Talk:Book of Veles/Archive 1

Archive 1

Autenticity

How come "blue river" has any connection with "Ra"?

The river is, according to [[1]] Volga. Will correct it. --Belgrader 11:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I will delete following from the text:

One of the reasons the authenticity of this book is doubted is the rather implausible content
of the book, telling, among other things, about a far-fetched East Slavic participation in the
Trojan war.

This would, in fact, support its authenticity: when you make a forgery you make it to be as plausible as possible.

Moreover, the "authentic" text of the book (not just its interpretation) keeps changing from
edition to edition.

This is unfortunate, but it doesn't have anything to do with authenticity of the original text.

IIRC, this refers to the fact that some fragments of the text appear completely in Mirolyubov's papers, but they are labelled as 'illegible' in the first printed version ( which is supposed to be based on his papers ). If the story of the book's discovery is true, since Mirolyubov had no access to the planks for over 10 years between 1941 and 1953, a unique version of text should exist, and no modifications are possible after 1941. This begs the question, what is really going on?

It uses a peculiar combination of Greek, German and even Devanagari symbols. No other
documents written using this or similar alphabet have ever been found.

This is completely untrue, as could be seen even from the image on this page. All letters except Б are virtually the same as in old Cyrillic texts. Nikola 09:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Many letters look the same in Greek, old Cyrillic and in the book of Veles. Some letters from Greek alphabet are quite similar Scandinavian/Germanic runes ( e.g. В, И, Л, Р, Х ). Letter O is probably the upside down Odal rune from Elder Futharc; С is also Germanic. Letters А, Б, Ю, Я have no clear origin, although A may have been influenced by the Swedish-Norwegian runic script. ( See http://www.kurgan.kiev.ua/alphab.htm ) Combining letters into a big ligature through use of a connecting line is common in Devanagari ( although having an influence of Devanagari on the alphabet of book of Veles would be anachronistic ). --Itinerant1 23:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Whatever you say, still the phrasing is wrong. You speak about similarities of alphabets. The phrase is built to imply that the Veles alphabet was a deliberate or unusual combination of various alphabets, while in fact it is just Cyrillic. This phase is an expamle of smoke and fog used by neopagans. Just as well, my keyboard right now emanates a combination of Greek, Cyrillic, Germanic and Coptic symbols, while I am typing in plain English (I hope :-). mikka (t) 20:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

That's all true. But the symbols generated by your keyboard can be also called "just English." Veles alphabet isn't "just" Cyrillic, it is not a 100% match to what we now call pre-11th century Cyrillic. It's as if your keyboard mixed 80% of English letters with Germanic and Greek symbols that are not present in Latin alphabet, and, in addition, tried to pretend that your text has Swedish roots by randomly using diacritical marks. --Itinerant1 04:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

As I said, a single different letter is Б. Given that old Cyrillic itself often had variations of letters (though curiously not this one), I think it could be called just Cyrillic. Nikola 06:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

There's more than one different letter, as I said before, for example - А, Б, О. --Itinerant1 10:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

А and О (or rather Uk) were written that way in old Cyrillic texts. For example of А, you can see http://members.tripod.com/cafehome/povkotromanica/tvrtko.htm (in signature at the bottom). Nikola 02:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I have an idea where this "Devanagari" fantasy came from. It seems to be kind of game of telephone thing of miscommunication: the text on planks is written "below" the drawn lines, and it was commented in articles that this atyle resembles that of Devanagari writing. mikka (t) 20:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I recall reading a rebutall of the book which went along these lines. Didn't found it a serious argument. Nikola 06:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Argument of what? I am speaking of devanagari traits. What devanagari characters do you see in veles-book? mikka (t) 21:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, it went along the lines of "...the alphabet looks like Cyrillic, is carved like runes, written below the lines as Devanagari..." Nikola 10:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Excerpts

Consider including a comment to the Plank 7/A: cf this with the inscription on Carta Marina by Olaus Magnus near the Moskovien Coat-of-Arms (below the throne with the Grand Duke sitting): NON SINT IN VOBIS SCISMATA. Igor M Olekhnovitch (talk) 18:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Image

Caption correction: The image is not a photo of a plank. In Russian language it is referred to as "proris", i.e., a trace of contours of what was drawn on the plank (what is the English word?). I don't know how exactly it was done: directly from the plank (in the way you may have seen in the movie, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, where he copies an image from the cover of a tomb onto a sheet of paper) or from a photo of the plank. Anyone who knows, please clarify. mikka (t) 20:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

The Book of Veles is too obvious a forgery

The Russian Wikipedia article on the Book of Veles includes a long discussion on the authenticity of the book: no reputable linguist would doubt for a second the artificiality of the amateurish language constructed for it. Pseudo-proto-Slavic is the only appropriate name for this language. The theories advanced in the Book of Veles as to the urheimat of the Slavic peoples again contradict everything archaeologists and historians know about our history, yet correspond well with the "Eurasianist" theories popular in the 19th century (i.e. placing the homeland of the Slavs somewhere in India). The book is a forgery. Claiming otherwise - that is, claiming there's a single reputable historian, archaeologist, or linguist out there who argues for the authenticity of the Book of Veles - would be a blatant lie.

Lying about this to casual readers for the sole purpose of not offending a fringe group of neopagans would be a huge disservice to the entire wikipedia community. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.244.54.159 (talk • contribs) .

Yeah and Germans HATE the Book of Veles, thats for sure... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.43.202 (talk) 05:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, as a matter of fact, genetic research does place the homeland of Slavs, and of several other Indo-Europeans, to India. The r1a haplogroup can be traced to Northern India in a rather precise manner, and it absolutely dominates all non-Southern Slavic countries. --158.143.147.111 (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The R1a haplgroup is thought to be well over 20,000 years old, isn't it: long before the existence of any modern linguistic group can be established. Even if it is thus not connected to any language specifically, its prevalence both among the Slavs and the Brahmin caste in northern India is perhaps good evidence for the Kurgan hypothesis. 69.155.107.27 (talk) 22:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The Indians share genes with all Caucasians, I doubt you could find a section of the Indian genome which did not correspond to an equal section of a genome of ANY European peoples. Besides, you can't conclude from that that the homeland of Slavs is India, logical fallacy etc. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 06:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

. . . FORGERY? OR FEAR - TO KNOW THE TRUTH .

Book of Veles was proclaimed as "forgery" generally by those with ad populum , ad misericordiam (anti Slavic) arguments. They do not know that "Book of Veles" WAS in fact "Book of Baal- runic B as V or Vice versa. Letter V with horns is identical with Baal with horns and represents Taurus constellation; Vaal/Baal means "Vool" or Vol(slavic)/Bull(english) - Taurus! (V) . And Pleiades are "Vlasichi" (little "Veleses ". Vlas is Volos or Bull ) Besides why would be Nazis so interested about Slavic "forgery"... XY

Comment from inside article

Kurenkov's associations in the 1940s point out his propensity for academic forgery as well as highlight some key influences that appear in the Book of Veles. The Book of Veles claims* that the Russian people are not Slavs but are the true descendants of the lost tribes of Israel and that present-day Jews are really Turks. The Book goes on to claim that Christianity is an evil ideology created by the Jews to take over the world. These claims appear to be less out of place claims when examining the Book of Veles as a forgery by Kurenkov. The claims about the origins of the Russian people are extremely similar to claims made by British Israelism, as filtered through the later ideology of Christian Identity.

*The abovementioned claims are not attributed to the Book of Veles. I have read it, and there is no mention of Jews in it, and it does not state that the ancient Russians were not Slavs, nor does it portray them as descendants of Israel anywhere. This is most likely a mistake attributing an unrelated statement to the Book of Veles, and it must be corrected! Furthermore, the Book does not claim Christianity as a Jewish creation. It does, however, portray Christian Greeks (Byzantines) as evil. –A.G.--207.10.54.33 19:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Buch/birch

I see no point in including the hypothetical etymology of the word "book" here. At best, it belongs to the "book" article. `'Mїkka 22:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I think that it is relevant because some texts about the book I read have pointed it out. It should be in book too of course, in greater detail.

If you can quote the discussion of the relevance, you are welcome. In the current form it looks quite outlandish to the article. I may conjecture that someone published some speculations kind of "the first books were made from wood hence the etimology of the word 'book/buch/bok', and since the book of veles is of wood it must be a real old one". But such musings are encyclopedic and may be quoted only if they are written by a reputable historian, not by some zealous neo-pagan. `'Mїkka 00:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

What is your opinion on "History of the book's discovery according to Mirolyubov" section? The user who added it subsequently removed it without explanation, it sounds plausible but there are no references... Nikola 23:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The russian version of the article is quite well referenced, and the english text in question does not seem to contradict it. `'Mїkka 00:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

In any case, a cursory glance suggests the redundancy: there is the "authenticity" section. So I suspect some cleanup is due, but I am not in the mood to deal with this artricle now. `'Mїkka 00:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

From my talk page:

I removed the section because its base largely on an informal lecture by a researcher at my college. I was emailed afterwards by him asking me to remove the section because the research is as yet unpublished. I didn't realize that when I posted the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kablamo2007 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Your source is Plachynda~, a well-known charlatan, and that disqualifies the source.--Galassi (talk) 15:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Book of Veles

Вітаю! Скажіть будь-ласка — які претензії до цього розділу; вважаю, що його цілком можна залишити — він включений в Вікіпедію-ру та Вікіпедію-укр. Це абсолютно об'єктивна інформація по Влес-Книзі.

Objects Vles-Books that have no explanation in modern science

Veles Book has lots of fragmentary stories (and images) that have no interpretation in modern science. For example:
1) Science does not know the cities of Vles-Books : Voronzets, Iron, Karan, Golun (aka Ruskolun and RusaGrad). Famous science cities (Kyiv, Novgorod, Korsun-Chersonese) are more ancient (for a thousand years) than is generally admitted.
2) Historical events and dating:
— Hike Russes "in the army commander Nabusar".
— The arrival of the Slavs to the Dnieper River — from the mountains Іr (near India).
— Dating period Slavic-Gothic Wars, and the period of "coming Varangians to Russia".
3) Mentions unknown historiography "historic leaders of Russia": Oriy, Kisko, Sventoyar, Skoten, Kryvorig, Segenya, Barvlen, and others.
4) In the field of mythology, there are some images that are unknown in the Slavic mythology:
— The goddes of victory, "Mother-Glory" (rus. "Матерь Слава") — is the most popular deity of Vles-Books. Mentioned in Vles-Book 63 times (more often than any other deity).
— God Vles in Vles-Book — has a completely different function (he teaches people to Agriculture, the precepts of morality; he walks on the constellation of the Milky Way) than the "god of cattle Veles from the tradition of Kievan Rus". --Vles1 (talk) 19:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You wopuld need a RELIABLE SCHOLARLY SOURCE that discusses this data. However, this is difficult to document as the book is a forgery, and there naturally would be no scholarly researsh on the subject.--Galassi (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

1) This fragment indicates "objects Vles-books that are not in Slavic mythology" - writen about all these features : Yatsenko, Asov, Slatin, all. I gave the reference to "State Research Institute of Ukrainian Studies" - what you have removed the link?

2) I made ​​reference to the fact that during 1996-2008 - Vles-book was in the school program in Ukraine. Why have you removed this?

3) The second part of your phrases - anecdotal: "As Vles-book is a forgery, the proof of mythology Vles Books - not in academic science. " That is it "fake without evidence"- then at least remove from the article "untrue statement of a thorough study history, mythology of Vles-Books"! Because you are your own contradictions.

4) I gave the sentence of Mr Rybakov relation to Vles Books. This scientist did not write a word about the "mythology Vles Books" (and he is "senior specialist in Soviet mythology of the Slavs" and director of the Institute of Archaeology of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR). Why have you removed this? Then, at least among Rybakov off "opponents Vles Books", because it is outright false. --Vles1 (talk) 22:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

See WP:OR and WP:RS.--Galassi (talk) 22:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You need RELAIBLE SCHOLARLY sources. Both Russian and Ukrainian wikis have unequivocally stated that the Veles book is a forgery.--Galassi (talk) 22:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

What does "RELAIBLE SCHOLARLY", if the article contains "false information about the Rybakov's opinion"! Give a link to a "Rybakov's opinion", or remove Rybakov from the article!

Rybakov opinion is very important - he was a director for many decades, "Institute of Archaeology, USSR Academy of Sciences", a leading specialist on "Mythology of the Slavs". And if Rybakov silent 30 years — it is "loud silence" - Rybakov is not actually supported the persecution of Veles book. Give the answer to the question of Rybakov.

And secondly, all of my edits made from the "Ukrainian and Russian Wikipedias". The Ukrainian Wikipedia says:

— Veles-book more than a decade - has been incorporated into school curricula.

The Russian (and Ukrainian) Wikipedia:

— "Mythology" Veles book has several features that are not found in the mythology of Kievan Rus and Slavs in general, is:

• Bird-lightning "Mother of Glory" (also referred to as the "Mother Swa") - which is mentioned in Veles book "63 times (more often than any other deity);
• The above theme "Jav, Prav, Nav;
• Vles in Veles book "- has a much broader role (teacher of agriculture, crafts, moral commandments) than the" god of cattle Velez "in Kievan Rus".

These items are absolutely correct. Why do you think that in the U.S. — someone knows better about Vles-book than in Ukraine and Russia. My suggestion — provide a link between the various Wikipedia.--Vles1 (talk) 20:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Plachynda is not a reliable source and cannot be used here.--Galassi (talk) 21:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I ask you about Rybakov, and the State Research Institute of Ukrainian Studies; about teaching Vles-books in schools. Have you read my question? Can you answer? You take away from the article "indisputable information". --Vles1 (talk) 14:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Your source is Plachynda~, a well-known charlatan, and that disqualifies the source.--Galassi (talk) 15:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a lie. In the retracted your snippet - there is no mention of Plachinda. You cleaned the fragments - not mine, this fragment existed in the article for a long time :

— "The opponents of this position claim, however, that the problems with language could be attributed to local dialect variations (if the book was written or compiled from accounts of multiple people, as it is claimed by its supporters)".--Vles1 (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I added information about the position of Professor Rybakov and Professor Peter Kononenko - I hope you do not challenge their authority.--Vles1 (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

In which of the facts you doubt it? In the position of Kononenko, or "12 years of Vles-Books in schools"? When you write about the facts? --Vles1 (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Study Vles-Books in Russia and Ukraine

In Ukraine Vles-Book has more supporters than in Russia or in another country.

Academic Science of Russia — strongly advocated for a fake Vles-Books. But Boris Rybakov (the most famous in the Soviet Union specialist on the "Mythology of the Slavs") not commented on any personage from Vles-books (although Vles-book more than 30 years remained in the field of view of Soviet science). In a small article against Vles-Books (in which Boris Rybakov was one of three authors) says nothing about mythology Vles-Books.

Academic Science of Ukraine takes a softer stance, there are proponents of "authenticity Vles-Book" (including Professor Peter Kononenko (Director of the State Scientific-Research Institute of Ukrainian Studies); and Professor Gregory Klochek (Rector of State University of Kirovograd, author of a school textbook "The World Vles-Books", which is marked by "the premium name Evgen Malanyuk" in 2004)). During 1996-2008 Vles-book was included in the schools program in Ukraine as a controversial source.

1.This requires translation fron "English" to English, as it is illiterate and incoherent.--Galassi (talk) 19:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)