Klaus Dona: Artifacts of unknown civilizations

[Shijing]

Hi AI --

Shijing, as a linguist, I'm wondering what you think of the following....Have you come across this before?

I have never come across Schildmann, but I did a little digging.  It looks like his research has been glommed onto by more than one New Age crank, and it's interesting that he isn't even listed on Amazon.  The good news is that he shows up in my university library database, and I was able to find a couple of reviews of the book that he co-authored on the Indus script (which means he is taken seriously in the academic community) -- he appears to have been a Sumerologist for most of his publishing career.  Even better news is that my library owns a copy of his most recent book (the one that seems to be referenced by Klaus Dona), so I will pick it up in the next couple of days since I have to go to the library anyway to get a book from interlibrary loan.

With the little bit of data that I have right now, I can't say anything definitive, but I'll report back here once I take a look at his book.  Thanks for digging up the references above, and I hope this will lead to something interesting.

Edit: I merged this with the Klaus Dona thread

[Iconoclast]

wow, thank you Pashalis for bringing klaus dona to my attention.
i live in vienna and i can't believe i've never heard of him.

the slideshow presentation was especially good.
and i like his somewhat neutral demeanor - the camelot team tried to coax some sensationalistic speculation from him, but he stayed neutral.

the image that's stuck in my mind is the spiral with the pyramid in the center. i'd never seen those two powerful symbols combined like that.

[Laura]

 The good news is that he shows up in my university library database, and I was able to find a couple of reviews of the book that he co-authored on the Indus script (which means he is taken seriously in the academic community) -- he appears to have been a Sumerologist for most of his publishing career.  Even better news is that my library owns a copy of his most recent book (the one that seems to be referenced by Klaus Dona), so I will pick it up in the next couple of days since I have to go to the library anyway to get a book from interlibrary loan.

With the little bit of data that I have right now, I can't say anything definitive, but I'll report back here once I take a look at his book.  Thanks for digging up the references above, and I hope this will lead to something interesting.

Don't forget to scan and send it to me! 

[Stevie Argyll]

I watched a documentary recently on old African tribes and one tribe practiced skull elongation by tying bands around childrens skulls while bone was still forming and gradually forcing upward. No explanation given as to why just a suggestion that it was triabl beauty. Other tribes had lip plates inserted leading to  very large flappy lips and others again had very elongated necks supported by neck rings. 

I have never heard of the finds of 8ft skeletons though, thats a new one on me.

[Pashalis]

Quote: Stevie Argyll

I watched a documentary recently on old African tribes and one tribe practiced skull elongation by tying bands around childrens skulls while bone was still forming and gradually forcing upward.

Yes this is a well-known phenomenon, and scientists say it was olso practiced in old Egypt. But some of the skulles showed in the Slide Show as he sayes,it is hard to say that they are deformed because the bone mass of them is  sometimes twice as much, and this does not happen when you deform a skull, the bone mass remains constant.
And some skalls are extended to the back and not upwared, as he sayes that is also Impossible to deform a skull that way, the child would die.
And some skulles also show not the same skullcap structure as Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

[Laura]

I would like to see some books with images and references about these giants.  I've got some in a few books, but most often, the references are very hard to get, out of print, whatever.  

The thing about this that drives me nuts is that I've spent literally years reading the mainstream material alternating with the alternative material, and there simply is no reconciling the two.  The mainstream material, guided by the overarching BELIEF in evolution, finding "missing links", ignoring catastrophes and events that could make dating impossible by standard means, is so careful, so well-done, so professional, so measured... you just wish these people would be open to looking at all the other stuff!  But they can't or won't.   They don't even look at it.  If they find anything like that in their own digs, they destroy it deliberately or cover it back up.  There is something very, very sick about the mainstream approach to science - both soft and hard sciences - and it reflects in the society itself.

It makes me want to cry to think about all the truth that has been destroyed to serve wishful thinking, how our history has been stolen from us, and how we have no way of plotting our course for the future without really knowing where we've been.

[Laura]

See my little article about the skulls from quite a few years ago:

http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/monster.htm

[Ljubica]

Thanks Pashalis for the link and the thread.

Kalus Dona made impressive list of puzzling artifacts including Lydite stone artifacts, impossible to copy with our technology.

I found link to Klaus Dona's PDF: The Hidden History of the Human Race with nice high resolution pictures of many artifacts mentioned in exoplotitik video:

http://projectavalon.net/lang/en/Klaus_Dona_The_Hidden_History_of_the_Human_Race_Feb_2010.pdf

from the page:

http://projectavalon.net/lang/en/klaus_dona_2_interview_transcript_en.html

Attached photo of the skull without 3rd bone plate, would like to know DNA of that one. And if you noticed stone flutes, the vibration of the sound of these stone flutes is exactly the same as our brainwaves, amazing.

[Pashalis]

Quote: Laura :

I would like to see some books with images and references about these giants.  I've got some in a few books, but most often, the references are very hard to get, out of print, whatever.

I have no books that come to my mind right now, but I think the first two photos where Klaus Dona say that they are defenetly real, are on the same location where he sayes that there are three other Skellets under the  earth(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7ImmyCXGJw). He sayes that he will try to get a permission to dig there.
He could have good references to this Photos.
maybe you try to get in contact with him?
He could olso have more information with references for you on this, and other real interesting stuff.

The thing about this that drives me nuts is that I've spent literally years reading the mainstream material alternating with the alternative material, and there simply is no reconciling the two.  The mainstream material, guided by the overarching BELIEF in evolution, finding "missing links", ignoring catastrophes and events that could make dating impossible by standard means, is so careful, so well-done, so professional, so measured... you just wish these people would be open to looking at all the other stuff!  But they can't or won't.   They don't even look at it.  If they find anything like that in their own digs, they destroy it deliberately or cover it back up.  There is something very, very sick about the mainstream approach to science - both soft and hard sciences - and it reflects in the society itself.

What would happen when a scientist who is not on everybodys eyes or has no good standing in the official science, tell about this thing, that this is real that he has the proof?
He would be immediately attacked from all sites, and would probably fired. And who would give this "crazy" guy work again? That's one very big problem in science.

And the history has showed this behaviour again and again. And frequently this people who were "crazy" had right.
So why do they act even today the same, when the past has showed again and again that many of this so called "crazy" people were right?

[Pashalis]

I made a mistake

....And not uncommonly this people who were "crazy" had right.

It should be :....And frequently this people who were "crazy" had right.

please can somebody fix this !

[Jerry]

I made a mistake

....And not uncommonly this people who were "crazy" had right.

It should be :....And frequently this people who were "crazy" had right.

please can somebody fix this !

Hi Pashalis,

Go to the post and press "modify." A window will open with your post for editing. You can review it again then press "save."

[Shijing]

Don't forget to scan and send it to me!  

Sure thing -- I don't own a scanner, but I have a friend who does and I'm going to ask about borrowing it.  I actually picked up the book (Maya Transition Epigraphic Dictionary: connections to old world languages) today, and it is basically a list of Sumerian-Mayan comparisons, where the author argues that the Sumerian was loaned into Mayan.  It's not really what Dona seems to have been talking about, but I'm going to request his earlier co-authored book, The inscriptions of the Indus civilization : texts, deciphering, contents, and see if it comes any closer.  Here is one of the reviews (which still doesn't give the impression that Schildmann has stumbled upon an ancient, ubiquitous writing system, but FWIW):

Deciphering the Indus script. By Asko Parpola, Rainer Hasenpflug; Kurt Schildmann
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Pp. 374.
Reviewed by Florian Coulmas, Chuo University
Language, Vol. 72, No. 1 (Mar., 1996), pp. 167-170

     'Read me!' This is the universal meta-message of all written texts, including those which cannot be read because the code is unknown. It is this message which makes the decipherment of unknown writing systems irresistible. This century has seen a number of spectacular decipherments of which Ugaritic cuneiform, Linear B, Hittite hieroglyphic, and, most recently, Mayan are the
most significant. Other ancient writing systems remain enigmatic. The Indus script is one of them. It is regarded as highly important because deciphering it can be expected to reveal information about the most ancient civilization on the Indian subcontinent, the Indus or Harappan civilization, which flourished c. 2500-1900 BCE in Pakistan, long before the earliest historical records of South Asia were drafted.
     In this book, the author, who is also the editor of the Corpus of Indus seals and inscriptions, offers a comprehensive up-to-date overview of this work in progress. Cambridge University Press is to be commended for supporting his efforts by publishing this richly illustrated and carefully edited volume, a worthy reward for what appears to be rather thankless and unpromising toil; for Parpola is forced to the conclusion, mainly because of the brevity of the existing texts, that 'it looks most unlikely that the Indus script will ever be deciphered fully' (278). Why then publish such a costly book?
     One answer to this question is that this book provides full documentation of virtually everything that is known about the Indus script, its sign inventory and graphical make-up, its close to 4000 excavated texts, and their temporal and geographical distribution across the vast area of archaeological sites. This makes it much easier for newcomers to this field to orient themselves and avoid duplicating work that has been done so far. For many years to come, this book will be an indispensable research tool for every scholar who takes an active interest in the Harappan civilization and its script.
     A second answer is that this book is not only about the Indus script; it also deals with decipherment as such and can be read as a methodological guide and case study of what surely is one of the most fascinating intellectual pursuits. It is not primarily
the prospect that the messages contained in the texts will become comprehensible once the code is broken that drives decipherers
to go on with their work, trying ever new avenues of approach. In this particular case, the texts may eventually not reveal all that much. Short as all of them are, it is a distinct possibility that they consist of nothing but proper names and titles. However, cracking a code in the absence of anyone who knows it is an undertaking which, quite apart from any message contents, is every bit as interesting and challenging as uncovering the grammatical rules of a hitherto unrecorded language.
     Actually, the decipherer's task is a much better analogy of first language acquisition which is so often likened to the grammarian's analysis of a language. The decipherer has no informants who can help solve segmentation problems or supply additional data if necessary. The text corpus cannot be extended at will and initially does not contain many hints about the linguistic units of which it is composed. Much as infants are told to understand but not how to go about it, undeciphered texts usually do not exhibit many hints about how they can be read.
     Decipherments are of three kinds: the script, the language, or both script and language can be unknown. The third type is obviously the most difficult, and successful decipherments of this sort are rare. (Michael Ventris' discovery that the language of Linear B inscriptions was an archaic form of Greek is one.) Further, if no bilingual document provides an entering wedge in the form of proper names or other material that allows linguistic values to be assigned to written characters, the problems are really formidable. The Indus script belongs to this category. As P is well aware, the art of deciphering a historically grown code is a cumulative problem solving endeavor. Every decipherment benefits from building on the experience of previous solutions. He therefore devotes two entire chapters to reviewing early writing systems and their decipherment.
     In cases where both the graphical code and the languages are unknown, the decipherer is concerned with two issues, analyzing the structural properties of the writing system and determining the language it represents. The former is fundamentally a linguistic procedure making use of frequency and distribution analyses. The direction of writing must be established before any syntactic analysis can be carried out. Where only very short texts are available, even this first step poses considerable difficulties. On the basis of an extensive review of the sign sequences found in the entire text corpus, P shows, convincingly to my mind, that the usual direction of the Indus script is from right to left with a few instances of boustrophedon writing. However, even if utmost care is taken in examining the available evidence, there will be no confirmation of this hypothesis before the first inscription can actually be read. Thus, many of P's analyses inevitably have a speculative character. True to his maxim that 'an uncertain but possible hypothesis is better than no hypothesis' (137), he is undeterred by this frustrating aspect of his work. Even with regard to script typology he cannot justify a more definite statement than that 'the Indus script is likely to be logo-syllabic' (85). To what extent the system relies on logographic and syllabographic signs, respectively, remains one of many open questions. This shows at just how early and tentative a level the decipherment of the Indus script is. Very few things can yet be said about the script with certainty.
     The same holds for the other aspect of the decipherment, the Indus language. As the decipherment of the Mayan writing system (cf. Bill Bright's review of Michael Coe's book in Language 71.191-2) has demonstrated most vividly, decipherment in the proper sense of the word only takes off once a plausible hypothesis about the language written is in place. For writing is writing a language.
     Nothing is known about the Indus language, whence its speakers came, what its cognates are, if and when its tradition as a spoken language came to an end. Yet, P makes a case, and this is the third rationale for his book. Combining archaeological findings and what little linguistic evidence can be inferred from the texts (e.g., Num+N sequences suggest that the Indus language prefers premodification and is hence, presumably, of OV type), he puts forth a bold hypothesis about the affiliation of the Indus language. According to his judgment, it is most likely to have belonged to the Dravidian family. This claim has been made before, especially by Dravidian scholars, but not on such thorough footing. The two chapters the author devotes to establishing this hypothesis are central to his book. Even though the merits of the Dravidian hypothesis are yet to be proven, these two chapters are valuable in their own right as an informative and readable overview of the linguistic landscape between the ancient fertile crescent, Central Asia, and the Ganges delta. His method is ex negative: He looks for reasons that eliminate language families and languages that prima facie must be counted among the potential candidates of the Indus language-Sumerian, West Semitic, Indo-Aryan, Tibeto-Burman, Austro-Asiatic, and Dravidian. A variety akin to Proto-Dravidian is what he ends up with
as the least unlikely. This is not much, but then it is a well reasoned hypothesis which, perhaps, one day can be tested.
     In the final chapters of the book, P suggests a number of Dravidian character interpretations, venturing far afield into Indian astronomy, astrology, and other domains of the subcontinent's culture. Rather than these learned speculations, it is the broad discussion of the linguistic environment of the Indus script and the thoughtful account of methods and theories of decipherment
that make this a book of lasting value.

Added:  I think that the book that Dona is using primarily is Als das Raumschiff 'Athena' die Erde kippte - Indus-, Borrows-Cave- und Glozel-Texte entziffert (listed on one of the sites that AI found).  It's in German, but I'll request a copy and see what I can figure out from it.  The summary from that site (_http://www.beautytruegood.co.uk/zulu.htm) is the following:

This author, who was 90 years old in March 1999 and is President of the Society of German Linguists, became at 8pm on 2 August 1994 (cf op. cit., p.166 for details) the first to decipher the Indus Valley texts, which are, as he now interpets them, mainly written in phonetic archaic or proto-Sanskrit, a feature he has since 1997 been consistently claiming they have in common with the perhaps even more fascinating Burrow Caves (Illinois, USA) texts, as well as with the texts from Cuenca (Peru) in the Crespi Collection.

I first wrote to Kurt in 2000 in connection with his at that time still unpublished decipherment of the Tal Qadi incised stone kept in Malta's National Museum of Archaeology in Valletta, and which, along with some other ancient texts found at Alvao (Portugal), Fuenteventura (Canary Islands) and Glozel (France), appears to be in the same script.

He writes: "There is a huge difference between texts in authentic paleographic writing and those based on oral tradition. Here now Indus and Burrows Cave texts versus Vedic and Classical Sanskrit literature, the latter recorded after millennia of oral tradition. The former ones are written in their own original script (Indus deciphered 1994, Burrows Cave deciphered 1997), both composed in archaic Sanskrit, in telegram style, while the subsequent later ones reached recording in an already sectarian India, having suffered from mystification, adaptation, poetical manipulation...

It follows that the now accessible Indus and Burrows Cave (Illinois, USA) [together with the Cuenca, Glozel, Alvao, Fuerteventura and Tal Qadi] texts are [our] only authentic source for evaluating a decisive phase of humanity's history that preceded all other recorded phases such as in cuneiform Sumer or, hieroglyphically attested, in Egypt..." (Appendix, p.2.)

It would be difficult to overstate the importance of Herr Schildmann's most enlightening book. "Table B provides a fair number of reliable syllabic phonetic signs - enough for getting ahead in deciphering almost all intact Indus Seals texts within two or three months, provided one knows how to handle Sanskrit and Vedic Dictionaries and is an expert in deciphering Sumerian and Maya (partly logographic) texts." (Appendix, p.208.)

He adds: "I have known for some decades that entire passages from the Pyramid Texts can be retranscribed into their source-language, viz., into Archaic South-West Iranian. Egyptology, Sumerology and Archaic Iranian Studies actually constitute only one discipline so that, unless those who are 'only Egyptologists' transmute, they will have to be dismissed. Today, when their 'learning' is in many respects and from many points of view - and especially because of their own ignorance and arrogance, so highly questionable, they are now, quite simply, in the way." (Appendix, p.238, my translation.)

This is probably the book to look at, so I will try to scan it also as soon as I get it.

[dannybananny]

What he is saying on Project Camelot has similarities with Secret history by Laura because he said that they found coca and tab-ac- drugs that are only found in south America in textile of mummies, and that one young German women researcher found that and was ridiculed and it was said that she was crazy and that she was on marijuana. But later Russian scientists found also coca and tab-ac and no one didn't apologized after that to her. He also says that there are many archeologists that know that but are afraid to come out because they will lose their positions. He also speculates on that stones with maps they found that showed 2 islands, one in Atlantic and other in Pacific, that  island in Pacific could be civilization called Mu (and Yonaguni remains were part of it) and that people from that island moved to China and  through India to Egypt. Second possibility is that people  from South America moved through Africa to Egypt. He says that most photos of giants are all fake, and that until now there weren't real original photographs of the giants on internet, he said that he knew from beginning when they said that photos of giants they found in India and China are fake. He says that family of father Carlos Vaca in Ecuador gave him bones of giant that he found in 1963. Several specialist were checking this bones and they were surprised  and said that it's human bone. Also he says he knows three places were there are remains of giants and that in near future they will search for them.  He says that he got photos from Bolivia of 2.6 - 2.8 meters giants with long skulls and said he will give them to Kerry and Bill. He said that his friend that is only DNA archeologist in Austria tested bones from  Ecuador and that he couldn't find any DNA. He said up to 10 000 years there is a chance to find DNA but longer then that you can't find any DNA, and he said that in area in which bones were found earth is hot and water can't go through earth so bones could stay more than 10000 years. He says that Schildmann stone translation talks about big, big catastrophe and flaying objects.   He says that there are many artifacts still underground but  in recent years finding of this artifacts is tremendously increasing. He says that only 10 % of Bolivia archeologist sites are being investigated, not mentioning Brazil, Ecuador and Africa. He also says that today is important to give information because 2012 is coming and no one knows what will happen and by giving information he says you will receive information. He says that he spoke with shamans, elders and some Mexican guy that is expert for Mayan and Aztec calendar and he told him the future but he didn't want to say what he told him, instead he said that Mexican guy would be the best person to give information about it. He says that he also spoke with elders from Colombia, Peru, Mexico, Ecuador and that there are 2 possibilities: bad and good one. He said also that there is also possibility that future is open. When Kerry asked him if 2012 is influencing him he said no and he hopes that he could work longer because it's interesting.

[Green_Manali shi]

and some Mexican guy that is expert for Mayan and Aztec calendar

 I kind of got specially interested in this Mexican person Klaus Dona talks about. His name is David Wood, by what i can understand from Klaus speech. He says he is the best authority in the Mayan calendar but i did nor find nothing about him on the internet.

  Maybe i understood the name incorrectly. Does anyone know anything about this "David Wood"?

[dannybananny]

I kind of got specially interested in this Mexican person Klaus Dona talks about. His name is David Wood, by what i can understand from Klaus speech. He says he is the best authority in the Mayan calendar but i did nor find nothing about him on the internet.

He said he is a best person worldwide for it, not worldwide known which could hold the water if he is a shaman he probably doesn't use internet and if he is telling the truth you can assume that small number of people heard about him because of all desinfo out there. But his name is English not Spanish so it's little awkward to call him Mexican.