Newsgroup sci.archaeology 46092

Directory

Oh, I forgot one detail concerning the ramp.
You wrote, that the mantle blocks hat to been laid first, to ensure the precision of the whole building. I fact you hat your
JM>My Final Counter-Argument ************************* What about the
JM>precision of the mantle? I hope, I don't have to describe this
JM>incredible accomplishment again. I just want you to realize that the
JM>accurate placement of the precisely squared mantle blocks, would not
JM>be possible, if it had to rely for support on the much more unevenly
JM>cut core stones. Therefore the mantle blocks were set in place before
JM>the core blocks. Very simply, this eliminates the idea of the side-
JM>ramp completely!
And very simply you are wrong, again. It is not necessary to set the mantle
blocks first, the only thing you need is a ring of precise hewn and set core
blocks. The mantle blocks were placed when the pyramid core with its precise
outer square stones was ready. In fact, its much less easy to confirm such a
precision *without* an outer ring of precise set core blocks. These you can
adjust with a simple measuring angle in 1:22 ratio (which gives you then, of
course, a pi approximation the Egyptians never knew about...).
With such a simple device you can set the outer stone ring with an accuracy
of about 0.2%, and on these stepped stones a ramp could rest safe and firm.
In fact, as you can see on the bended pyramid, the finishing work on the
mantle stones was done when they were in place, maybe by eye. They were
probably only precise on the edges when they came out of the quarry.
Not that I believe you would ever accept facts...
Bye,
  FD

HR57JazzandBlues.@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> [snip]
> >Mike Tittensor (mike@heridoth.demon.co.uk) wrote:[snip]
> >: Also, Cecrops, founder of Athens was actually said to be a child of 
> >: Gaea and to have a serpent's tale below the waist. Do all negroes 
> >: have such appendages? I find it alarming to think so!
> 
> I don't mean to but into your fun but, what's a negro???????????
> 
> -Paloma
> 
> "Don't worry about the changes in the key
> just play within the range of the idea"
> 
> Charlie Parker
> 
>                     The opinions expressed herein
>                     are those of my own
Paloma, I know the offense many feel for the word you question, but
please note that the person who posted it is not from our country.
He has no way of knowing what we do or do not accept as an offensive
word.  Please try to be more tolerant of other nationalities.  I'm 
sure he did not mean to offend anybody and I'm sure his post was not 
racially motivated.
Olice Certain
Olice_Certain@clr.com
-- 
===================================================================
The opinions expressed above are my own and should not be confused
with those of my employer.
===================================================================

snip
>
>And to Thomas I say that one side (the side of trans-Pacific diffusion) 
>has mountains of solid scientific evidence supporting it. I've presented
>quite a bit of this in sci.arch. There's been plenty of idiotic sneering
>but few persuasive rebuttals. Those who tried only betrayed their quite
>remarkable ignorance of the matter, of the evidence, and of the debates in
>the field. 
So, where is the evidence?
The Polynesians have had no connection with South America.
Were this so then there would be pottery and metalworking throughout the 
Pacific in Archaeological strata predating European exploration and 
occupation.
The language (and myths) would indicate such a meeting.
The art of the Polynesian can be traced with the migration patterns. There is 
NO South American influence.
The only 'writing' system (the Rongorongo of Easter Island) is a development 
of Easter Island. There is no correlation (IMO) with anything South American.
>All those posts are freely available from DEJANEWS. You have no excuse to 
>plead ignorance, Thomas. So a little bit of humility should be in order. 
Does this include your contention that the Polynesians were the influence 
behind the Olmec??
Apart from the fact that the Olmec were some 800 years before the date that 
Polynesians migrated to N.Z & Easter Island and the civilization of the Olmec 
existed on the other side of the Panama land bridge
>The evidence for trans-Pacific diffusion is solid, and, considering the
>inability of the opposing side to disprove it, the case should be seen as
>proven. 
>
>Respectfully,
>
>Yuri.
No it is not proven but it is posted and has been considered.
Regards
Some people can stay longer in an hour than others can in a week

It has long been the opinion of the world's leading archaeological
centres of Excellence that Ley Lines are invisible lines of Psychic
Force connecting megalithic temple sites.  There is, however, a
Scientific Explanation.  If we discount, then, the ridiculous notion
that Ley Lines are caused by Psychic Forces, we are left with the Hard
Fact that Ley Lines must be mere Invisible Lines, without Psychic
Content.  Faced, then, with a vast and dangerous network of Invisible
Lines criss-crossing the United Kingdom, then, the Ancient People of
Danu must have constructed megalithic temple sites in order to allow
them to project the position of the Unseen Linear Menace; otherwise,
terrible Chariot Accidents and Fatal Trippings could have resulted.
What has become of these Invisible Lines today?  They exist still, and
are used by our elected government for clandestine purposes.  I have
long wondered at the purpose of the mysterious dual row of so-called
'Crash Barriers' on our nation's motorways.  If, as Ministry of
Transport officials claim, these constructs are merely to prevent huge
articulated pantechnicons from slewing across the Centre Reservation
into oncoming traffic, why are there *two* of them?  Surely one alone
would be sufficient.  No - these 'Crash Barriers' are there to prevent
*us* from getting to the thin six-inch space between them.  What is
between these spaces?  A Ley Line.  And why does our Government not wish
us to know the Ley Line is there?  Because Ley Lines are in fact not
lines, but hollow 'Ley Tubes' stretching for hundreds of miles.  And
what happens to an object placed inside an Invisible Object?  Why, it
becomes itself Invisible.  Our governments' Intelligence Services
therefore have a foolproof method of secreting objects of any type
whatsoever, provided that these objects are long and tubular*.  It is no
accident, then, that Nuclear Missiles are becoming longer and more
tubular as time progresses.  And can it be a coincidence that American
Cruise Missiles disappeared from Britain's roads at almost exactly the
same time that Britain's motorways were built?  A difference of only
fifty years is, after all, negligible compared to the entire time since
Amphibians first crawled onto the land, and could be accounted for by
inaccuracies in Uranium Dating.  Other such coincidences spring to mind
- the Death of Sidney Vicious at the same time as the birth of the
current Panchen Lama, and the outbreak of Ebola Virus at the same time
as Macaulay Culkin attained Puberty.  These incidents, too, may not be
as coincidental as they seem; I intend to write a monograph on the
subject entitled 'Macaulay Culkin, Murderer of Millions.'
Yours
Reverend Colonel Ignatius Churchward Von Berlitz M.A. (Dom. Sci.) Oxon. 
(Oklahoma)
*The Government of these Islands previously possessed a *second* method
of infallibly secreting objects that were long and tubular, but with the
death of a certain Mr. Milligan, this method is unfortunately lost to
history.

ic wrote:
> 
> There was a program on the tv (channel 4) about this tonight, called
> (with some light-heartedness) "the Cocaine Mummies of Egypt", or
> something like that. It was a forensic scientist in Germany who discovered
> these high levels of nicotine, and cocaine in the hair and other tissues
> of some egyptian mummies in the collection of Ludwig I of Bavaria. The
> program discussed whether these mummies were 19th cent fakes. But the
> same scientist (elderly German woman?) took samples from European
> skeletons of the prehistoric period, and ancient Chinese ones too: all
> these displayed levels of Nicotine, lower that the Egyptian, but still
> higher than the average level for a modern smoker apparently. The level
> found for the Egyptians was off the scale: I would have thought life
> threatening (there was discussion of whether it could have been used in
> the mummification process: I can't remember whether this was rejected or
> not).
> 
> The scientist was accused of falsifying the results or  allowing some
> obvious contamination. I'm afraid I cannot remember all the
> rest of the details, but the program did discuss the possibility that
> Roman vessels reached Brazil (the finds of amphora in the Bay of Jars)
> etc, and thus imported the stuff. They interviewed a number of
> scientists and archaeologists of various  universities. One of these
> suggested that there might have been tobacco  plants (or plants
> producing/containing nicotine etc) in Africa or Asia in those  far off
> days, which like other flora and fauna had become extinct by modern time.
It really does start to sound fishy when the traces are found all over
the place.  I mean, what are the chances that everyone was smoking
cigarettes in prehistory?  Perhaps Asian travellers brought the plants
across to S.A. and later outlawed them at home, or something similar.
How do REAL scientists explain these nicotine levels in such divese
places?  I'd love to hear it.
-- 
zoomQuake....220+ of the best ancient history related links on the net.
http://www.iceonline.com/home/peters5/index.html

Troy Sagrillo wrote:
> 
> Saida wrote:
> >
> > Troy Sagrillo wrote:
> > >
> > > Saida wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Apropos of the ongoing  (but haphazard) discussion about whether the
> > > > ancient Egyptian language has any bearing on English, I would like to
> > > > point out some Egyptian words for trees that were either growing in Egypt
> > > > or imported for their wood:
> > >
> > > [note: since "on-the-fly" transliteration of Egyptian is a bit confusing, I am
> > > using the standard computer transliteration system in the Manual de Codage; you
> > > can see it at:
> > >
> > > http://131.211.68.206/names/rules.html
> > >
> > > Expections: I will use /`/ for `ayn, and /3/ for the "alif"-vulutre (the a/A
> > > distinction tends to get lost, and some tend to mistakenly treat them as
> > > vowels)]
> >
> > Hi, Troy!  Well, I know many find this system helpful, but I am dead
> > against it.  I would rather be in error here and there and have
> > Egyptian, which to me is and always has been a living language look like
> > that.
> 
> Fair enough Saida, but I had difficulties finding the Egyptian original in
> various dictionaries because I couldn't "reconstruct" the Egyptian you
> intended. With 4 kinds of "h"s to deal with, and the Latin letter "a" being
> used to represent both the `ayn and the "alif" vulture, IMO we need some
> sort of standard system that is clear to all. Moreover, some letters are
> frequently rendered as vowels in the Latin alphabet, but they were *not*
> vowels in Egyptian (such as "a" for `ayn). Lastly, Egyptian is not a living
> language (not even Coptic is used as a daily language anymore), and
> pronunciation in Old, Middle, and Late Egyptian (not to mention demotic and
> and the various dialects of Coptic) are all different. If we don't know the
> vowels (or only have vague clues), any vocalised rendering is going to be at
> least somewhat circumspect. If you are interested in the reconstruction of
> Egyptian vocalisations, I highly recommend (though they aren't exactly fun
> reads ;) ):
> 
> Loprieno, Antonio. 1995. Ancient Egyptian: A Linguistic Introduction.
> Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
> 
> Vycichl, Werner. 1990. La vocalisation de la langue egyptienne. Volume 1: La
> phonetique. Bibliotheque d'Etude 16. Cairo: Imprimerie de l'Institut
> francais d'Archeologie orientale.
Troy, you are right in that there must be standard, but it is THIS 
standard with the symbols I don't like the looks of.  Just a personal 
prejudice and I must learn to read it, I suppose, although this is the 
first time (in this thread) that I have ever discussed ancient Egyptian 
with anybody at any great length.
>
> > The Island of Cyprus was called "Ay Nibinaitet enti em her ib Wat Ur" or
> > "The Island of Cyprus which is in the midst of the Great Green (i.e. the
> > sea).  "Ay" isn't a far cry from "isle" and "Wat Ur" certainly is
> > evocative of "water".
> 
> Except that your "Wat Ur" is /w3D wr/ (normally vocalised today as "wadj
> wer", but was probably pronounced in Old/Middle Egyptian as *wa:Rij wu:r;
> the /R/ is the "thick "r" (sort of half way between a normal "r" and "l"
> (often used in Japanese); Loprieno discusses this issue in detail)). BTW, /
> w3D wr/ was applied to the Mediterranean (as you note), the Red Sea, Lake
> Moeris, and the "celestial" ocean of the Netherworld.
It is my suspicion that both "r" and "l" (when needed) were pronounced 
like "w", so I think that pretty much agrees with what you are saying.  
Kind of crazy, isn't it?  Also, I would guess that the "r" at the end of 
a word was negligible in BBC English fashion.  The glyph that looks like 
a chick was, I think, pronounced as a "w" at the beginning of a word but 
as a "u" thereafter.  "Wat Ur" should, theoretically, have had a "w" in 
the beginning of both words, but, as it really served as one word, I 
think the "Ur is correct.
> 
> >
> > > > cedar--  ash
> 
> > > Egyptian /`S/ is *not* cedar, but some type of yellow-wooded conifer or fir (or
> > > the entire class of such trees); in certain circumstances it refers to the
> > > lumber from such trees. You might want to look at:
> > >
> > > Loret, Victor. 1916. "Quelques notes sur l'arabe a^ch." Annales du Service des
> > > Antiquites de l'Egypte 16:33­51.
> 
> > I haven't read the sources you cite, but "ash" used to be considered
> > "cedar" and I don't know how it's been determined that it's not so.  I
> > can only say that "ash" is written with the little ovoid sign for
> > something odiforous and cedar certainly has its distinctive smell.
> 
> You are right, it did *used* to be considered "cedar", because /`S/ wood was
> imported from Lebanon (the whole Cedars of Lebanon business). Unfortunately,
> as Loret discusses, in paintings /`S/ wood (`ash if you must) is light
> yellow in colour, not red. In most modern translations the term "conifers"
> is now used. The question now is, what is the Egyptian term for "cedar"?
I wish I had access to your sources.  I would love to read them.
> 
> > > > myrrh--  tesher
> > >
> > > The word "myrrh" is Semitic in origin, borrowed via Greek /murra/; Semitic
> > > examples include Arabic /murr/ and Hebrew /mor/.
> > >
> > > Egyptian for "myrrh" is /`ntyw/ not "tesher"(?)
> >
> > You are certainly right about "myrrh" being Semitic.  I am not familiar
> > with "ntyw".  "Anti" was a commonly used word for myrhh--the "shemsi
> > anti" being a ceremony involving the offering of this substance.
> 
> We're talking about the same thing here. You missed my little tick /`/ for
> the `ayn in /`ntyw/. ;)
Are you surprised? :)  It's a whole new language!  Anyway, by "tesher" I 
only meant the tree itself.  It seems to have had something to do with 
redness, but I wouldn't be able to guess why.
> 
> > "Kher"
> > was perhaps also myrrh and must have been commonly used because it
> > survived into the Coptic "kal" (another example of my theory that the
> > Egyptian "r" was a weak consonant).
> > >
> 
> You are absolutely right about the /r/ coming down into most Coptic dialects
> as /l/. Now imagine what kind of vowel shifts must have been going on as
> well and you can see how difficult it is to reconstruct ancient Egyptian as
> a spoken language...
The difficulty isn't as great as all that.  Egyptian didn't use "o" 
much, so that eliminates having to guess about this vowel. There are a 
couple of "a" sounds represented and also "u" "i" and "y".  That leaves 
only "e", with which Coptic has been most helpful.  
> 
> > > > juniper--  war
> > >
> > > "war"???
> >
> > Yes.  Juniper is presumably from Latin, again, but perhaps it did have
> > its origin in Egyptian with something like "tscha'au pensh em war",
> > meaning the seedy berries coming from the "war" tree.
> 
> Please help me out here. I am guessing your "war" is /w3r/ (or /w`r/?), but
> I have been unable to find such a word meaning "juniper" in either Faulkner
> or Lesko. Are you using another source? Oh, wait, I found it in Budge's
> dict. in typically Late Egyptian orthography. It is /w`r/ (with the `ayn),
> and Budge notes it as being questionable. Since this is Budge, it would be
> best to check the Worterbuch on this, IMHO. Anyhow, the medial `ayn needs to
> be accounted for (though by the time Egyptian "becomes" Coptic, it was
> apparently lost).
Budge, IMHO, was a great linguist and scholar of ancient Egyptian and I 
see no reason to trust German interpretations over his.  Probably, he 
made errors.  Even those who "corrected" him were second-guessed by 
somebody else, in turn, on certain things.  Sir Alan Gardiner has 
corrected himself in various editions of his grammar.  Were he still 
here, he'd still be doing it, no doubt.  The Egyptologists who 
specialized in the language had to convince each other that they were 
right in their assertions.  Sometimes they did (see Gardiner's notes on 
how he changed his mind because Prof. X made him see the 
light--sometimes grudgingly) just like we are trying to do in this 
thread.  But the truth is elusive here.  If Budge guessed "war" was 
"juniper" we may as well take his word--especially since you say there 
is not much alternative.  How about "Tcha'au en pa war"?  This would be 
referring to the berries, which seem to figure in Egyptian medicinal 
recipes.  Unless someone can give me a good idea of how the Romans came 
up with the catchy word "juniper".
> 
> >  This is
> > speculative, but a better example of Latin from Egyptian might be the
> > word for "ivory", pronounced variously "ab", "abu" or "yab".
> 
> Just a point of discussion (not an attack): how do you know this? At what
> point in the history of the language (Old, Middle, New, &c.;) is /3bw/
> vocalised in such ways? Unfortunately I don't have either Crumm's or Cerny's
> Coptic dictionaries here, but that would be a place to start.
Look in Budge.  It won't do you irreparable harm.  Just don't tell 
anybody.:)
> 
>  The
> > Egyptians liked to say "pure as the ivory" like we do "pure as the
> > driven snow".  Ivory in Latin is "eboreus".  We have been doing this on
> > the sci.arch for a while now and it seems to me that, at the very least,
> > we are beginning to see that those exotic things not commonly known to
> > northern climes have found their way into Anglo-Saxon via a route of
> > languages going straight back to Egyptian.
> > >
> > > > palm--  yam  (perhaps with the Egyptian definite article "pa" it becomes
> > > > pa yam and then "palm"
> > >
> > > "yam"?
> >
> > Yup.  "Bener" is a good palm word, too, denoting the "dum" palm which
> > flourished best in the southern part of Upper Egypt.
> 
> Ahh, found it in Budge as /imi/ and /im3/; again questioned by Budge, and
> ought to be checked in the Worterbuch. Lesko's Late Egyptian dict. gives /
> im3w/ and /i3mw/ (same orthography as Budge's) as "wood, tree". Faulkner
> gives /im3/ "a tree" and cites p. Wilbour 31 as '*not* date-palm'.
I'll check this one over.  Maybe I'll have to rethink it, but there 
should be one most frequently used term for this common item and I'll 
try to determine what it was.  Maybe you can help me :)  Anyway, "im3w" 
is quite a mouthful, in your transliteration or mine.  
> 
> > >
> > > > persea --  ishet
> > > >
> > > > olive--  ba'ak
> > >
> > > Egyptian /b3q/ for "olive tree" is not at all certain; it most likely the
> > > moringa tree and its oil. The Egyptian word for "olive" and "olive oil", /Ddt/,
> > > is a loan-word from Semitic (cognates include Arabic /zayt/; Ugaritic /zt/;
> > > Phoenician /zt/; Syriac /zayta/; Ethiopic (Ge`ez) /zayt/.
> >
> > I am not too sure about olive tree, either.  "Ba'aq" is found in the
> > Book of the Dead, for example.
> 
> I did some checking on this. Olive trees are not reperesented until late
> Dyn. XVIII and the Semitic loan word /Ddt/ does not show up until Dyn. XIX
> (when a huge number of Semitic loanwords start showing up in Egyptian). /
> b3q/ is the moringa tree (and its oil) -- Lucas & Harris (Ancient Egyptian
> Materials & Industries) comment that "references to olive trees, olives, and
> olive oil in translations of Egyptian texts are to be treated with
> caution...since in many cases it is the Egyptian words for the moringa tree
> and ben oil that have been incorrectly interpreted as olive" (4th ed., p.
> 333).
> 
> > > > incense tree--  senter   (I believe this word is allied to "incense" and
> > > > "censer", a vessel for burning incense
> > >
> > > Egyptian /s.nTr/ is a nominal form of the causitive verb "to make
> > > god-like".
> >
> > That well may be.  How about the word "scent"?
> > >
> > > > BTW, in Egyptian the word for "plant" or growing things was "rut" with a
> > > > long u
> > > > and even the little creature that buzzes among flowers and plants,
> > > > the bee, was called "beet".
> > >
> > > Egyptian /bit/ is the subject of a recent word study, and is from a known Afro-
> > > asiatic root:
> > >
> > > Schneider, Thomas. 1993. "Zur Etymologie der Bezeichnung "Ko"nig von Ober- und
> > > Untera"gypten". Zeitschrift fu"r A"gyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde
> > > 120:166­118.
> >
> > I am happy with this thread because, disagreements and all, I think we
> > are getting to the bottom of something, separating the wheat from the
> > chaff, linguistically, and I am not hearing a unanymous "Egyptian
> > couldn't possibly have anything to do with English" any longer.  Putting
> > our heads together is the way it should be done.
> 
> I have my doubts, but I was taught that Egyptian /dSr.t/ "red land" comes
> into English as "desert". Personally I think this is unlikely (there is a
> Latin root /deserere/ "to leave, forsake"), but who knows, seeing that /kmt/
> "black land" (Coptic "keme"/"kheme") *may* come into English via Arabic via
> Greek as "alchemy".
Yes, those "black" arts.  Troy, whenever you are tempted to doubt me, 
remember who figured out Ishinan's gibberish wasn't really Arabic!  
Okay, okay, just kidding...

Andy,
	I read a book entitled "The Celts" a few months ago that makes a 
case for the Illyrians being related to that particular group of 
peoples.  I'll search my library at home and see if I can come up 
with more details.
	I'll post what I find here.
					Pat

WBQT03C@prodigy.com (Saida Ismi) wrote:
>While looking through Budge's "The Dwellers On the Nile", I was 
>pleasantly surprised to see 2 photographs, one of Seti I and the other of 
>Ramesses II.  In these pix the pharaohs looked as though they had died 
>only yesterday.  A "Signor Beato of Luxor" took the photographs--he 
>evidently being a very talented individual, who must have had access to 
>these mummies in the early days of their unwrappings.  It is obvious from 
>Beato's work how much even these two men, always termed "well-preserved", 
>have suffered from being exposed to the modern age in the Cairo Museum.  
>Ramesses, especially ,looks much different than I am used to seeing him--
>or perhaps it was just the magic of Signor Beato's art.
>
>If anyone knows where a collection of Beato's photos of the mummies can 
>be found, or has seen other comparable pictures by him, please let me 
>know.  I am doing a reconstructive artistic project of the royal mummies 
>and I can see that Beato's photos would be of invaluable assistance.
>
There were two Beatos. The brothers Antoine and Felix. It is Antoine  ( 
Antonio)1825-1903 who lived in Luxor. According to FOCUS EAST: Early 
Photography in the Near East (1839-1885) by Nissan N. Perez, Abrams 1988,
When he died in 1903 he left behind 1,500 negatives that were offered " 
in a public announcement by his widow, who wanted to sell the 
photographic establishment in Luxor....Part of the collection was bought 
by Gaston Maspero, then director of the Boulaq museum." p131. So these 
are probably still in the Cairo Egyptian Museum. So when are you going?
-- 
Greg Reeder
On the WWW
at Reeder's Egypt Page
---------------->http://www.sirius.com/~reeder/egypt.html
reeder@sirius.com

 It is our belief that Atlantis, the lost continent, is no longer legend,
no longer myth. Why? For, both historians and archaeologists have found an
ancient site in the Aegean Sea that is believed to have been part of the
lost civilization of mighty Atlantis.
 This new evidence reinforces what Plato, the greek philosopher, who was
born in 428 B.C., said about Atlantis in two of  his dialogues, the Critias
and the Timaeus, wherein he describes Atlantis as a massively beautiful
island existing thousands of years ealier between Africa, Asia and Europe.
 We would like to initiate a discussion group on this most interesting
subject.  This legend has, in many ways shaped and formed the psyche of
modern man.  It is part of humanity's collective consciousness.
 Your responses are welcome on this subject matter.
email: invision@radix.net

Greg Reeder wrote:
> 
> WBQT03C@prodigy.com (Saida Ismi) wrote:
> >While looking through Budge's "The Dwellers On the Nile", I was
> >pleasantly surprised to see 2 photographs, one of Seti I and the other of
> >Ramesses II.  In these pix the pharaohs looked as though they had died
> >only yesterday.  A "Signor Beato of Luxor" took the photographs--he
> >evidently being a very talented individual, who must have had access to
> >these mummies in the early days of their unwrappings.  It is obvious from
> >Beato's work how much even these two men, always termed "well-preserved",
> >have suffered from being exposed to the modern age in the Cairo Museum.
> >Ramesses, especially ,looks much different than I am used to seeing him--
> >or perhaps it was just the magic of Signor Beato's art.
> >
> >If anyone knows where a collection of Beato's photos of the mummies can
> >be found, or has seen other comparable pictures by him, please let me
> >know.  I am doing a reconstructive artistic project of the royal mummies
> >and I can see that Beato's photos would be of invaluable assistance.
> >
> 
> There were two Beatos. The brothers Antoine and Felix. It is Antoine  (
> Antonio)1825-1903 who lived in Luxor. According to FOCUS EAST: Early
> Photography in the Near East (1839-1885) by Nissan N. Perez, Abrams 1988,
> When he died in 1903 he left behind 1,500 negatives that were offered "
> in a public announcement by his widow, who wanted to sell the
> photographic establishment in Luxor....Part of the collection was bought
> by Gaston Maspero, then director of the Boulaq museum." p131. So these
> are probably still in the Cairo Egyptian Museum. So when are you going?
> --
> Greg Reeder
> On the WWW
> at Reeder's Egypt Page
> ---------------->http://www.sirius.com/~reeder/egypt.html
> reeder@sirius.com
Shukran, ya Greg!  Ask and ye shall receive the answer is still the 
motto around here.  I love this newsgroup!

>> :))))
>
>
>Dear Xina,
>
>LMAO or just plain LOL!  Great joke, but on the Ancient Folly List, it
>would have received the response that Jamaica is just a state of mind 
>and that one really could travel there astrally, thus avoiding costly 
>airplane tickets and controlling crew members, who like scientists and
>archaeologists, want to bring a false order to the universe!
Of course, you can't forget the clear quartz staff that actually came
from the depths of Atlantis.  You need this to clear your aura and
bring clarity to the thought process.
:):):):):):);)
Amanda

mablake@indyvax.iupui.edu (MAJ) wrote:
>> Stella Nemeth (S.NEMETH@IX.NETCOM.COM) wrote:
>> 
>> : OK.  What do they use for evidence of this?
>>
>The evidence was found in the form of radioactive sand.  Proof positive
>that aliens build the pyramid.
What radioactive sand?  Where?  I've never heard of any radioactive
sand in the area of the pyramids, but I'm willing to listen to your
descriptions with an open mind.
If there is radioactive sand in that area, why would that be proof
that aliens built the pyramids? How, in your opinion, did the area
become radioactive?
Stella Nemeth
s.nemeth@ix.netcom.com

ayma@tip.nl wrote:
>***It is nice to give the non-european cultures their due, high time!
>But the black revisionists go totally overboard - making every culture
>and important person around 'Black', and of course 'Superior' [see
>Kush above] - the same uncanny thing as the Europeans in the bad old
>days did, turned everything into White [like Zimbabwe as the mines of
>Solomon]. Note how most revisionists write Black with capitals [like
>in: White Power]  and Africa is a sort of mother Atlantis [like in:
>Blut und Boden]. And as to historical facts....Sigh. Revisionists are
>the worst advocates of their own course.
I don't think I've seen anyone say it better.  It is very odd, in this
last decade of the 20th Century, to see the exact same language with
only a few words changed that so many of us fought against 30 and 40
years ago show up all over again.  I guess some things never change.
Stella Nemeth
s.nemeth@ix.netcom.com

"Alan M. Dunsmuir"  wrote:
>In article <50vens$m9u@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>, Stella Nemeth
> writes
>>Do let me know which word you would prefer to use in future
>>conversations on this period.  I'll attempt to remember to use it.
>I - like I think everybody else in the field - prefer 'Greeks'. or
>'Hellenes' (both of which include Achaeans, who may well have been
>descendents of the 'Myceneans', and Dorians, who certainly weren't. Your
>major problem, Stella, is that you insist on making the leap of
>imagination, unfettered by the restraints of reality, from the separate
>groups of people who have left archaeological finds behind them
>("Myceneans" and "Minoans" are two such groups) to your vision of
>migrating groups of mankind wandering around the Mediterranean and the
>Levant, dropping a trail of artifacts for the sole purpose of
>establishing their real identity, for you to interpret.
I'm making a leap of imagination???  Perhaps to anyone who is so far
behind the times that he hasn't been clued in to the fact that there
is great doubt that there ever was a "Dorian invasion".  There doesn't
seem to be any proof of one.  At least not in the right places and the
right time.
The most recent theory I've seen, and I don't claim that it is the
most recent out there, is that the Dorians were the folks out in the
sticks (or the hill country) who moved into the better farming areas
after the general depopulation of Greece as a whole when the Bronze
Age civilizations collapsed.
There is evidence of lots of trade.  I've posted about that.  There
seems to be evidence of population groups entering the Levant at about
the same time.  Changes in pottery.  Changes in housing styles.
Changes in language even at times.
None of this is fantasy.
>Please do not use the word "Mycenean" for anything or anybody later than
>1200BC, unless there is indisputable evidence of a Mycenean site to
>support the attribution. In doing so you only encourage poor Steve with
>his delusions.
Yes, SIR!!!!  Like I said, I tend to mirror the words used by others.
I gather you prefer the word Greek?  As strange as it might seem, so
do I.  But not because the Mycenaeans disappeared.
>(On another line entirely - do you *really* still not accept the 1628BC
>date for Thera? Every time I have seen you mention it over the last
>couple of months, it has been in the context of such phrases as "the
>jury is still out", or "I guess we'll have to go back to King Lists for
>our dating". Do you really believe this to be the case? Or are you
>simply coming to terms with the fact that some earlier support you may
>have expressed for Rohl and James is now seen to be entirely misplaced?
I'm still partly undecided.  Henry has basically convinced me that the
1628 event has to be Thera.  I've always accepted that there was a
1628 event, but since there was another event closer in time to many
of the traditional dates, I needed to know why they thought it wasn't
Thera.  He has answered most of my questions.
As for Rohl, I didn't express support.  I asked questions because I
knew I didn't know enough to make a decision about his book and most
of the objections to his theory that I read here were about things he
hadn't claimed in his book.  I wouldn't be surprised to discover that
he is right about some of the things he discusses in his book without
being right about the entire theory.  
>The jury not only is not still out on this one. It has been roundly
>thanked by the judge for its efforts in reaching a verdict, and has been
>excused further jury duty for the rest of its life.)
Of course the jury is still out on this one.  And it will stay out for
at least another year.  The king lists are still the best short term
method of deciding how many years between king A and king B.
Dendrochronology can't do that.  Pottery styles are still the best on
the ground method of deciding if you are in Level A or Level B of a
dig because you can do it on the fly, right there at the dig.  No one
method is perfect for all things.
There are two things needed before the 1628 date will be nailed down,
both probably due to arrive in the next year.  First a totally
independent dating of the 1628 event by a method unrelated to either
C14 or Dendrochronology which will link it to Thera.  This will
provide a final, and independent, decision about the 1628 event.
Second, the dating of Egyptian wood, found in known circumstances,
currently in museum collections and due to be sent to Cornell during
the past year and the present one.  This will provide the framework
for a new chronology.
We live in exciting times.  Personally, I'm enjoying the entire thing.
Stella Nemeth
s.nemeth@ix.netcom.com

Baron Szabo  wrote:
>How do REAL scientists explain these nicotine levels in such divese
>places?  I'd love to hear it.
I wonder about contamination from 19th Century and 20th Century
European and American archaeologists that smoked.  I'd want to know
exactly where the nicotine traces were coming from and what had been
done to check out surface contamination.
Stella Nemeth
s.nemeth@ix.netcom.com

piotrm@umich.edu (Piotr Michalowski) wrote:
>There has been alot of work done on color terminology in different languages.  
>It is important to keep in mind that language is a convention and semantics is 
>a complex matter.  We know that there are many languages that have only four 
>color terms, for example, white, black, red and "grue" that is one term that 
>covers what in English would be divided into "green", "yellow" and "blue."  
>This is, for example, the case in most older Semitic languages and in 
>Sumerian.  Howver, this does not mean that people could not distinguish colors 
>just as well as we do, as has been demonstrated by anthropologists who have 
>worked with contemporary cultures that use similar systems.  The classic book 
>on the subject is Kay and Berlin, Basic Color Terms, and there have been 
>hundreds of studies since.  There is even a book on color terminology in 
>Homeric Greek as well as an excellent article on Egyptian color terms by John 
>Baines.
When I reread what I had written I recognized that I could have been
misunderstood.  Read what I meant, not what I wrote.  Please.  
Anyway, what I meant wasn't that people couldn't see different colors,
but that they didn't necessarily distinguish between colors that we
call green and blue.  (I wasn't aware of the yellow.)  Or red and
orange. 
The absence of color names is an interesting one.  Can one think about
something if one doesn't have a name for it?
Stella Nemeth
s.nemeth@ix.netcom.com

(snip)
>modern man.  It is part of humanity's collective consciousness.
> 
> Your responses are welcome on this subject matter.
>
>
Oh no!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Not the 100th monkey again!  
This person should read the Ancient Folly list.
Amanda

In <3233936B.6010@mailhost.netrax.net> matt
 writes: 
>
>Edgar Casey stated before his death that one day man would find a
library 
Just anal here:... It's 'Cayce' not 'Casey'.
> containing information of a unknown civilization beneath the foot of
the 
>Sphynx.I watched a show on the Discovery Channel the other night where
>some archeologists using a ground penetrating radar device discovered 
>that in fact there is a room beneath the foot.However,due to the
Egyptian 
>gov't -they are not permitted to excavate the sight.
They are not permitted to excavate the "chamber" because of the great
possibility of the whole thing collapsing on their heads.  Plus, it's
not necessarily a chamber, but rather a small gap of space that really
isn't that big...aka...wouldn't hold a large library of Egyptian
secrets.
To me this makes 
>sense seeing whereas,according to several studies it was realized that
>the ancient Egyptians were precise in the dimensions of their
sculptures 
>and stuctures to real life .The Sphinx however,is not.The body is not
in 
>porportion with the head.It suggests that the weather elements
corroded 
>away the real head(which was probably a lion's head)and that the
pharoh 
>recarved the head into his likeness.
Yes, the head is eroded.  No, it was not recarved.  If the head had
been recarved after the water erosion of the original sculpture, then
there would not be the apparent water erosion patterns that are
currently on the head.  However, even this theory has yet to become
more than conjecture.
Any remarks or info either in favor 
>or against this theory is greatly encouraged."A closed mind leads to 
>unproven thoughts"----Matthew Freeze
Amanda

In article <512pq9$erj@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
Stella Nemeth  wrote:
>The absence of color names is an interesting one.  Can one think about
>something if one doesn't have a name for it?
	One can picture it in one's mind, or else imagine some other 
appropriate sensation.
	And as to describing colors without abstract color words, one can 
always use terms of the form -colored.
-- 
Loren Petrich				Happiness is a fast Macintosh
petrich@netcom.com			And a fast train
My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html

In article <3234A559.2976@pioneerplanet.infi.net>,
Saida   wrote:
... How about "Tcha'au en pa war"?  This would be 
>referring to the berries, which seem to figure in Egyptian medicinal 
>recipes.  Unless someone can give me a good idea of how the Romans came 
>up with the catchy word "juniper".
	Which was pronounced by them something like /yuniperus/.
-- 
Loren Petrich				Happiness is a fast Macintosh
petrich@netcom.com			And a fast train
My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html

In article <32348F38.4795@clr.com>,
Olice Certain   wrote:
>Loren Petrich wrote:
>> Ek'wosko:r. True, our knowledge is incomplete in some ways,
>> but there is enough known to exclude Ancient Egyptian as the 
>> ancestor of the Indo-European languages.
>I've been following this thread for quite a while, and I think
>that Steve and Sadia are only trying to point out the possibility 
>of some English words *borrowed* from Egyptian.  I don't think 
>either of them has tried to claim Ancient Egyptian as the 
>ancestor of the Indo-European languages.  Just my 2 cents...
	So what?
	But the trouble is that Steve Whittet, especially, finds it hard 
to accept that *any* English word can have a non-Egyptian origin.
-- 
Loren Petrich				Happiness is a fast Macintosh
petrich@netcom.com			And a fast train
My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html

According to Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries by A. Lucas p429ff 
the following kinds of wood have been identified in objects from ancient 
Egypt. 
Foreign Timber:
Ash (Fraxinus excelsior)
Beech (Fagus sylvatica)
Birch
Box (Buxus sempervirens)
Cedar (Cedrus Libani)
Cypress (Cupressus sempervirens)
Ebony (Dalbergia melanoxylon)
Elm
Fir (Abies cilicia )
Hornbeam (Carpinus Betulus)
Juniper (Juniperus phoenicea)
Lime (Tilia eurpaea)
Liquidamber ( Liquidamber orientalis)
Maple (Acer campestre or Acer pseudo platanus)
Oak (Quercus Cerris?)
Pine (Pinus halepensis?)
Plum (Prunus domesticus)
Yew (Taxus baccata)
Egyptian Timber:
Acacia
Almond
Carob (Ceretonia Siliqua
Fig (Ficus carica)
Date Palm (Phoenix dactylifia)
Dom Palm Hyphaene thebaica)
Persea (Mimusops Schimperi)
Poplar (Populus euphratica)
Sidder ( Zizyphus mucronata or Zizyphus spina Christi)
Sycamore Fig (Ficus sycamous)
Tamarisk (T. nilotica and T. articlata)
Willow (Salix safsaf)
-- 
Greg Reeder
On the WWW
at Reeder's Egypt Page
---------------->http://www.sirius.com/~reeder/egypt.html
reeder@sirius.com

Olice Certain  wrote:
>HR57JazzandBlues.@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>> [snip]
>> >Mike Tittensor (mike@heridoth.demon.co.uk) wrote:[snip]
>> >: Also, Cecrops, founder of Athens was actually said to be a child of 
>> >: Gaea and to have a serpent's tale below the waist. Do all negroes 
>> >: have such appendages? I find it alarming to think so!
>> 
>> I don't mean to but into your fun but, what's a negro???????????
>> 
>> -Paloma
>> 
>> "Don't worry about the changes in the key
>> just play within the range of the idea"
>> 
>> Charlie Parker
>> 
>>                     The opinions expressed herein
>>                     are those of my own
>
>
>Paloma, I know the offense many feel for the word you question, but
>please note that the person who posted it is not from our country.
>He has no way of knowing what we do or do not accept as an offensive
>word.  Please try to be more tolerant of other nationalities.  I'm 
>sure he did not mean to offend anybody and I'm sure his post was not 
>racially motivated.
>
>
>Olice Certain
>Olice_Certain@clr.com
>-- 
>===================================================================
>The opinions expressed above are my own and should not be confused
>with those of my employer.
>===================================================================
I did not intend to appear intolorant and apologize to all if I 
appeared that way. I also understood that the use of the word was NOT 
racially motivated. The word negro is very offensive to most Africans 
as well as to people of African decent living in the diaspora. I hope 
that people of other races will find it important enough to make note 
of this. BTW - to everyone - no negro threads please my blood 
pressure would not be able to take it. :-)
Thanx
-Paloma 
"Don't worry about the changes in the key
just play within the range of the idea"
Charlie Parker
                        The opinions expressed herein
                        are those of my own 

Saida wrote:
> 
> You also stated that you believe my way of transliterating Egyptian is
> "phonologically misleading".  There is nothing intentional in this, you
> know, but you are right.  Yet the other system is no more helpful,
> because we have much less of an idea how Egyptian was pronounced than it
> was written. 
But, with all due respect, what is the point then of making up a 
pronunciation? If all we have are consonants, then these is all we have -- no 
point in *assuming* a particular vowelling pattern is being employed. Sure, 
we should try to determine the vowels and pronunciation as best can be based 
on available sources, but ultimately, this is only an approximate 
reconstruction. Besides, with regard to *transliteration*, this is only 
intended as a way of noting the *written* orthography of Egyptian, not the 
phonetics. /imn-Htp/ might look strange, but I can look this right up in any 
scholarly source instead of having to dig around looking for "Amenhotep", 
Amunhopte", "Imunhetep", &c.; (all of which have been used in print at one 
time or another).
> I have some theories on this pronunciation that would
> surprise most people interested in this subject.  I believe, given its
> geographic location, that Egyptian has been treated too much like a
> Semitic language as regards its intonation.  Yet it seems to me that
> Egyptian is such an eccentric language that we cannot count on Semitic
> to give us much of an idea how it sounded.  
Egyptian is no more eccentric than any other language; it just has its own 
set of rules. And you are right about using only Semitic sources for 
reconstructing Egyptian phonology, but they *are* the closest we have, and 
the ones with the most interchange with Egyptian (Berber languages are also *
extremely* helpful, but much less well known).
> Even the "ayin" sound, which
> is so distinctly Semitic, has been attributed to Egyptian, yet I am far
> from sure that their "ayin" signs (the foremost being the extended
> forearm) were pronounced in the Semitic fashion.
Not at all! `ayn is a general phoneme found in most Afro-asiatic languages, 
Semitic and Egyptian included, but also Berber languages.

Kevin D. Quitt (Kevin@Quitt.net) wrote:
: Assume the block is square on the ends and much longer than thick or wide.
: Build two wheels out of wood that have a square hole in the middle, the size
: of the stone, so that one wheel can be fitted to either end of the stone.
: Use ropes and poles to hold the wheels in position.  The stone can now be
: rolled, and by wrapping ropes arounf the entire thing, one man, pulling on
: one rope can move a ten-ton block up a slight incline on hard ground.
: I know this works, because I've done it.
OK, sounds believable.  Now try it on desert sand!
I suppose that problem can be solved by laying down plywood, or the closest
approximation you can make "without modern machinery".
But it's still easier with the little whistling gnomes.
-John S.