The Dating of Esoteric Tradition
Received tradition (as given to the present writer by his teacher – an Adept of the esoteric “Albion” tradition: for which read ‘Seven-Fold Way’/Septenary/Hebdomadry/Traditional Satanism and so on) places the origin of the Hyperborean Aeon and thus the civilization of Albion at least a thousand years before the dates given in ONA MSS.
Thus, received tradition gave the origin of the Hyperborean Aeon as between 79,000 to 6,000 BC (that is, 11 nine to eight millenia “before the present” – this ‘present’ being c. 1975 eh). Also, the ‘Primal Aeon’ was given as arising between eleven to ten millenia ago. This placed the origin of the Hyberborean Civilization (Albion) at around 6,000 or 5,000 BC and thus dated Stonehenge to between 4,500 and 3,500 (the later date – 3,500 – being favored).
After a thorough study of these received traditions and a review of present archaelogical/historical understanding, the present writer decided the traditional dates were out by at least a thousand years. When the ONA MSS were written (mostly after 1975 eh) to consolidate what had been – apart from a few MSS such as the ‘Black Book’ – a mostly oral tradition/teaching, these “new” dates were included.
However: the present writer admits that this revision may well be mistaken, and that the ‘traditional’ dates may yet be proved correct.
It is to be hoped that some time in the future further evidence for the civilization of Albion will be found, perticularly in regard to accurate dating and the confirmation of esoteric tradition concerning the sea-faring natuer of the communities (particularly the links with Iceland/Greenland/Canada and the later migrations southward: Greece, etc.), the technological advances made and so 0on.
While some evidence for the ‘advanced’ agriculture of the later period is emerging (eg the ‘Butzer’ Farm Project) and the astronomical nature of Stonhenge is now well-established, there is still the view of Albion during the the period in question as a rather basic ‘Neolithic semi-nomadic society’, rather ‘backward’ in comparison with the “civilized” societies of Sumeria and Egypt. The acceptance of this view is not surprising, given the paucity of evidence, the lack of archaelogical excavation and an almost total lack of ‘professional’ interest. Part of the lack of evidence stems from the fact that a lot of the sites have been almost continually inhabited/cultivated, with the consequential loss of material/patterns; another is the use of wood in the construction of artifacts – this is rarely preserved and there has been a rather silly tendency to use pottery remains (its ’sophistication’ etc.) to judge/date the communities associated with it, whereas the fact at the time pottery was probably considered an inferior material to wood/leather etc. Another stems from a lack of written records – in Egypt, Sumeria and elsewhere there are well-preserved reminders.