter of the person's interpretation. If the Necronomicon is a recent creation, as I believe it is, then the horrible actions carried out down through the centuries by readers of particular volumes should have been a warning not to include such material in the Necronomicon. Nonetheless, it is there.

As for the Necronomicon as an evil book - I don't know if I'd call it such. I've collected a few such "evil" books in my time, and none of them exert a hideous and malign influence over me, or fly about the room, or any such thing. Nonetheless, an examination of the symbolism of the Necronomicon indicates that the reader is not getting the whole story - the aglaophotis bit is proof enough. And if that is the case, we should be cautious.

As I hinted earlier, I have found another case of this.

First, read Dead Names, pages 228-229, on the Temple of Nabu at Borsippa.

The original source for Simon's assertion is an article for the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland written in 1861. You can find it here. In it, archaeologist H. C. Rawlinson observed:

I was soon after struck with the coincidence, that the colour black for the first stage, red for the third, and blue for what seemed to be the sixth, were precisely the colours which belonged to the first, third, and sixth spheres of the Sabaean planetary system... I announce it therefore now, as an established fact, that we have, in the ruin at the Birs, an existing illustration of the seven-walled and seven-coloured Ecbatana of Herodotus.

As for Herodotus, you can check Histories 1, 98 here. If you do, you'll notice that the two color schemes don't fit together. Rawlinson maintains that Herodotus got the color scheme wrong, and transplanted the city from Borsippa to Ecbatana, and, well, Rawlinson was a man of impressive accomplishments, but I didn't buy that either.

Simon presents this scheme, but he does not include some information. He does not mention that the scholar Morris Jastrow found these colors were based upon "no satisfactory evidence" and the linkage of them with planetary bodies "is highly improbable" (The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, p. 618), as we pointed in our book. Simon's own source, Michael Baigent's From the Omens of Babylon, is more willing to accept it, but nonetheless calls Rawlinson's theory "interesting speculations" for which "no further evidence has been discovered."

As it happens, three years after Baigent's book was published, the Austrian working at Borsippa between the Gulf Wars had the following to say about the temple's appearance:

Their picture of the temple's exterior is almost complete. The first two
levels were covered with bitumen and were black. The third, fourth and fifth
were decorated with blue-glazed bricks and possibly adorned with bulls and
lions.

The sixth and seventh terraces, close to the sanctuary, were wholly made of
mud brick.

"For cultic purposes the Mesopotamians thought mud to be the purest of
substances," said Helga Trenkwalder, leader of the seven-member Austrian team.
"On top was Nabu's residence with rooms for servants and priests and wings for
his wife, Tachmitum, his children and daughters. It must have looked really
fantastic."

So, what does this have to do with the gates?

There is one other important piece of information that Simon does not give in his book. Even if we set aside the evidence above and accept the color scheme as Simon takes it from Rawlinson, there is still another difficulty with the schema. As Ashnook has pointed out, the gates purport to be an ascent into the stars for the magician. Yet, in Simon's own source, the lowest layer of the ziggurat, where the ascent begins, is colored black and associated with Saturn - the color and planet associated with the last gate of the Necronomicon Gatewalking. The other colors and planets are also mirrored up the pyramid, and one walking up would have encountered them in precisely the reverse order portrayed in the Gatewalking ceremony. Simon's sources are unambiguous on this point - so why the inversion?

I hope this demonstrates why I have my suspicions regarding the book.

This post has been edited by Danharms: Apr 25 2006, 06:28 PM

First, read Dead Names, pages 228-229, on the Temple of Nabu at Borsippa.

The original source for Simon's assertion is an article for the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland written in 1861. You can find it here. In it, archaeologist H. C. Rawlinson observed:

I was soon after struck with the coincidence, that the colour black for the first stage, red for the third, and blue for what seemed to be the sixth, were precisely the colours which belonged to the first, third, and sixth spheres of the Sabaean planetary system... I announce it therefore now, as an established fact, that we have, in the ruin at the Birs, an existing illustration of the seven-walled and seven-coloured Ecbatana of Herodotus.

As for Herodotus, you can check Histories 1, 98 here. If you do, you'll notice that the two color schemes don't fit together. Rawlinson maintains that Herodotus got the color scheme wrong, and transplanted the city from Borsippa to Ecbatana, and, well, Rawlinson was a man of impressive accomplishments, but I didn't buy that either.

Simon presents this scheme, but he does not include some information. He does not mention that the scholar Morris Jastrow found these colors were based upon "no satisfactory evidence" and the linkage of them with planetary bodies "is highly improbable" (The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, p. 618), as we pointed in our book. Simon's own source, Michael Baigent's From the Omens of Babylon, is more willing to accept it, but nonetheless calls Rawlinson's theory "interesting speculations" for which "no further evidence has been discovered."

As it happens, three years after Baigent's book was published, the Austrian working at Borsippa between the Gulf Wars had the following to say about the temple's appearance:

Their picture of the temple's exterior is almost complete. The first two
levels were covered with bitumen and were black. The third, fourth and fifth
were decorated with blue-glazed bricks and possibly adorned with bulls and
lions.

The sixth and seventh terraces, close to the sanctuary, were wholly made of
mud brick.

"For cultic purposes the Mesopotamians thought mud to be the purest of
substances," said Helga Trenkwalder, leader of the seven-member Austrian team.
"On top was Nabu's residence with rooms for servants and priests and wings for
his wife, Tachmitum, his children and daughters. It must have looked really
fantastic."

So, what does this have to do with the gates?

There is one other important piece of information that Simon does not give in his book. Even if we set aside the evidence above and accept the color scheme as Simon takes it from Rawlinson, there is still another difficulty with the schema. As Ashnook has pointed out, the gates purport to be an ascent into the stars for the magician. Yet, in Simon's own source, the lowest layer of the ziggurat, where the ascent begins, is colored black and associated with Saturn - the color and planet associated with the last gate of the Necronomicon Gatewalking. The other colors and planets are also mirrored up the pyramid, and one walking up would have encountered them in precisely the reverse order portrayed in the Gatewalking ceremony. Simon's sources are unambiguous on this point - so why the inversion?

I hope this demonstrates why I have my suspicions regarding the book.

Greetings Danharms

The gates of the Necronomicon correspond with the planets starting with the closest to the sun and ending with the planet most distant from the sun. Or perhaps more correctly the planets in the order that they seem to circle the earth the fastest. Moon, Mercury, Venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn. A pretty logical way to climb the ladder of lights knowing that the Igigi or stars are next. Of course these are only the ones known to the Sumerians. The Sumerians invented astrology and the Necronomicon is steeped pretty heavy with it.

Something interesting about magick. Sometimes doing things backwards makes it more powerful. The case of the Skin Walkers is not related but their source of power is in doing the reverse of the normal. Skin Walkers are Native Americans who shave thier heads instead of growing their hair long. They wash with sand and dry off with dirt. These are the evil shape shifters of Navaho myth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin-walker What wikipedia does not tell is well known to Native Americans that these Indian Kashipani do many things backwards.

Albeit Skin Walkers are evil doing some ritual backwards in itself is not evil. For example raising the cone of power counterclockwise. <Native American tradition simular to the witches drawing down the moon.>

This post has been edited by smasher666: Apr 25 2006, 07:08 PM

Let's not forget, though, that the Sumerians and Babylonians had no conception of the heaven as being divided into layers that applied to the planets. In the sort of ritual inversion that is visible in the skinwalkers, and among shamans throughout the world, it is with reference to a broader context of belief or symbolism, through which it derives its significance. The version presented in Dead Names has no precedent elsewhere - it's an inversion of an order not recognized by the broader culture. Thus, I don't find this scenario unlikely.

In other news, one supposed copy of the Black Book of the Yezidis can be found here.

This post has been edited by Danharms: Apr 27 2006, 06:53 PM

Let's not forget, though, that the Sumerians and Babylonians had no conception of the heaven as being divided into layers that applied to the planets. In the sort of ritual inversion that is visible in the skinwalkers, and among shamans throughout the world, it is with reference to a broader context of belief or symbolism, through which it derives its significance. The version presented in Dead Names has no precedent elsewhere - it's an inversion of an order not recognized by the broader culture. Thus, I don't find this scenario unlikely.

In other news, one supposed copy of the Black Book of the Yezidis can be found here.

I am do not think anyone is certain what ritual Sumerian priests practiced exactly. I do not think anyone really is. We have dug up alot of clay tablets and need to dig up alot more. I do not think from a clay tablet alone we can dechipher a system that may have been taught by tounge from one priest to the next. The Sumerians had a crap load of priests. Priest for this. Priest for that. I am sure they had some sort of initiation process which we will probably never know of. I would not expect it to be recorded.

I do know that in my experiance with the sumerian dietys very often I find things reversed from what I would have expected. I encounter the polar opposite of what should be on many occasion.

Thanks for the link to the Yezdis book.

Peace!

There is one other important piece of information that Simon does not give in his book. Even if we set aside the evidence above and accept the color scheme as Simon takes it from Rawlinson, there is still another difficulty with the schema. As Ashnook has pointed out, the gates purport to be an ascent into the stars for the magician. Yet, in Simon's own source, the lowest layer of the ziggurat, where the ascent begins, is colored black and associated with Saturn - the color and planet associated with the last gate of the Necronomicon Gatewalking. The other colors and planets are also mirrored up the pyramid, and one walking up would have encountered them in precisely the reverse order portrayed in the Gatewalking ceremony. Simon's sources are unambiguous on this point - so why the inversion?

I hope this demonstrates why I have my suspicions regarding the book.

Interesting theory on the Gates.

Another thing I find interesting is at the end of the Necronomicon is the quote from Chaldaean of Zoroaster which says

"145. Stoop not down unto the Darkly-Splendid World; wherein continually lieth a faithless Depth, and Hades wrapped in clouds, delighting in unintellible images, precipitous, winding, a black ever-rolling Abyss; ever espousing a Body unluminous, formless and void."


If you look at what comes after that in the Chaldaean of Zoroaster it says


"146. Stoop not down, for a precipice lieth beneath the Earth, reached by a descending Ladder which hath Seven Steps, and therein is established the Throne of an evil and fatal force."

[What Simon does not mention in his book is that, in both cases, the Necronomicon was singled out for attention. News reports and subsequent books indicate that both killers had a deep interest in the Necronomicon, and that both sought to open the Gates of Hell, or to call up subterranean demons, in exchange for personal power. All of this is a matter of public record, and is included in our book.]

What other books and sources, Dan? Where has it been expressly and explicitly mentioned that the Necronomicon was itself "singled out for attention" and by whom? The media or the perps themselves? As far as I can tell, the only ones who singled out the Necronomicon for attention were ...you and John.

[This concept - that power can be obtained by blood sacrifice that allows the Underworld access to the earth - is not something you'll find in The Lion King, or The Witches' Bible, or the other sources that these individuals owned and that Simon mentions as possible avenues. Further, unlike many of those sources, the Necronomicon is not presented as a work of fiction, but as an honest-to-goodness ancient text that provides the user with power, for good or for evil.]

The Necronomicon does not state "that power can be obtained by blood sacrifice that allows the Underworld access to the earth", thank you very much!

[Simon has had access to the same resources John and I have. If he claims that he doesn't believe the Necronomicon caused these crimes, he's free to express that opinion. If he wants to say that he's not responsible for the actions of deranged individuals, he can certainly say so. If he claims that most people who have the book don't commit such crimes, I'd agree with him.]

I do, and I have ... in Dead Names.

[This board alone is proof of that. I find it odd that Simon can disclaim that the Necronomicon is linked to violence in Dead Names and hype its "role" in the Son of Sam killings and JFK's assassination on the back cover, but perhaps there's a good explanation for that.]

The story of the Son of Sam case and the JFK assassination case is explained in the book; as is the fact that several of the principle personalities connected with the book died premature (and in some cases violent) deaths. But then, so did Jesus and many of his followers. And the defenders at Mosada. So did JFK. And RFK. And MLK. The fact of violent death may mean something other than "this book is evil" or "these teachings are evil". There is something deeper at work here, and anyone who grasps the entire thesis of Dead Names should be able to see that clearly. What I point out -- and, I think, quite clearly -- is that it is futile to make a case that somehow the Necronomicon was itself responsible for the crimes of Ferrell and the others when the evidence is so thin and so contaminated by other evidence. You focused on the one case you could actually use that actually mentions the Necronomicon in passing and blew it up into something ... other. So ... what are you saying, Dan? That the Necronomicon actually IS what Lovecraft purported it to be: a work of evil power? You guys want it both ways, it seems to me.

[Nonetheless, in Dead Names, Simon has not to include evidence given in The Necronomicon Files, evidence that might point to a possible motive for these crimes. Simon, I'd like to know why, given the amount of space devoted to the topic of the Necronomicon's danger, none of this is included.
[/quote]

I don't understand your question. I read the same book you did, the one on the so-called "Vampire Killers" (not the "Necronomicon Killers" by the way, which I think says it all) and it seems the motive, such as it was, was clear. What "evidence" did I miss in the Necronomicon Files?

You want to say that the Necronomicon is evil and somehow responsible -- a book, responsible -- for murder. You made that very clear in your book, forget the "let the readers make up their own mind" rhetoric. And then you say I am right when I say it can't be responsible for what some mentally-unbalanced person decides to do with it. Make up your mind. You can't have it both ways. "It's not logical, Captain." In any event, as I stated in Dead Names, there are crimes more hideous and more numerous committed every day by people who believe in the Bible, or the Quran. And there was a crime committed by someone who read John Fowles' "The Collector" ... where does it end, this blaming of books by people who want to remove responsibility from the criminals and put it between the covers of a book they don't like?

Dan Harms writes:

There is one other important piece of information that Simon does not give in his book. Even if we set aside the evidence above and accept the color scheme as Simon takes it from Rawlinson, there is still another difficulty with the schema. As Ashnook has pointed out, the gates purport to be an ascent into the stars for the magician. Yet, in Simon's own source, the lowest layer of the ziggurat, where the ascent begins, is colored black and associated with Saturn - the color and planet associated with the last gate of the Necronomicon Gatewalking. The other colors and planets are also mirrored up the pyramid, and one walking up would have encountered them in precisely the reverse order portrayed in the Gatewalking ceremony. Simon's sources are unambiguous on this point - so why the inversion?

This will be made clear in "Gates of the Necronomicon". To be brief, the planetary symbolism was a kind of blind as I eventually had come to realize it; perhaps not a "blind" but a "mundane" example of something more exalted. There is something far more important taking place than a simple pre-Qabalistic Tree of Life as it is usually understood. Anyone who does a close reading of the Necronomicon will see it at once; but in any event it will be described at length in Gates. For those who don't want to wait so long ... my advice is: don't be distracted by the planets. They are blocking your vision.

There is one other important piece of information that Simon does not give in his book. Even if we set aside the evidence above and accept the color scheme as Simon takes it from Rawlinson, there is still another difficulty with the schema. As Ashnook has pointed out, the gates purport to be an ascent into the stars for the magician. Yet, in Simon's own source, the lowest layer of the ziggurat, where the ascent begins, is colored black and associated with Saturn - the color and planet associated with the last gate of the Necronomicon Gatewalking. The other colors and planets are also mirrored up the pyramid, and one walking up would have encountered them in precisely the reverse order portrayed in the Gatewalking ceremony. Simon's sources are unambiguous on this point - so why the inversion?

I hope this demonstrates why I have my suspicions regarding the book.

Interesting theory on the Gates.

Another thing I find interesting is at the end of the Necronomicon is the quote from Chaldaean of Zoroaster which says

"145. Stoop not down unto the Darkly-Splendid World; wherein continually lieth a faithless Depth, and Hades wrapped in clouds, delighting in unintellible images, precipitous, winding, a black ever-rolling Abyss; ever espousing a Body unluminous, formless and void."


If you look at what comes after that in the Chaldaean of Zoroaster it says


"146. Stoop not down, for a precipice lieth beneath the Earth, reached by a descending Ladder which hath Seven Steps, and therein is established the Throne of an evil and fatal force."

The Chaldeans got their religion from the Babylonians and Sumerians. Look at the Chaldean Fire God. Many simularities.

What other books and sources, Dan? Where has it been expressly and explicitly mentioned that the Necronomicon was itself "singled out for attention" and by whom? The media or the perps themselves? As far as I can tell, the only ones who singled out the Necronomicon for attention were ...you and John.

I refer you back to our book. Page 204:

According to seventeen-year-old Audrey Presson, a friend of Ferrell's at Eustis High School, Ferrell often discussed the Necronomicon with her over the telephone... Psychologist Wade Myers III testified that Ferrell "felt he was able to get powers from this book."

And how might he gain that power? Page 205:

John Goodman, a member of the Vampire Clan, said Ferrell "had become possessed with opening the Gates to Hell, which meant he would have to kill a large number of people in order to consume their souls. By doing this, Ferrell believed he would gain super powers."

That's three people connected with the case postulating a scenario that appears in your book.

The Necronomicon does not state "that power can be obtained by blood sacrifice that allows the Underworld access to the earth", thank you very much!

We have a rite that requires blood to unleash Tiamat, do we not? And does the Necronomicon not say that "these Cults rejoice in the slow spilling of blood, whereby they derive much power and strength in their Ceremonies" (pp. 213-14)?

You focused on the one case you could actually use that actually mentions the Necronomicon in passing and blew it up into something ... other. So ... what are you saying, Dan? That the Necronomicon actually IS what Lovecraft purported it to be: a work of evil power? You guys want it both ways, it seems to me.

We have two cases, actually. As to "wanting it both ways", we merely recognize different sorts of power - power that comes from ancient tradition, power that works as it should, and power that does not. Our contention is that the Necronomicon has much more of the latter than the other two.

You want to say that the Necronomicon is evil and somehow responsible -- a book, responsible -- for murder. You made that very clear in your book, forget the "let the readers make up their own mind" rhetoric. And then you say I am right when I say it can't be responsible for what some mentally-unbalanced person decides to do with it. Make up your mind. You can't have it both ways. "It's not logical, Captain." In any event, as I stated in Dead Names, there are crimes more hideous and more numerous committed every day by people who believe in the Bible, or the Quran. And there was a crime committed by someone who read John Fowles' "The Collector" ... where does it end, this blaming of books by people who want to remove responsibility from the criminals and put it between the covers of a book they don't like?

If you could point to the quote where the latter point is suggested, I could better respond to it.

As for the rest, let's start with page liv of the Necronomicon. The position below is not my own, but one that logically emerges from your statements:

Persons of unstable mental condition, or unstable emotional condition, should not be allowed, under any circumstances, to observe one of these rituals in progress. That would be criminal, and perhaps even suicidal. One of our colleagues was fearfully attacked by his dog directly following a fairly simple and uncomplicated formula from this book.

This is where the analogy with other books falls apart. If we take your word for it, you knew that the book could have effects that could be serious, even deadly, before it appeared. Every other book you have mentioned in Dead Names became involved in events that the author did not, and in most cases could not, anticipate. You do not have that luxury.

You knew there were risks. You knew that not everyone in the world was emotionally, spiritually, or mentally equipped to handle what was in the book. And you, so far, have had 800,000 copies of the book published and shipped to every chain bookstore in the country, where it was guaranteed to reach some of those people.

If someone accidentally performed a Necronomicon rite in front of the wrong person, that magician would be criminally responsible, according to you, for taking that course of action. In fact, by your own statement, someone could easily be killed in such a situation. Nonetheless, you are completely blameless. After all, it's just a book - well, a book you knew would lead to insanity and death but published anyway, but you can't be held responsible, right?

(End extrapolation here)

I agree - you can't have it both ways. The back cover of Dead Names calls the Necronomicon "the most feared, fascinating, and dangerous book in the history of humankind," but when someone suggests that it might actually be dangerous, it's suddenly comparable to The Lion King. John merely takes what you have stated in the Necronomicon to its logical conclusion.

Dipping back into Dead Names...

To support his theory of a continued "Sumerian tradition," Simon cites the Toda, dwellers in highlands near the Nilgiri river valley in southwest India, as evidence that Sumerian traditions are still maintained today. Most of his information on them, however, is dated and inaccurate.

Simon's first evidence on this front is genetic, noting their lack of sickle cell anemia as proof they came from elsewhere. This is not as surprising as he portrays it. The sickle cell gene, when partially expressed, can lower the severity of malaria. When the highland Toda are compared with nearby lowland tribes in an area prone to mosquito-borne malaria, the difference is striking but hardly proof of Sumerian origins.

Those who read Simon's section on the Toda will note that he never says that recent anthropologists believe in a Toda-Sumerian link. Well, it's because they don't, and neither did the "early anthropologists" he mentions. The link was first proposed by Prince Peter of Greece in 1951. (Simon states that Peter was a contemporary of Blavatsky, when in fact the prince wasn't born until 1908, seventeen years after Blavatsky's death.) It was not a theory maintained for any great period of time, and was quickly rejected.

Simon mentions that the god of the underworld in this place is called On and asks, "who can that be but the Sumerian An or Anu"? Two years after Peter's first paper, M. B. Emeneau, an ethnologist and linguist working with the Toda, published an article in American Anthropologist citing the word's links to several other words in the tongues of neighboring people and discounting any Mesopotamian origin.

Also, there are some parts of this section that are just baffling. Simon mentions that archaeologists state that the stone monuments in the region are not Toda work, being constructed by people who lived in the highlands before the Toda's arrival. Nonetheless, a page later he is discussing the symbolism of the "stone monuments of the Toda" as connected to Sumer.

Likewise, he tells us about a ritual in which cattle are killed with hammers in a stone circle, and that they practiced infanticide by tossing baby girls beneath the hooves of cattle. Apparently this is done to make the Toda seem mysterious, but what any of it has to do with Sumer, aside from the basic notion of sacrificing cattle, is uncertain.

Today, the Toda's links to the Sumerians, as well as all other theories that they are the survivals of some far-off culture, are dismissed as "amateurish speculation" by the Encyclopedia of World Cultures. I'm not certain what sources Simon used for his research, but it is odd that his conclusions are certainly at odds with the people who have studied the culture.

Dipping back into Dead Names...

To support his theory of a continued "Sumerian tradition," Simon cites the Toda, dwellers in highlands near the Nilgiri river valley in southwest India, as evidence that Sumerian traditions are still maintained today. Most of his information on them, however, is dated and inaccurate.

Simon's first evidence on this front is genetic, noting their lack of sickle cell anemia as proof they came from elsewhere. This is not as surprising as he portrays it. The sickle cell gene, when partially expressed, can lower the severity of malaria. When the highland Toda are compared with nearby lowland tribes in an area prone to mosquito-borne malaria, the difference is striking but hardly proof of Sumerian origins.

Those who read Simon's section on the Toda will note that he never says that recent anthropologists believe in a Toda-Sumerian link. Well, it's because they don't, and neither did the "early anthropologists" he mentions. The link was first proposed by Prince Peter of Greece in 1951. (Simon states that Peter was a contemporary of Blavatsky, when in fact the prince wasn't born until 1908, seventeen years after Blavatsky's death.) It was not a theory maintained for any great period of time, and was quickly rejected.

Simon mentions that the god of the underworld in this place is called On and asks, "who can that be but the Sumerian An or Anu"? Two years after Peter's first paper, M. B. Emeneau, an ethnologist and linguist working with the Toda, published an article in American Anthropologist citing the word's links to several other words in the tongues of neighboring people and discounting any Mesopotamian origin.

Also, there are some parts of this section that are just baffling. Simon mentions that archaeologists state that the stone monuments in the region are not Toda work, being constructed by people who lived in the highlands before the Toda's arrival. Nonetheless, a page later he is discussing the symbolism of the "stone monuments of the Toda" as connected to Sumer.

Likewise, he tells us about a ritual in which cattle are killed with hammers in a stone circle, and that they practiced infanticide by tossing baby girls beneath the hooves of cattle. Apparently this is done to make the Toda seem mysterious, but what any of it has to do with Sumer, aside from the basic notion of sacrificing cattle, is uncertain.

Today, the Toda's links to the Sumerians, as well as all other theories that they are the survivals of some far-off culture, are dismissed as "amateurish speculation" by the Encyclopedia of World Cultures. I'm not certain what sources Simon used for his research, but it is odd that his conclusions are certainly at odds with the people who have studied the culture.

Simon is actually very wise to be looking into other religions for the old Sumerian tradition. Its about time that someone start thinking in that direction. My wife is Turkish Muslim and the many simularities and coincidences between the Sumerian tradition and modern day Islam are quite numerous.

As I prepared to call Malah <on the Mexican day of the Dead> whos name is linked with that of Allah I realised a strange coincidence. That day in the Turkish Muslim religion <Descendents of Sumerians> is the day of Saint Hizir. It is believed that if you write your name on a coin and say a prayer making a wish and then if you tie the coin in a red cloth and hang it in a rose bush that the wish will come true.

As I studied this Saint I came across sources given below which say the saint is actually a God that is 3000 years older than Islam. The green man of the Greeks. A water god. The saint travels disguised as an old man with long white beard. The water God? Enki is the water God of course. Not surprising the Sumerian paganism can be found in modern day Islam. After all Marduk is now called Allah by the descendents of the Sumerians. The Elder ones have not left the planet. They continue on in our religions today. This Saint has alot to do with baptism. Read my sources below for more info. Baptised by the water of Enki.

Peace to all.


http://aton.ttu.edu/Hizir.asp
Hizir may well be one of the oldest gods of the Middle East — pre-Moslem, pre­-Christian, pre-Roman, pre-Greek — a vegetation god and a water deity. The Turkish name Hizir is transliterated from the Arabic Al-Kidr, an epithet that means, literally, ‘The Green One’ or “The Green Man.’ (Because of the flexibility of implicit vowels in Arabic, the name appears as Al-Kadr, Al-Kedr, or Al-Kidr. The Jews call him Hudr; the Persians, Kisir; and the Turks, Hizir.) His identity has become obscured by time and by that curious syncretism through which Islam has always appropriated and transmuted elements of surrounding cultures. But in certain contexts, always involving water, the god still puts forth his features sharply and unmistakably.

His presence is most visibly objectified in the long line of shrines that stretches along the Mediterranean coast from Antalya, Turkey, through Syria to the environs of Beirut, Lebanon. Whitewashed stone structures, the larger ones domed and encircled with high steel fencing, they stand at intervals along the shoreline like a system of miniature lighthouses. There is a steady flow of pilgrims to these shrines throughout the year, with the heaviest attendance on July 1, the day on which farmers bring their flocks to be baptized in the sea.

At Arsuz (between Antioch and Iskenderun) 20,000 to 30,000 people participate in this daylong ceremony that climaxes when the salt water turns fresh and everyone wades into the sea, leading approximately a quarter of a million head of livestock. It is an annual fertility rite enacted in high religious fervor. One of our informants who had attended this ceremony at Arsuz testified with solemn oath to the miracle that occurred that day: “By Allah, out there I drank the sea water, and it was as sweet as sherbet.” (By way of parenthesis, it may be observed here that collecting information about rites of this type is usually difficult and often dangerous. Orthodox Islam is strongly opposed to the elevation of Hizir from the role of a saint to that of a god, and thus much of the ritual of the cult has been driven underground, open only to the initiate. Furthermore, many of the larger shrines are controlled by communities of the minority Shi’ite or Alevi sect, which is fiercely pro­tective of the secrecy of

Our own quest for Hizir has been made entirely through the medium of the current oral tradition in Turkey, and the hypotheses we have advanced have been based on data collected during field trips in recent years. There is also evidence in the written tradition, however, that sheds additional light on this elusive figure, evidence collected and ana­lyzed by Israel Friedlander, Ernest Budge, and other scholars.[4] Although Hizir is not named its the Koran, he is universally acknowledged to be the Servant of Allah whose activities are described its Chapter XVIII of that holy book. In the Koran Hizir is shown teaching divine truths to Moses, and he is associated, in what is said by then to be already an old tradition, with the Abu-Hayat, or the Water of Life. H

An equally ancient tradition that associates Hizir with water is his identification with the biblical prophet Elijah. In the Old Testament book of I Kings, as in later Talmudic literature, Elijah is pictured primarily as a rainmaker, and to this day hundreds of Elijah Shrines in the Middle East and in Greece testify to his continuing effectiveness in this capacity.[5] Hizir is the Moslem equivalent of Elijah, but, curiously enough, the Turkish folk mind, influenced here as much by the Jewish as by the Arabic tradition, has refused to allow the image of Elijah to be completely assimilated by that of Hizir. Instead, the two exist side by side as doubles, a situation most noticeable in the naming of the Hizir celebration on May 6. It is always called Hizir-Ilyas Da

Still another tradition that both draws upon and contributes to Hizir lore is the ‘‘Green George” festival in Greece and other Balkan states. In the rites of spring, the vegetation god “Green George” is represented by a young man clad from head to toe in green leaves. After performing a long series of ritual gestures that symbolize planting, harvesting, and procreation, this surrogate for the god is thrown into the water. Identi­fied at a very early date with Saint George, the pagan “Green George” still survives in countless Christian communities. The “Green George’’ festival and the Feast of Saint George are celebrated on the same day, and it is no accident that that day is April 23, time day sacred to Hizir on the older calendar.[6]

No one has yet undertaken a thorough study of Hizir in Turkey — or, more accurately, in Asia Minor, for Hizir preceded the Turks in that part of the world by at least 3,000 years.[7] Our exploratory probings have revealed that there is a tremendous body of Hizir lore and legend and that much of it has deep religious significance for the rural Turks who constitute 75 percent of the country’s population. As we have indicated, Hizir seems to us to be associated in the folk mind with fertility, with the annual renewal of vegetation, and with the seasonal life cycle — all of which are dependent on water, more obviously amid more dramatically so in an arid land. But what are the various forms of sacrifice and ritual practiced by devotees of Hizir? How consciously do modern Turks think of Hizir as the latter-day water god he so clearly is? How do devout Moslems — and most rural Turks are very devout Moslems — rationalize adherence to so primitive a nature cult? These are among the many questions that cannot be answered until considerably more research on the subject has been completed.




http://www.rumi.org.uk/glossary.htm
Khizar, Khizer, Hizir: mysterious saint or prophet, chief minister to Alexander the Great, who discovered the Water of Life. Khazir was a mysterious guide who first appears in Koran XVIII 64 (not named, but identified by the commentators as 'one of Our servants unto whom We had given mercy from Us, and We had taught him knowledge proceeding from Us') as accompanying Moses and doing strange things. The Sufis took him as the exempler of the Shaikh who requires absolute and unquestioning obedience of the disciple

No one has ever as of yet done a thourough study of this ancient Mesopotamian god surviving in the religion of Islam. The Sumerians affected world religion as a whole and continues to do so even today as many of our Biblical myths are actually ancient Sumerian myths. We would be foolish to think that the religion of the Sumerians totally vanished off of the face of the earth because Sumerian paganism is clearly evident even in the ritual of the Christian Church. The bread and wine communion flesh and blood of the Sun God. The Baptism of Enki in salt water. The symbol of the cross as the symbol of the sun. The great grandchildren of the Sumerians live on today. Times may be much different but still remain the same.

We need more scholars like Simon who can help us find links such as this to the old Sumerian tradition in our traditions of today. It is a ground on which perhaps few wish to tread.

The more I learn the more I realise how little I know. The mind must remain open to new ideas. The great thinkers and philosopers are the ones who break outside the box of cloned thinking. We must think differently and try to reach our own conclusions rather than closing our minds and accepting truth as whatever out government or pastor / priest says it to be. A closed mind is clinically dead. Let us be alive in our thoughts and seek truth with an open mind or truth will pass right over our heads and pass into darkness where it will never be seen by our minds again.

This post has been edited by smasher666: May 7 2006, 07:49 PM

Simon is actually very wise to be looking into other religions for the old Sumerian tradition. Its about time that someone start thinking in that direction. My wife is Turkish Muslim and the many simularities and coincidences between the Sumerian tradition and modern day Islam are quite numerous...

We need more scholars like Simon who can help us find links such as this to the old Sumerian tradition in our traditions of today. It is a ground on which perhaps few wish to tread.

That's actually not the case. For decades, scholars have accepted that beliefs from Sumerian times have survived in the Middle East to the present day. Simon's scholarship on the Toda and the Yezidi is actually well behind the curve - in fact, his own writings and readings contain reference to material that make a much better case for that point. He doesn't seem to have followed up on them.

(Sorry, Simon, but I'll let you do the legwork for your next book on this. Others can PM me for details.)

To answer the obvious question, this changes nothing in my attitude. The evidence still suggests that Simon's book is a modern hoax, one which certainly doesn't share any ties to the material I just mentioned or to Lovecraft. We can still be amazed by the cultural survival of Sumerian ideas and beliefs without accepting the Necronomicon as factual.

Simon is actually very wise to be looking into other religions for the old Sumerian tradition. Its about time that someone start thinking in that direction. My wife is Turkish Muslim and the many simularities and coincidences between the Sumerian tradition and modern day Islam are quite numerous...

We need more scholars like Simon who can help us find links such as this to the old Sumerian tradition in our traditions of today. It is a ground on which perhaps few wish to tread.

That's actually not the case. For decades, scholars have accepted that beliefs from Sumerian times have survived in the Middle East to the present day. Simon's scholarship on the Toda and the Yezidi is actually well behind the curve - in fact, his own writings and readings contain reference to material that make a much better case for that point. He doesn't seem to have followed up on them.

(Sorry, Simon, but I'll let you do the legwork for your next book on this. Others can PM me for details.)

To answer the obvious question, this changes nothing in my attitude. The evidence still suggests that Simon's book is a modern hoax, one which certainly doesn't share any ties to the material I just mentioned or to Lovecraft. We can still be amazed by the cultural survival of Sumerian ideas and beliefs without accepting the Necronomicon as factual.

I am confused. Do you admit the survival of Sumerian tradition or are you still saying that is false???

Here is some more on the survival of the Sumerian tradition in Islam the great great grandchildren of the Sumerians. I could give you numerous references from the Bible and the Koran that proves the survival of the Sumerian tradition but I do not want to trivialise something that is Holy.

The angel Marut in the Koran has the same name as Marutukka of the Necronomicon. Harut and Marut seem vaguely like Firik and Pirik. However Firik and Pirik guard knowledge and Harut and Marut gave knowledge to man. My sources are below.

Wikpedia.
Harut is one of two angels mentioned in the Qur'an, who were sent down to deceive the people at Babel. (Sura Al-Baqara, verse 102). He is accompanied by Marut.

According to the Qur'an, some of the angels derided mankind, criticising them and the corruption of their rule. Allah said to them "If you were in their place you would be doing the same thing." (In another tradition is also reported that Allah said to them, "I have given them ten carnal desires, and it is through these they disobey me.") Allah challenged the angels to do better if they are placed in the same condition. They accepted the challenge, saying "O Lord, if you give these carnal desires we would descend and judge with justice." Harut and Marut were chosen and were sent to the city of Babylon. However, they soon fell victim to the same carnal desires experienced by man.

Another tradition holds that Harut and Marut did not deceive the people, they taught the people many sciences they did not know, but warned their students about the temptation that comes with knowledge. Later their teachings were used to practice magic which they did not teach the people. The teachings of these two angels were perverted just as they had warned people of the ill-use of knowledge.



Magick in Arabic is “sihr” and means “to produce illusion on the eyes”. The origin of magick in Arabia is believed to be in Babel. It, supposedly, was revealed there by two angels, “Harut” and “Marut”, who instructed mankind in the art.

Unlike the ancient Egyptians, the use of magick in Arabia was not looked upon kindly. In fact, it was forbidden, and proven practice of the art lead to the death penalty. Those convicted were not allowed to repent.

The Arabs used magick for different purposes, most popular of which was to separate lovers, or on the other hand, to provoke love. “Jinns”, good and evil spirits, were recognized, and played an a role in the Arab practitioner’s “sihr”. They were invoked and commanded to do the magicians bidding or to inspire divination.

With the coming of Islam, some of the negativity surrounding magick was lifted as the Muslim Arabs, began to believe that the use of magickal prayers would counteract the “evil eye” and snake poison.They practiced crystal-gazing, and used the entrails of slaughtered animals to aid them in the prediction of future events. An example of this, is the use of the shoulder-blade of a dead animal to foretell if the year that lies ahead is a good or bad one, they would examine the shoulder-blade and the lines on it caused by the formation of the bone to determine this.

Communication with the dead was also practiced by the Arabs, and was made possible by the use of the “Magic Mirror”. This was a mirror made out of metal or glass with a polished surface, on which the spirit was believed would appear.In spells, the Arabs used names they believed possessed magickal powers. The magician would write the names on parchment paper which he then places in water. This water is believed to cure various ailments. In a love spell, the same process is used, and when the object of one’s desires drinks that water, he or she is immediately smitten with love.

The use of talismans and charms was popular amongst the Arabs. Charms, usually in the form of necklaces were made and worn as protection from danger. To protect the living from the ghost of a victim of murder, the Arabs would “nail down the ghost”. This practise, literally involved the driving of a brand new nail into the spot where the person was killed, thus trapping the ghost.

The Arabs were avid believers in Astrology. In “The Goal of the Sage”, a book on Sorcery, written by “Maslamah” in Madrid in 1008, the author states that the planet Mars, for example, possesses powers of natural attraction for natural science, surgery, toothdrawing, the gall, heat, hatred, bitter tastes and divers other things, Maslamah said “Those who desire the services of the planets should bow down to them and address them by their names in Arabic, Greek or Indian”.

This Islamic magick and the angel Marut is just a tiny shred of evidence from a mountain of evidence that supports the theory that the Sumerian tradition has not vanished and is alive and kicking.

This post has been edited by smasher666: May 8 2006, 07:25 PM

To answer the obvious question, this changes nothing in my attitude. The evidence still suggests that Simon's book is a modern hoax, one which certainly doesn't share any ties to the material I just mentioned or to Lovecraft. We can still be amazed by the cultural survival of Sumerian ideas and beliefs without accepting the Necronomicon as factual.
[/quote]

As to whether or not the Necronomicon is a hoax. It is perhaps to be expected that such a weapon given by the gods to defend this planet only encounter resistance from the evil forces which wish to destroy this planet.

I am far from a scholar but in college I did have the wit to study world mythology and world religion. I also took classes on Sumerian mythology and Sumerian history.

Much of the book of Maklu is recorded in the library of Ninevah from Maklu tablets. The book of Maklu has spells which are almost identical. Pg 86 The exorcism against the possesing spirit is my favorite of these nearly identical spells. In the ancient addition it also has in the spell magick against ulcers and boils.

The Germans <My ancestors.> have done the most research on the Maklu spells. I feel rather unfortunate that I do not know much German but my wife is a linguist and pretty good translator.

As to the Holy Book being a hoax let us contemplate on this. How can truth come from a lie or a lie come from the truth? If the book is a fraud then it should not work. If it is a hoax then its magick should not work. Why then does it work so effectively?

Danharms you remind me a bit of a writer named Konstinonas who wrote a book on psychic vampirism. He knows nothing of Rieki and tells us that he is not vampire of any sort. His book is written in true ignorance as he speaks of something that he has never tried and very obviously does not know anything about.

So then let us determine whether or not it is a rare book of power or if it is a hoax. If you want I can help you get ready for some ritual. You can consider it an experiment. Try the spells and then report to us your findings. It should be a very interesting experiance for you.

This post has been edited by smasher666: May 8 2006, 11:22 PM

I am confused. Do you admit the survival of Sumerian tradition or are you still saying that is false???

I'm not sure I'd agree that there is a single, clearly-defined "Sumerian tradition" that has survived. Plus, I don't think that Simon's book would represent such a tradition.

What we're talking about here is the survival of particular elements of Mesopotamian tradition into more recent times. On that count, you don't have to convince me. I've seen records of people - who, I should add, are not Pagan reconstructionists - calling upon the names of gods of Babylon in the twentieth century. What surprised me about Dead Names is that none of this made it in.

As to whether or not the Necronomicon is a hoax. It is perhaps to be expected that such a weapon given by the gods to defend this planet only encounter resistance from the evil forces which wish to destroy this planet.

I'd like to take this opportunity to state that I am not an evil force wishing to destroy the planet. As the Tick says, that's where I keep all my stuff.

I am far from a scholar but in college I did have the wit to study world mythology and world religion. I also took classes on Sumerian mythology and Sumerian history.

Much of the book of Maklu is recorded in the library of Ninevah from Maklu tablets. The book of Maklu has spells which are almost identical. Pg 86 The exorcism against the possesing spirit is my favorite of these nearly identical spells. In the ancient addition it also has in the spell magick against ulcers and boils.

The Germans <My ancestors.> have done the most research on the Maklu spells. I feel rather unfortunate that I do not know much German but my wife is a linguist and pretty good translator.

As to the Holy Book being a hoax let us contemplate on this. How can truth come from a lie or a lie come from the truth? If the book is a fraud then it should not work. If it is a hoax then its magick should not work. Why then does it work so effectively?

Take one of Newton's equations that describe gravitation. I copy this onto a piece of paper, and then write at the top a tale of how I received this last night in a dream from Merlin, who was riding a bicycle. I hand this to you. Now, you will still be able to solve that equation in the same way as anyone else could. Nonetheless, if you were not familiar with it, your information regarding its origins would be incorrect.

John and I assert that the Necronomicon is a hoax. Now, what makes for a successful hoax is its combination of new material with that of established lore. Lovecraft was not a hoaxer, but he created the legend of the Necronomicon by the same means - placing his imaginary creations in familiar settings and with reference to names with which the reader was already familiar.

You have said that certain tablets from the library of Ninevah correspond to parts of the Necronomicon. I do not argue against that. Yet it does not necessarily follow that this means the Necronomicon is valid. It is also possible, as I assert in The Necronomicon Files, that Simon was able to access the same source and put that material in his own book.

How to get around this? Well, there are two ways. The first is to look for details that must have their origin in recent times. If the manuscript is supposedly ninth century, we should not find details originating in later times within. As we've already seen here regarding Rawlinson, the Necronomicon's gatewalking procedure mirrors the theory of a nineteenth-century scholar of Mesopotamian archaeology instead of Mesopotamian ritual. Another example is the Necronomicon's god "Ninib", which scholars have determined was actually the name of "Ninurta." In these and other cases, the Necronomicon reflects the beliefs of later times rather than those of its supposed origin.

The pro-Necronomicon argument would be more compelling if we could find a discovery about Mesopotamian belief that was anticipated in the text of Simon's book, but not known at the time it was written. I may not be convinced if someone finds such a thing, but that's the sort of evidence that should be sought.

I'm not inclined to work on experiments with the Necronomicon, but I don't see how they would prove anything. If I performed such an experiment and received results, it could also be because of my will, or that this particular segment of the Necronomicon was derived from an authentic incantation. If it did not work, the same principles would still be in effect. In the end, I'd be no wiser regarding the status of the book.

If Simon does return, I'd very much like to know exactly which sources by Michael Witzel of Harvard and Gordon Whittaker are referred to in his book.

If Simon does return, I'd very much like to know exactly which sources by Michael Witzel of Harvard and Gordon Whittaker are referred to in his book.

Doubt he will It is like talking to a brick wall with you. Although I did enjoy your theorys .

This post has been edited by distillate: May 17 2006, 05:52 PM

If Simon does return, I'd very much like to know exactly which sources by Michael Witzel of Harvard and Gordon Whittaker are referred to in his book.

Sorry for my absence of late. I was called out of town due to the death of a friend. I will be back in the saddle a little later on. Bear with me.

Thanks.

Take care, and come back when you're ready.

What other books and sources, Dan? Where has it been expressly and explicitly mentioned that the Necronomicon was itself "singled out for attention" and by whom? The media or the perps themselves? As far as I can tell, the only ones who singled out the Necronomicon for attention were ...you and John.

I refer you back to our book. Page 204:

According to seventeen-year-old Audrey Presson, a friend of Ferrell's at Eustis High School, Ferrell often discussed the Necronomicon with her over the telephone... Psychologist Wade Myers III testified that Ferrell "felt he was able to get powers from this book."

And how might he gain that power? Page 205:

John Goodman, a member of the Vampire Clan, said Ferrell "had become possessed with opening the Gates to Hell, which meant he would have to kill a large number of people in order to consume their souls. By doing this, Ferrell believed he would gain super powers."

Playing catchup here, but has anyone seen a documentary aired last week on MSNBC entitled "Dark Heart/Iron Hand"? It was an hour dedicated to a discussion of the Ferrel case and contained interviews with the prosecutors, defense attorneys, friends, police, Aphrodite Jones, and the Vampire Clan members themselves. Not once does anyone mention or refer to the Necronomicon or anything in it or concerning it. They refer constantly to vampirism, though, in virtually every segment. Ferrel was obsessed with the idea of drinking blood and creating a cult based on drinking each other's blood. No Necronomicon. Now, "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence"; however, how was the Necronomicon angle missed if it was truly as important or as central as Dan seems to think it is (or insists that it is, only to prove his point that somehow the Necronomicon was involved or responsible for these crimes)?

And I submit that the Necronomicon does not speak of opening the "Gates to Hell". As anyone knows who reads the book, works with the system ... there are no "Gates to Hell" in the Necronomicon. There are Gates, no question. But the Judeao-Christian idea of "Hell" is rather far removed from the mindset of the Necronomicon.


quote]The Necronomicon does not state "that power can be obtained by blood sacrifice that allows the Underworld access to the earth", thank you very much!

We have a rite that requires blood to unleash Tiamat, do we not? And does the Necronomicon not say that "these Cults rejoice in the slow spilling of blood, whereby they derive much power and strength in their Ceremonies" (pp. 213-14)?

Once again -- as I point out in Dead Names -- that quote (out of context) refers to the abhorred practices of an enemy cult which the Necronomicon attacks! You might as well say that the Biblical references to Sodom and Gomorrah are used to inspire acts of sexual licentiousness, or something. The Necronomicon is clear in its antagonism to these cults and their practices.

You focused on the one case you could actually use that actually mentions the Necronomicon in passing and blew it up into something ... other. So ... what are you saying, Dan? That the Necronomicon actually IS what Lovecraft purported it to be: a work of evil power? You guys want it both ways, it seems to me.

We have two cases, actually.

What other case? Where is the documentation?

As to "wanting it both ways", we merely recognize different sorts of power - power that comes from ancient tradition, power that works as it should, and power that does not. Our contention is that the Necronomicon has much more of the latter than the other two.

You want to say that the Necronomicon is evil and somehow responsible -- a book, responsible -- for murder. You made that very clear in your book, forget the "let the readers make up their own mind" rhetoric. And then you say I am right when I say it can't be responsible for what some mentally-unbalanced person decides to do with it. Make up your mind. You can't have it both ways. "It's not logical, Captain." In any event, as I stated in Dead Names, there are crimes more hideous and more numerous committed every day by people who believe in the Bible, or the Quran. And there was a crime committed by someone who read John Fowles' "The Collector" ... where does it end, this blaming of books by people who want to remove responsibility from the criminals and put it between the covers of a book they don't like?

If you could point to the quote where the latter point is suggested, I could better respond to it.

Clarify that, please. What point? I lost the thread somehow.


As for the rest, let's start with page liv of the Necronomicon. The position below is not my own, but one that logically emerges from your statements:

Persons of unstable mental condition, or unstable emotional condition, should not be allowed, under any circumstances, to observe one of these rituals in progress. That would be criminal, and perhaps even suicidal. One of our colleagues was fearfully attacked by his dog directly following a fairly simple and uncomplicated formula from this book.

This is where the analogy with other books falls apart. If we take your word for it, you knew that the book could have effects that could be serious, even deadly, before it appeared. Every other book you have mentioned in Dead Names became involved in events that the author did not, and in most cases could not, anticipate. You do not have that luxury.

You knew there were risks. You knew that not everyone in the world was emotionally, spiritually, or mentally equipped to handle what was in the book. And you, so far, have had 800,000 copies of the book published and shipped to every chain bookstore in the country, where it was guaranteed to reach some of those people.

If someone accidentally performed a Necronomicon rite in front of the wrong person, that magician would be criminally responsible, according to you, for taking that course of action. In fact, by your own statement, someone could easily be killed in such a situation. Nonetheless, you are completely blameless. After all, it's just a book - well, a book you knew would lead to insanity and death but published anyway, but you can't be held responsible, right?

(End extrapolation here)

Again, like the Bible (which has been used far more often to kill and maim) or the Qu'ran (same thing). The difference is, my book comes with a warning. Theirs do not. Plus, the other grimoires and workbooks of magicians are also dangerous. Crowley, Mathers, Levi and so many others warn neophytes about their respective systems and translations of systems, and sell just as many (if not many more) books. Singling out the Necronomicon for this kind of criticism is just grandstanding on your part; you and Gonce were trying to make money on the coattails of the Necronomicon, so what does that make you?

If Simon does return, I'd very much like to know exactly which sources by Michael Witzel of Harvard and Gordon Whittaker are referred to in his book.

For some examples:

Whittaker: "Euphratic: An Indo-European Answer to the Sumerian Question?" Paper presented Feb 28, 2005 at UC Berkeley, among others. Please also see comunications between Whittaker (at the University of Goettingen) with various other anthropologists and philologists over the past several years on this topic.

Witzel: "Aryan and non-Aryan Names in Vedic India. Data for the linguistic situation, c. 1900-500 B.C." among others.

The pro-Necronomicon argument would be more compelling if we could find a discovery about Mesopotamian belief that was anticipated in the text of Simon's book, but not known at the time it was written. I may not be convinced if someone finds such a thing, but that's the sort of evidence that should be sought.

With a continuing war in Iraq and the disappearance and destruction of many Sumerian and Babylonian artifacts and cuneiform texts from its museums and archaeological sites, we aren't bloody likely to see many more discoveries about Mesopotamian beliefs in the near future. (unpaid political announcement!)

I understand your refusal to accept the Necronomicon as anything other than a hoax, Dan. Why not? It's obvously the easy way out on this subject. It's your scattershot approach to both the text itself and to Dead Names that leaves me unimpressed. Your views on the Toda are not exactly representative of all contemporary research in the field, and quoting the Encyclopedia of World Cultures is not exactly the same as quoting primary sources. As I admit quite clearly in Dead Names, this is a controversial area of study. There simply is no universally-held point of view about the Toda, and study of this fascinating and anomalous tribe is still ongoing ... even as the tribe is dying out. Your approach seems to be, though, to latch onto a phrase here or there and build an entire critical theory out of it. We don't have the definitive answer on the Toda, or on the Sumerian tradition, yet. There are still people who refuse to accept the Diffusionist position on the population of the early Americas, for instance; I imagine you are one of these, still clinging to the belief that all Native Americans are descendants of the so-called Clovis people who walked over the ice bridge, in spite of all the evidence now coming to light that supports the contrary position, that America was visited by, and inhabited by, peoples from all over the world including Europe and North Africa and Asia, in addition to whomever may have wandered down from the Bering Straits. I mention this only as an example of the state of archaeological and anthropological science in the present day: contentious, argumentative, partisan. How can we rely on what we find in something called the "Encyclopedia of World Cultures", then?

There is a lot of new evidence coming to light concerning the "Aryan Invasion Theory", for instance, which does tend to prove some of the statements made both in my Introduction to the Necronomicon and in Dead Names, information that was not available at the time the Necronomicon was published. And there is more on the way, as my research as shown and will show and as anyone else can find out if they look hard enough.

Playing catchup here, but has anyone seen a documentary aired last week on MSNBC entitled "Dark Heart/Iron Hand"? It was an hour dedicated to a discussion of the Ferrel case and contained interviews with the prosecutors, defense attorneys, friends, police, Aphrodite Jones, and the Vampire Clan members themselves. Not once does anyone mention or refer to the Necronomicon or anything in it or concerning it. They refer constantly to vampirism, though, in virtually every segment. Ferrel was obsessed with the idea of drinking blood and creating a cult based on drinking each other's blood. No Necronomicon. Now, "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence"; however, how was the Necronomicon angle missed if it was truly as important or as central as Dan seems to think it is (or insists that it is, only to prove his point that somehow the Necronomicon was involved or responsible for these crimes)?

It's a documentary, with the goal of telling a particular story about these events. There's any number of reasons why they wouldn't discuss it, so I won't care to speculate upon their reasons.

And I submit that the Necronomicon does not speak of opening the "Gates to Hell". As anyone knows who reads the book, works with the system ... there are no "Gates to Hell" in the Necronomicon. There are Gates, no question. But the Judeao-Christian idea of "Hell" is rather far removed from the mindset of the Necronomicon.

Well, it does include that underground abyssal area populated with demons and the unhappy dead. I think people not up on their Mesopotamian theology could be excused for thinking of it as "Hell."

Once again -- as I point out in Dead Names -- that quote (out of context) refers to the abhorred practices of an enemy cult which the Necronomicon attacks! You might as well say that the Biblical references to Sodom and Gomorrah are used to inspire acts of sexual licentiousness, or something. The Necronomicon is clear in its antagonism to these cults and their practices.

That's assuming we take the book's statement at face value. From the context, it claims to be working against these beings - then it gives you details on how to make a blood sacrifice to them. It's a classic literary technique - use a quote from another person or group to express ideas or techniques that one would be censured for discussing oneself. Surely that's a valid interpretation of the text.

What other case? Where is the documentation?

Necronomicon Files, pp. 206-208.

Again, like the Bible (which has been used far more often to kill and maim) or the Qu'ran (same thing). The difference is, my book comes with a warning. Theirs do not. Plus, the other grimoires and workbooks of magicians are also dangerous. Crowley, Mathers, Levi and so many others warn neophytes about their respective systems and translations of systems, and sell just as many (if not many more) books. Singling out the Necronomicon for this kind of criticism is just grandstanding on your part; you and Gonce were trying to make money on the coattails of the Necronomicon, so what does that make you?

You've just made my point for me. All of those books existed before the Necronomicon, and their effects on others, if any (I'm not convinced on the grimoires), have been topics of conversation for decades. By your own statements, you believe that the Necronomiconis a potentially more powerful work than these. History taught you that such writings could lead to dire consequences, that any sort of "warning" would be ignored or seen as an invitation to further experimentation. Yet you published the Necronomicon in mass market paperback format, afterward turning around and blaming the reader entirely if anything went amiss.

In singling out the Necronomicon, we are merely following your own example.

If John and I were trying to make money off a book, we wouldn't have written one on the Necronomicon, and especially not one debunking it. We found the topic fascinating, and we thought there were misrepresentations being made about Lovecraft and his work that needed to be cleared up. I'd have made more than my total income so far by getting a part-time job at McDonald's for a year, and done less work in the bargain. We certainly haven't made anything close to what the Necronomicon has - I'm speculating, based on your circulation figures, that the total royalties over the years approach or exceed six figures...

This post has been edited by Danharms: May 21 2006, 08:32 PM

With a continuing war in Iraq and the disappearance and destruction of many Sumerian and Babylonian artifacts and cuneiform texts from its museums and archaeological sites, we aren't bloody likely to see many more discoveries about Mesopotamian beliefs in the near future. (unpaid political announcement!)

It is a shame. Nonetheless, there's a great amount of material that lies untranslated in museums, archives and private collections. Perhaps the Middle Eastern situation will turn attention to these sources.

I understand your refusal to accept the Necronomicon as anything other than a hoax, Dan. Why not? It's obvously the easy way out on this subject. It's your scattershot approach to both the text itself and to Dead Names that leaves me unimpressed. Your views on the Toda are not exactly representative of all contemporary research in the field, and quoting the Encyclopedia of World Cultures is not exactly the same as quoting primary sources. As I admit quite clearly in Dead Names, this is a controversial area of study. There simply is no universally-held point of view about the Toda, and study of this fascinating and anomalous tribe is still ongoing ... even as the tribe is dying out. Your approach seems to be, though, to latch onto a phrase here or there and build an entire critical theory out of it. We don't have the definitive answer on the Toda, or on the Sumerian tradition, yet. There are still people who refuse to accept the Diffusionist position on the population of the early Americas, for instance; I imagine you are one of these, still clinging to the belief that all Native Americans are descendants of the so-called Clovis people who walked over the ice bridge, in spite of all the evidence now coming to light that supports the contrary position, that America was visited by, and inhabited by, peoples from all over the world including Europe and North Africa and Asia, in addition to whomever may have wandered down from the Bering Straits. I mention this only as an example of the state of archaeological and anthropological science in the present day: contentious, argumentative, partisan. How can we rely on what we find in something called the "Encyclopedia of World Cultures", then?

I chose the Encyclopedia of World Cultures because, as a reference work, it is more likely to represent the general consensus in the field. Other sources I also consulted that verified this position included the Emeneau paper already cited, Paul Hocking's Blue Mountains Revisited, and Anthony Walker's The Toda of South India: A New Look. If you'd like, I can track those down again - keeping too many books around here gets confusing.

While double-checking those last two references, however, I did run across this intriguing piece by Anthony Walker from 2004:

http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2105/sto...12000206600.htm

In it, he denies a number of assertions about the Toda made in a tourist site article(http://www.indiaprofile.com/lifestyle/todas.htm). Here are some of his points:

* The Toda originated in India;
* They do not have a physical type distinguishable from their neighbors;
* Their language diverged from Tamil-Malaysian in the 3rd century BC;
* They consider the moon neither a god nor male;
* They have not practiced female infanticide in over a century, and never tossed babies beneath the hooves of cattle;
* Cattle sacrifices are rarer today, and young men do not leap into the herd and beat animals to death with hammers, and there is certainly no competition to see who could kill the most; and
* The Toda population, though low, is not "dying out", and has actually seen a considerable rebound in the last half century.

All of these, of course, contradict what is said in Dead Names. Combined with what I've already said, this could indicate that the bulk of the information therein on the Toda might be inaccurate.

Based on this discovery, I'd be very interested in hearing exactly what sources were used for the section on the Toda. Name them, and I'll get them. I have a master's in anthropology, so I'm qualified to evaluate them. At this point, it's your word, and that of an Indian tourist site, against that of a social anthropologist who's worked with the Toda for over four decades.

Playing catchup here, but has anyone seen a documentary aired last week on MSNBC entitled "Dark Heart/Iron Hand"? It was an hour dedicated to a discussion of the Ferrel case and contained interviews with the prosecutors, defense attorneys, friends, police, Aphrodite Jones, and the Vampire Clan members themselves. Not once does anyone mention or refer to the Necronomicon or anything in it or concerning it. They refer constantly to vampirism, though, in virtually every segment. Ferrel was obsessed with the idea of drinking blood and creating a cult based on drinking each other's blood. No Necronomicon. Now, "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence"; however, how was the Necronomicon angle missed if it was truly as important or as central as Dan seems to think it is (or insists that it is, only to prove his point that somehow the Necronomicon was involved or responsible for these crimes)?

It's a documentary, with the goal of telling a particular story about these events. There's any number of reasons why they wouldn't discuss it, so I won't care to speculate upon their reasons.

In other words, you only like the sources that support your theories. What reasons could they possibly have for not mentioning the Necronomicon if it was as central an issue as you claim it to be? It obviously was not. Other documentaries on other cults have not hesitated to mention the Satanic Bible of Anton LaVey, for instance. Yet, the Necronomicon is rarely, if ever, cited in this type of context.

And I submit that the Necronomicon does not speak of opening the "Gates to Hell". As anyone knows who reads the book, works with the system ... there are no "Gates to Hell" in the Necronomicon. There are Gates, no question. But the Judeao-Christian idea of "Hell" is rather far removed from the mindset of the Necronomicon.

Well, it does include that underground abyssal area populated with demons and the unhappy dead. I think people not up on their Mesopotamian theology could be excused for thinking of it as "Hell."

It would require actual attention to the text.

Once again -- as I point out in Dead Names -- that quote (out of context) refers to the abhorred practices of an enemy cult which the Necronomicon attacks! You might as well say that the Biblical references to Sodom and Gomorrah are used to inspire acts of sexual licentiousness, or something. The Necronomicon is clear in its antagonism to these cults and their practices.

That's assuming we take the book's statement at face value. From the context, it claims to be working against these beings - then it gives you details on how to make a blood sacrifice to them. It's a classic literary technique - use a quote from another person or group to express ideas or techniques that one would be censured for discussing oneself. Surely that's a valid interpretation of the text.

I see. The type of "classic literary technique" used in the Bible in discussions of demons, or Pharisees and Sadducees, or the Witch of Endor, for instance?

What other case? Where is the documentation?

Necronomicon Files, pp. 206-208.

That was that guy who had a copy in his library? Another weak case.

Again, like the Bible (which has been used far more often to kill and maim) or the Qu'ran (same thing). The difference is, my book comes with a warning. Theirs do not. Plus, the other grimoires and workbooks of magicians are also dangerous. Crowley, Mathers, Levi and so many others warn neophytes about their respective systems and translations of systems, and sell just as many (if not many more) books. Singling out the Necronomicon for this kind of criticism is just grandstanding on your part; you and Gonce were trying to make money on the coattails of the Necronomicon, so what does that make you?

You've just made my point for me. All of those books existed before the Necronomicon, and their effects on others, if any (I'm not convinced on the grimoires), have been topics of conversation for decades. By your own statements, you believe that the Necronomiconis a potentially more powerful work than these. History taught you that such writings could lead to dire consequences, that any sort of "warning" would be ignored or seen as an invitation to further experimentation. Yet you published the Necronomicon in mass market paperback format, afterward turning around and blaming the reader entirely if anything went amiss.

So, what you're saying is that this manuscript should have been buried, deep-sixed, and not allowed to see the light of day lest it go the way of the Bible and the Qu'ran? Should the same have been done with the Anarchist Cookbook? What are your views on censorship, Dan?

In singling out the Necronomicon, we are merely following your own example.

Don't get the connection, but okay.

If John and I were trying to make money off a book, we wouldn't have written one on the Necronomicon, and especially not one debunking it. We found the topic fascinating, and we thought there were misrepresentations being made about Lovecraft and his work that needed to be cleared up. I'd have made more than my total income so far by getting a part-time job at McDonald's for a year, and done less work in the bargain. We certainly haven't made anything close to what the Necronomicon has - I'm speculating, based on your circulation figures, that the total royalties over the years approach or exceed six figures...

The lack of revenue on The Necronomicon Files is not due, I submit, to your idealistic zeal or scholarly ... what? integrity or umbrage? ... but to the mere fact that the book did not sell. How many times have I heard from authors that their books did not sell because they were too good for the market, or were written for too small an audience, or they didn't really want it to sell, etc. If I had a nickel for every time an author has said that in my presence, my income would "approach or exceed six figures"! No, Dan, don't make your book's relative lack of success a red badge of courage, or something. It was a hatchet job, and seen as a hatchet job, rather than a sober attempt to understand, define, or even debunk the Necronomicon. You committed the cardinal sin of scholarship: beginning with a preconceived notion and making your evidence fit the theory rather than the other way around. If you have a master's in anthropology then you understand what I am saying.

Wow, first off. There's no way I'd be able to read this whole posting in one night without my eyeballs glueing to the screen. But, I read the most important one...the first one. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) Thank you Simon for this new book! It's always a pleasure to have a new occult book brought to us. I'm looking forward to reading it! I've read the Necronomicon, but I'd like to read other interpretations of it.

Book reviews on Simons new book on Amazon.com

3 of 10 people found the following review helpful:
Clearly Biased Review, March 29, 2006
Reviewer: D. Harms - See all my reviews
After twenty-five years, Simon re-emerges with a new work on the Necronomicon.
The first section deals with the supposed history behind the Simon Necronomicon's appearance. Is it true? Perhaps, though I doubt Simon was really the model for Corso in THE NINTH GATE. Is it entertaining? Definitely.
The second is an argument in favor of the Necronomicon's existence, which critiques its critics, including our book, THE NECRONOMICON FILES. I'd recommend that readers double-check what Simon says against other sources as much as possible. I've already found one talking point that originates in a roleplaying game, and another where the source Simon cites contradicts what he wrote. Even by occult trade paperback standards, the factual content is unimpressive.
On a personal note, we are disappointed in Simon's showing, and are seriously considering whether he'll remain our literary arch-nemesis. It's like he just doesn't care.

7 of 8 people found the following review helpful:
What book did they read?, April 12, 2006
Reviewer: sloan - See all my reviews
I've read the book, and I can't believe the other reviewers read the same book I did.
Okay I can understand that Harms would be upset by the book, since it completely demolishes the book he did with Gonce where the Simon Necronomicon is concerned. He shows up their sloppy sophomorish scholarship, which was refreshing since Harms and Gonce were so smug and condescending. The reviewer who calls him/herself doms goals, though, is another matter. I don't agree that Simon should have written a book about how other people have used the Necronomicon. That's not really interesting. That kind of thing is so subjective and unverifiable and anyway you can find it all over the place on the Net so what's the point? By publishing the story behind the book Simon did all of us a service. He gave us a weapon to use whenever some other smug Harms-and-Gonce type comes our way and tells us the Simon Necronomicon is a fake. We can point to the newspaper articles and the documents and all the facts in there and challenge the naysayers. I can understand Harms being angry, he was bitch-slapped by Simon in this book. But doms goals? The remark that Simon needed money so he wrote a book is just stupid. All writers write because they need money. I mean Stephen King doesn't write for the Red Cross, right? He writes for his bank account. And no one complains. But all the other reviews by doms goals have been about S&M. What's that all about? Maybe he/she secretly wishes he/she was bitch-slapped, too? Read the book for yourselves. Make up your own mind. Dead Names rocks!

I also read your buddies S&M reviews on Amazon.com. Personally I fail to see what can be fun about having someone beat the crap out of you. I have Smashed many faces in my time but I have never beat the crap out of someone and see them enjoy it. I guess its a free country though. I am free to enjoy the Necronomicon and you guys are free to do whatever it is you enjoy. Maybe you guys can write a book about that?

My review.
Excellent book. This book gives great wieght towards the validity of the Necronomicons origin.
I was quite amused at Simons witicism in replying to the attacks of doubting Thomas Danharms etc.
I was quite surprised to see Simon saying the exact same things word for word which I have been preaching to disciples for a long time. From warrior priest to saving the planet Simon makes it very clear that he is a champion of the light. It is very evident where Simons heart is.
He has been recluse for years but not surprising behavior for a priest or Monk to live as a Hermit in search of the light.
In the later chapters the master sage gives gems of wisdom for the would be priest.
Simon tells us little about himself but what he says paints a picture of a man very concerned about mankind and our planet.

It appears Dan that the majority of the people who read your review find it distasteful. It also appears that judging by your rating on this forum that almost everyone here also finds your reviews distasteful. In comparision Simon has one of the highest ratings on this forum. I wonder of the psychological basis of your attacks. Is it that you were deeply disturbed by the Necronomicon or is it that because you dislike yourself it makes you feel better about yourself to attack someone who has been more successful than you? At least for me it is better to try and do something healing or creative than to do something full of gloom doom and destruction. Look at it this way. In a million years who is gonna give a shit? Don't waste your life being a cynic. It would be better to compose a work good enough for other to be cynical about. Talking to you is like talking to a viper whose words are full of venom. You seem to think that you are wise and everyone else is a fool. You are blinded by pride and self glory. I do not like to argue. So I am not going to argue with you. However regardless of whatever you say or believe as I have clearly pointed out for you the Sumerian tradition still exists in modern religion. As long as I have breathe you can rest assured that the Sumerian Gods will continue to be worshiped. So call me the king of fools if so you deem me. Sometimes those who claim to be wise men are actually fools. Sometimes those who claim to be fools are actually wise. Let us depart from pride and be humbled by the wisdom of the supreme being. To God be the glory. For it is what is in his plan and not in our plans that will come to pass. If lord Marduk-Yahweh-Jehovah-Zeus-Allah-Shiva had not wanted the Necronomicon to be printed it would not be in print. If the supreme god had frowned upon the printing it would not be approaching 1 million purchases. Regardless of whatever we mortals think the supreme god keeps a close eye on Prophets and Holy Books. If it were not in the masters plan what has come to pass would never have entered the picture. As terrorists and our own imbicile government threaten to destroy the world in a future near you I prepare to sleep knowing that Malah will never abandon us. Malah-Marduk-Allah. Nor will I ever abandon him. Good night.

This post has been edited by smasher666: May 23 2006, 01:30 AM

In it, he denies a number of assertions about the Toda made in a tourist site article(http://www.indiaprofile.com/lifestyle/todas.htm). Here are some of his points:

* The Toda originated in India;
* They do not have a physical type distinguishable from their neighbors;
* Their language diverged from Tamil-Malaysian in the 3rd century BC;
* They consider the moon neither a god nor male;
* They have not practiced female infanticide in over a century, and never tossed babies beneath the hooves of cattle;
* Cattle sacrifices are rarer today, and young men do not leap into the herd and beat animals to death with hammers, and there is certainly no competition to see who could kill the most; and
* The Toda population, though low, is not "dying out", and has actually seen a considerable rebound in the last half century.

All of these, of course, contradict what is said in Dead Names. Combined with what I've already said, this could indicate that the bulk of the information therein on the Toda might be inaccurate.

Based on this discovery, I'd be very interested in hearing exactly what sources were used for the section on the Toda. Name them, and I'll get them. I have a master's in anthropology, so I'm qualified to evaluate them. At this point, it's your word, and that of an Indian tourist site, against that of a social anthropologist who's worked with the Toda for over four decades.
[/quote]

Ah, the Toda. Sometimes referred to as "Dodha" in Indian publications and on Indian sites. And, ah, Anthony Walker and the whole school of social anthropology.

I also have a background (at the master's level) in anthropology and religious studies. We both know how ambiguous is this "science" and how partisan it has become. If you like, I can trade the same references with you -- Tyler, Frazier, Eliade, Levi-Strauss, Durkheim, Malinowski, Geertz, Douglas, Evans-Pritchard, et al -- until the cows (or, in this case, the buffaloes) come home. We know how Margaret Meade found one set of "facts" in Samoa, which were later criticized by another anthropologist decades later; or even how some anthropologists return to a site after an absence of ten years only to realize that what they thought they knew, they didn't (due to poor relationships with the local people, language and translation difficulties, being of the wrong sex, wrong religion, wrong age, etc etc). The observer changes the event observed, especially (as is now realized) in anthropology and ethnography.

That being said, my sources on the Toda are many and varied. My interest in them began with a reference in a work by Octavio Paz, the Nobel-Prize-winning Ambassador of Mexico to India who spent many years there and understood the controversy over the Toda but was disinclined to reject the Sumerian hypothesis out of hand. After that, I read the ideas of Prince Peter (who was commenting on the Toda decades after Emenau's sojourn there in the 1930s) and the admittedly dubious concepts of Mme Blavatsky, and began then to contact friends and associates from India -- among them persons working to improve the lot of the "indigenous peoples" in general -- and including a trip to India myself in the late 1990s, beginning in Mumbai. The Todas are convinced that their origins are ancient, and that their liturgical language is a survival of a time when "the whole world was Toda"; at least, that was how it was expressed to me. We may credit Walker's implication that the Toda have romanticized themselves to a great extent in order to attract the attention of the world and improve tourism, but as any traveler to India can tell you very few Europeans or Americans are intrepid enough to have made the trip to the Nilgiri Hills unless they had an ulterior motive, such as "social anthropology". In fact, I have known American tourists to India who never got further than the airport in Delhi or Mumbai ... they turned right around and took the next flight out!

It is not my intention to discredit your or any degree in anthropology, but generally-speaking I am rather contemptuous of what has happened to the field. Anthropology, like sociology and psychology, pretends to be a "hard science" in order to claim the same academic and scholarly prestige as, say, particle physics. In order to do this, anthropologists and sociologists and psychologists have reduced their study as much as possible to mathematics and statistics, since these are the linguae francae of science. They refuse to take a universalist or reductionist approach to their fields, and instead insist that each social group be studied without reference to any other, an-sich , and these studies are then neatly bound and placed on a reference shelf somewhere to gather dust. While I much prefer the approach of an Eliade, for instance, to the field -- and sympathize with his contempt for modern anthropology -- I realize that the intent to perfect their science is laudable. I just simply do not accept that their approach is the right one; at least, they should admit up front that the results of their work are largely subjective and seen through the eyes of a foreigner with no common culture, language, or religion with the group being studied and that, indeed, their informants may have been (a) playing tricks on them; or (b) thinking that their deeper mysteries are not for the outsiders; or © the wrong informants from the start with regard to the information being sought. Prof Tyler's objections to Walker's work may indicate a general dissatisfaction with the approach: how do you begin to study a foreign -- especially an ancient -- culture from a privileged position of an outsider? What relationship does language have to truth, in an existential sense if nothing else? What is the relationship between sign and signed?

I'm going to stop now before I start quoting Derrida! To paraphrase Goering, when I hear the word "anthropology" I reach for my revolver. I will try to answer your objections more specifically in a later posting.