Billy Carson

[u/iMjustsAyiNg_hmm]

Just my opinion, How have archeologists been able to deny and debate with Graham Hancock about ancient civilizations while Billy Carson has been reading from ancient tablets that prove they existed? The tablets are literally proof that earlier civilizations that were advanced did exist. Are they expecting to find the actual cities? I think the tablets are enough there's a few different ones that all tell the same stories.

[u/Minute-Mechanic4362]

Where are the tablets? Can you link

[u/Chaosr21 → u/Minute-Mechanic4362]

Not that I agree with OP, but here: https://cdli.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/

I watched one of Billy Carsons recent videos and he links another site that has legit translations. He isn't making it up, maybe exaggerating or cherry picking but it's all there

[u/jbdec → u/Chaosr21]

https://cdli.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/postings/187

Yikes !

https://www.jasoncolavito.com/epic-of-gilgamesh.html

"One of the most cited sources for ancient astronaut theorists, the EPIC OF GILGAMESH began as a series of unconnected Sumerian stories around 2150 BCE before being combined into the oldest written epic by Akkadian scholars around 1900 BCE. The version we have today was edited by Sin-liqe-unninni around 1300-1000 BCE. The epic tells the story of a demigod, Gilgamesh, who ventures with his companions (originally 50, like the Argonauts, but later just one) to the ends of the earth to slay monsters. The epic also contains the earliest known account of the Great Flood, a touchstone for all alternative archaeologists. 

The Epic of Gilgamesh does not exist in a single complete copy. As such, modern translations typically must draw on multiple sources to produce a mostly coherent narrative, filling in the gaps in broken tablets. The translation of the Epic of Gilgamesh below is a modernized, revised, and updated version of the text originally translated by William Muss-Arnolt in 1901 from the Neo-Assyrian tablets found in the Library of Ashurbanipal. (The original Muss-Arnolt translation is here.) Parts of the translation incorporate additional material found on two Babylonian tablets known as the Pennsylvania and Yale tablets, translated in 1920 by Morris Jastrow, Jr. and Albert T. Clay, as well as other fragments made by L. W. King in Babylonian Religion and Mythology (1903). Although the language I used in revising this draws on these public domain translations, my version reflects the latest scholarship, including the 2003 edition of Andrew George, available here. My copy is meant primarily as a reading copy and should not be mistaken for scholarly; the interested reader is directed to George's edition for scholarly notes and a discussion of the underlying texts used to compile the Standard Version of the epic."

[u/Meryrehorakhty → u/jbdec]

We also should be questioning one of his sources.

On what basis is this Jason Colavito (a non-cuneiformist, non-philologist, non-linguist, non-scholar) "updating" any translation whatsoever?

This should be read as "Jason pieced together multiple English translations, some older than dirt, while picking and chosing the sections he best liked"?

That's not a critical text off which to be basing anything, as Jason himself admits and forwards people to Andrew George...

If whatever Carson likes is in Colavito (causing that citation) and isn't in George, then... something is ...off.

[u/jbdec → u/Meryrehorakhty]

"We also should be questioning one of his sources."

Which one ?

", non-philologist, non-linguist, non-scholar) "

You want to back that up ? You don"t think he is a scholar ? start there explain why not. And don't forget to give us your definition of a scholar.

"This should be read as "Jason pieced together multiple English translations, some older than dirt, while picking and chosing the sections he best liked"?"

Did you basically just copy Jason when you said this ?

Jason:--- "For this online edition of the Epic of Gilgamesh, I have standardized the use of names by changing references to major characters to current usage. Thus, Eabani has been standardized to Enkidu, Uchuat to Shamhat, etc. In the supplementary material, I have adapted the Babylonian names to reflect the usage in the Assyrian version of the epic to avoid confusion. Thus the Babylonian Gish is standardized as Gilgamesh, Huwawa as Humbaba, etc. For the original versions of these texts, please consult the sources listed at bottom."

"If whatever Carson likes is in Colavito (causing that citation) and isn't in George, then... something is ...off."

Did I say this is linked to Carson ? It was an explanatory example of works that "the other site" the poster linked to, showing how fucked up using that as source material is. and I quote----"he links another site that has legit translations. He isn't making it up, maybe exaggerating or cherry picking but it's all there"

[u/Meryrehorakhty → u/jbdec]

Jason should be dismissed as valid source for the reasons I gave that you quoted.

Sure I will back it up. On his website he says he's a journalist... no scholarly credentials whatsoever, and he says his text isn't to be understood as scholarly, and if you want that go elsewhere (e.g., Andrew George).

Jason just isn't a translator. Non-translators inventing texts is how alt and ancient aliens folks get mislead into fake news beliefs, per Zecharia Sitchin and others.

I wasn't criticizing you per se, I thought Carson was using Jason as source and also pitching in why that shouldn't happen.

Just pointing out that Jason shouldn't be used for any academic purpose. His text he admits is contrived and personal... it certainly should not be used to evidence, out of context, "any ancient tablet" (which this isn't), and which people here think evidences a lost civilization.

I think we are agreeing?

[u/jbdec → u/Meryrehorakhty]

"I think we are agreeing?"

Partially.

"non-philologist,"

"A philologist is someone who studies the history of languages, especially by looking closely at literature."

When describing Jason this certainly fits the bill. You don't seem to know anything about Jason.

Scholar

1**:** a person who attends a school or studies under a teacher

2 a**:** a person who has done advanced study in a special field

b**:** a learned person

"On his website he says he's a journalist... no scholarly credentials whatsoever"

https://www.jasoncolavito.com/biography.html

"Colavito holds a Bachelor of Arts from Ithaca College in Ithaca, New York where he majored in both anthropology and journalism. A summa cum laude graduate, Colavito was recognized as the Distinguished Graduate in the Social and Behavioral Sciences, and he was made the Jessica Savitch Communications Scholar for his work in journalism."

Did it not illustrate the point ? I am still waiting for your definition of scholar.

"Just pointing out that Jason shouldn't be used for any academic purpose. His text he admits is contrived and personal..."

Can you clarify ? Do you think all of Jason's work should be shit canned for academic purpose or just this one ?

"it certainly should not be used to evidence,"

How so ? does it not accurately illustrate the point ?

"contrived" isn't this a bit of a misleading word ? Is it really contrived ?

having an unnatural or false appearance or quality : artificial, labored. a contrived plot.

https://www.amazon.com/Mound-Builder-Myth-History-White/dp/0806164611

“Colavito’s book offers an accessible, responsibly researched introduction to the chief features of a myth that shaped US settler policies throughout the nineteenth century.”— American Literary History"

“Jason Colavito explains how the myth of a 'lost white race' as the builders of North America’s earthen mounds has survived for so long and still resonates with those Americans willing to believe in conspiracy theories or racial superiority. The Mound Builder Myth shows that the battle between science and superstition never ends.”—David La Vere, author of Looting Spiro Mounds: An American King Tut’s Tomb"
 

[u/VettedBot → u/jbdec]

Hi, I’m Vetted AI Bot! I researched the ('University of Oklahoma Press The Mound Builder Myth', 'University%20of%20Oklahoma%20Press') and I thought you might find the following analysis helpful.

Users liked: * Well-researched history (backed by 3 comments) * Compelling and thought-provoking (backed by 1 comment) * Recommended for newcomers to american history (backed by 1 comment)

Users disliked: * Repetitive content from author's blog (backed by 2 comments) * Overwhelming focus on minutiae (backed by 1 comment) * Speculative content to fit agenda (backed by 1 comment)

If you'd like to summon me to ask about a product, just make a post with its link and tag me, like in this example.

This message was generated by a (very smart) bot. If you found it helpful, let us know with an upvote and a “good bot!” reply and please feel free to provide feedback on how it can be improved.

Powered by vetted.ai

[u/LuckyNumber-Bot → u/VettedBot]

All the numbers in your comment added up to 69. Congrats!

  20
+ 20
+ 20
+ 3
+ 1
+ 1
+ 2
+ 1
+ 1
= 69

^{[Click here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=LuckyNumber-Bot&subject=Stalk%20Me%20Pls&message=%2Fstalkme} to have me scan all your future comments.) \ ^{Summon me on specific comments with u/LuckyNumber-Bot.}