Subject: Re: Robert the Bruce's heart
From: dfoisy@chat.carleton.ca (Deborah Foisy)
Date: 11 Sep 1996 12:31:11 GMT
Tom May (atm@bae.npl.co.uk) wrote:
> In article <322F5870.3388@cisco.com>, riwillia@cisco.com says...
> >Steve Russell wrote:
> >> Will someone who knows please post the meaning of the name Robert THE
> >> Bruce. It follows some convention with which I am not familiar,
> unless
> >> it was revived by The Donald in our time.
>
> >> Steve the Russell
> >It's a Scots clan thing. The Clan Cheif is usually called 'The...',
> >so if you are a MacGregor, the Clan Cheif would be known as
> >The MacGregor. Perceptably, the title stuck more formally with
> >the Bruce's.
> >Richard.
> Surely the Clan Chief of McGregor is "The Gregor" not the McGregor,(like
> wise "The Donald" etc) the Mc (or Mac for the Irish branch?) signifying
> affiliation to the chief.
> I'm sure someone out there will correct me if I've got it wrong.
Deb writes,
Well, given how wrong I was the first time I tried to answer this
I should keep quiet. But, my understanding is that the Mac, Mc and O'
whatever signfy "son of", not affiliation with a clan i.e. Gregor. Is it
not the phrase "of that ilk" that does that?
Blessed Be!
Deborah
> Regards
> Tom May
> Avoid dissappointment in life - Be a pessamist.
> Tom May
This is the beginning of a new day.
The Lord/Lady has given me this day to use as I will.
I can waste it or use it for good.
What I do today is important because I am exchanging it for a
day of my life.
When tomorrow comes, this day will be gone forever;
Leaving in it's place, something I traded for it.
I want it to be gain, not loss; good, not evil; success not failure.
In order that I shall not regret the price I paid for it.
-unknown author
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Conjectures about cultural contact
From: brunner@mandrake.think.com (Eric Brunner)
Date: 11 Sep 1996 16:58:49 GMT
Yuri Kuchinsky (yuku@io.org) wrote:
...
: : The Polynesians have had no connection with South America.
: Yes, they had. Sweet potato is the "silver bullet" here.
You clearly could use some help from your co-religionist Ben Brittan.
He put vastly greater work into making his case -- this didn't improve
the facts, but it did improve the presentation values of non-facts.
...
: : The language (and myths) would indicate such a meeting.
: There are some connections between Mayan and Chinese writing systems.
You clearly could use some help from your co-religionist Steve Whittet.
Similar "strengths" as Ben's, above.
...
: I hope you enjoy learning more.
That is why some of us subscribe to this news group Yuri, of course,
there are others, I've named two, you are an obvious third, who have
not learning but affirmation of your beliefs as a self-evident purpose
for subscribing to this news group.
Perhaps you will find a more appreciative audience in the alt.* portion
of USENET, or in sci.archaeology.moderated where cites, not sense, is
all that is required of posters.
: Best wishes,
Likewise.
--
Kitakitamatsinohpowaw,
Eric Brunner
Subject: Re: Norse sailings to Vinland/Markland (Was: Deep Sea Sailing in Palaeolith)
From: kalie@sn.no (Kaare Albert Lie)
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 19:19:19 GMT
mbwillia@ix.netcom.com(Mary Beth Williams) wrote:
>Verazzano made the same comments when he visited the indigenous groups
>of Narragansett Bay, hundreds of miles to the south. In fact, gracile
>features, above *average* height, and *lighter* coloring are
>characteristic of Algonquin peoples, which include the Micmac of
>Eastern Canada, as well as the Susquehanna of the Delaware River area.
>Also, by 1502, the Basque had been fishing the region for probably
>nearly half a century, and, most likely, because of their *traditional*
>treatment of women (rape was considered a most grievous crime among the
>Algonquins, and many a European lost his head over it)
I am a little confused by what you write here. Do you say that
this height and coloring is a natural characteristic of Algonquin
peoples quite independently of visitors from across the ocean, or
do you say that these characteristic are more likely to derive
from 50 years of contacts with Basques than almost 500 years (at
least 350 years documented) of contacts with the Norse?
>>This is no hard evidence. But it is reasonable to think that if
>>some of the Norse settled in America, they might give up their
>>own European minority culture and join the neighboring majority
>>culture, marry native wives,
>The peoples of Eastern Canada and Maine are matrilineal and matrilocal,
>meaning that the status of women was much more elevated than it would
>have been among women from patriarchal societies such as the Norse.
>What then would be the impetus for these women to marry Norsemen?
Being only a man, I can not pose as an authority on women's
impetus to marry.
But, seriously, I do appreciate your views on these questions.
The Vinland sagas exist. L'Ance-aux-Meadows exists. Later
documentation from Icelandic and Greenlandic annals, papal
records and records from Bergen harbour tells us about contacts
taking place throught several centuries. But in order to try to
get a fuller picture of what really took place, it is very
important to have the views of people like you, who have deep
knowledge of the American scene.
Back to women: You should know that Norse women had a highly
respected status in traditional Norse society. Men and women
played different roles, but women had a much higher status than
what was common in "Christian" Europe. One of the Vinland
expeditions was led by Froeydis, sister of Leiv Ericsson. Times
changed, and with the coming of the "European Christian culture"
that status of women fell also in the north. But it is not
entirely a coincidence that Norway has had a female Prime
Minister (Gro Harlem Brundtland) and that Iceland has had a
female president (Vigdis Finnbogadottir) for many years now.
Do we know if the women of Eastern Canada and Maine had that
status also before 1000?
>and after a few generation it would
>>hardly be possible to distinguish their descendants from the
>>other natives (except for some colour differences). This
>>acculturation is what happened to the Norse in Normandie.
>The problem I have with this line of argument is that, aside from no
>physical or *cultural* evidence, it also does not take into
>consideration the oral traditions of the indigenous peoples of the
>regions where you speculate long-term contact occured. As the Wabanaki
>have a number of *stories* describing their contact with other Indian
>groups, why are there no such tales regarding such an important
>phenomena as meeting such *alien* people, particularly when such
>meetings inevitably would have lead to the tragedy seen in later
>meetings with the the Basque and French, i.e., epidemic disease (events
>which _are_ documented, btw, in Wabanaki oral tradition.)
I am no expert on diseases, but since the Norse came via
Greenland, from an arctic climate, they may have been free of
germs. Or am I wrong?
But I agree that you have a point here - not necessarily with the
diseases, but with the oral traditions of the native tribes. But
please enlighten me: are the Wabanaki the only tribe the Norse
could have met? Are the oral traditions of other possible tribes
as well known as the Wabanaki? Another question to be asked is
this: How _alien_ were the Norse really? They were no high and
mighty conquistadores with guns and horses and the full backing
of powerful European monarchs. They had ships and a few iron
tools, but apart from that they were simple farmers and hunters
living from harsh nature far away from the great cultural centers
of Europe. I would guess that culturally they met the Natives on
a fairly equal, if not lower, level.
Another tantalizing piece of evidence for contacts across the
ocean: In 1327 the papal tax-collector received a small bowl from
the Norwegian-Swedish king. The feet of the bowl were made from
silver, while the main part was "a nut come from the other side
of the ocean". Experts have no doubt that it is a coconut.
professor Johan Kielland-Lund jr. at the Agricultural College of
Norway says that in order to find a nut of that size, one has at
least to go as far south as to Florida. And to make a bowl on
silver feet for the king, one would hardly have picked a coconut
that was damaged from floating with the currents for a long time.
Back to the leaving of the Western Settlement of Greenland. The
Skalholt annals of 1342 said: "Inhabitants of Greenland fell
voluntarily from the true faith and Christian religion. And after
abandoning all good beavior and true virtues, they turned to the
peoples of America" (there is doubt if the word America is
original or inserted later). And Ivar Baardsson found the
settlement empty - 90 farms and 4 churches.
So what happened to those people - probably several hundreds of
them? Did they all die without a trace? Did they go to an empty
part of America? Did they join some tribe there? One might guess
that before taking such a desperate decision of wholesale
emigration, they would have explored the country, found friends
among the native tribes, and negotiated some place to live ....
that would at least have been the sensible thing to do.
And here I really would appreciate your opinion, Mary Beth: IF
the Greenlanders emigrated and turned to the peoples of America,
as the sources say they do - which tribes would be likely to
receive them, accept them as neighbours, grant them separate land
or adopt them into the tribe? Which peoples of America can they
have turned to? There may be no oral traditions about it, but
from your knowledge of the sociology of the tribes along the
Atlantic coasts or waterways of US and Canada at that time - what
would be your best guess?
One more interesting detail: since the report says that they
"fell from the Christian religion", this shows a willingness
among the Norse Greenlanders to adopt the culture they were
joining. From 1342 to ca. 1500 we should have 5-6 generations.
Provided the Norse adopted Native American culture and married
into some tribe, how do you think the
cultural/sociological/linguistic situation would be after 5-6
generations? Would not their descendants most probably be
accultured as part of the sociological structure of that tribal
society, speak the same language, follow the same customs as
everybody else there? Except for some slight mis-coloring - would
it have been possible to distinguish them as "Norse"?
______________________________________________________________
Kåre Albert Lie
kalie@sn.no
Subject: Re: 200 ton Blocks
From: gothic@netaxs.com (Matt Kriebel)
Date: 10 Sep 1996 22:16:31 GMT
John Webster (webster@rock107.microserve.com) wrote:
: >>And whats wrong with that?
: >
: >What's wrong is that it's completely unnecessary, without evidence or
: >foundation, and racist. Other than that, nothing.
:
: Racist?
:
: Explain please...
real simple: It's mnot a malicious, ahting sort of racism like the KKK or
skinheads, but rather a far more sinister form where accomplishments by
one race or another is downplayed or twisted.
For example: The pyramids, they were built with a lot of hard work, sweat
and effort by ancient Egyptians. But along comes some bozo who doesn't
understand how simple machines work, is convinced that *all* technology
started with the roman empire, and so on. He decides that the Egyptians
couldn't *possibly* build such a big thing. So rather than study ancient
Egypt technology or methods, he instead decides outright that they didn't
build it.
The first such folks insisted that some Europeans must have built the
pyramids. But this fell aside for the more fantastic 'aliens' theory..
What it all boils down to is that one is insisting that someones ancestors
didn't have the brains or skill to move big heavy rocks and make a pile
out of them. You'll notice that few 'alien advocates' rarely suggest that
technically magnificent european structures (Hia Sophia, for ionstance)
were built by aliens.
Matt Kriebel * This .sig is no longer small or easily digestible!
gothic@netaxs.com * No, I'm not a goth. I just have an architecture fetish.
***************************************************************************
Not so much a shotgun approach, more like a double-loaded grapeshot approach.
Subject: Re: Piri Reis - Chapter Four - Atlantis, is that you?
From: zirdo@ramhb.co.nz (Pat Zalewski)
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 96 12:11:14 GMT
In article ,
bstudio@mcs.net wrote:
>
>
>Piri Reis, a new perspective
>
>Chapter Four - Atlantis, is that you?
>
>All maps are statements of history and the Reis map of 1513 is certainly
that.
> In other posts I covered the "Columbus Connection" and the "Mercator
>Connection." In this post the focus is on "Ancient History," a major point,
>possibly identifying our ancient heritage.
>
>Considering the time, 1513, in which the map was introduced, there is little
>on and of the map that identifies this point in history. When this map was
>assembled, the basic map that is, the focus was a completely different earth
>time frame.
>
>Example: Sixteen major cities are illustrated on the map: eleven in Africa,
>four in North America and only one in Europe. In addition sixty nine minor
>cities are plotted; twelve in the Americas. There is irony here because in
>this period, 1513, Spain was a major power, Portugal was the navigation
>capital of the world, the interior of Africa was almost unknown and the North
>American continent was totally unknown.
>
>Who was this map drawn for?
>
>If a little logic could be applied here, a total reverse of city plot would
be
>in order; many city plots in the known world and few if any in the un-known
>world. This is not the case. How can you have city plots in the unknown
>world.
>
>There was a lot of, New World, traffic after Columbus. Vespucci (1499/1502),
>Pedro Cabral (1500) and Columbus (last trip 1502/4) all made it the Western
>edge of the Atlantic. Their area of search is well known and documented,
>except for Columbus. Juan de la Cosa (1500, second Columbus trip) penned an
>acceptable Caribbean. None of the possible information from this exploration
>activity is reflected in the Reis map even though Reis stated in the notes,
on
>the map, that the "names...Coasts and Islands" came from Columbus.
>
>Conclusion: the information that Columbus supplied to Reis pre-dates the age
>of discovery by hundreds, possibly thousands of years.
>
>Conclusion: the technical experties required to make this kind of statement
>has been around for some time. It represents a level of know-how that an
>"Atlantis" like society would have developed and used.
>
>Apologies to all the Atlantis "Boo Birds" out there, but someone with good
>reason made this statement of history; a society advanced sufficiently in
>technology and navigation. Sounds like Atlantis to me.
>
The Peri Reis map does pose some interesting questions. The Cities of South
America being one such example but they may have been added later. What is
fascinating is that map when placed on a globe is the exact size of the earth
today. But the drawings of south America and the carribean are very badly done
to say the least. The carribean does not even resemble its present day
topgraphy in the least. I posted a thead re this map asking about the lake in
central Spain which is on the Peri Reis Map. My questions was did this lake
ever exist and if so when? If they place a lake in the centre of Spain, which
was not there it does not give much credence to the rest of the Map. There
is also a land peninsular going from Africa towards spain that does not exist
today -if it ever did. It looks like it has almost blocked in the
mediteranean. Also there are lakes in Africa that do not exist to day. My
question is did the lakes exist in the exact places given in Peri Reis Map and
if so when? If the lake in Spain and the lakes in Africa did exist in the
places given in the Peri Reis map but thousands of years ago then we have an
even bigger mystery.
Subject: Re: Edgar Casey--The theory of civilization not yet known to man--undiscovered
From: Jon
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 23:50:53 +0100
In article <51563p$oe2@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
matthuse@ix.netcom.com writes
>In <5153gq$41q@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
>millerwd@ix.netcom.com(wd&aeMiller;) writes:
>>
>>
>>(snip)
>>
>>>Never trust an archaeologist or geologist who wear a pith helmet and
>>>safari jacket. Sounds too much like high drama to me.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Ah, but gee whiz! And to think I wanted to wear a revolver and whip,
>>and ride on little red lines all over the globe saving the world from
>>Nazis and psychopathic child slavers while finding the Ark of the
>>Covenant, the Holy Grail and really cool glowing stones that can get
>>real hot if you touch them. Sigh, now I'll just have to change my
>>major.
>
Sigh, I am just an amateur, but if you get the job, I'll carry your
bags!
--
Jon
Subject: Re: Cocaine Mummies ?
From: Jon
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 23:58:49 +0100
In article <32367e68.6579856@pubnews.demon.co.uk>, Gonzo
writes
>jrdavis@netcom.com (John Davis) wrote:
>
>
>
>>I wonder if you are as amazed as I am with those ancient traveler's
>>ability to ignore all those useless things like rubber, maise, potatos,
>>tomatos, beans, and chocolate and get right to the good stuff, tobacco and
>>coca. Why they didn't even waste space taking home a few useless tobacco
>>seeds.
>
>In the case of tobacco, maybe they didn't need too, if the suspicion
>about their being ( a now extinct) old world type plant available. In
>the case of the coca, that's the whole point, where did the traces
>come from in the egyptian mummies (assuming said mummies weren't
>fake).
>The program also mentioned that sweet potatoes were found in China
>supporting cross-pacific trade (don't know enogh of that to know how
>wide spread it was) .
>
>Maybe, they were crappy businessmen in the end.......
>
>Maybe the long sea voyage didn't make it possible to transport too
>much perishable stuff - even sea-water will kancker seeds. But then if
>you use that argument, *no* stuff would have got across :-)
>
>
>
Just curious, but how many of the plants you mention could have been
grown in China given the climatic conditions at the time. If the
trade route was from the Americas through China and on to Egypt, then
a) The Chinese would be unlikely to offer seed, only a finished (?)
product, and
b) If they couldn't grow these things themselves, they would have had
to continue importing
One thing that I am very unsure about is the dating of the bodies used
the drug tests. Do they come from a very narrow or broad band of dates,
and can any of the dates be tied in with any known major or minor
civilisations in either China or South America?
--
Jon
Subject: Re: Amerindian resistance mode (was: amerindian an offensive
From: rejohnsn@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 15:54:52 -0500
Messrs. Bilbo and Silberstein have both brought up some points that seem
to be going past each other; I humbly offer an anthropological perspective.
In the past 10-15 years in anthropology, the 'problem of translation' has
gotten quite a bit of attention (far more than I can do justice to
here). Translation in this context refers to more than just language --
to culturally specific world views and the ways people from different
cultures interpret the 'same' thing. Grossly, it is the question 'is
there Truth or only truths?'
I'm sure most people can figure out the implications of this relativist
position. Unfortunately, there is also the question of who is doing the
translating? Translation most often occurs from the foreign to the
familiar, less often the reverse or between two foreign situations. It
is important to note, however, that there is no need to 'translate'
between two familiar things.
It is in the act of translation that the power relationships Mr. Bilbo
refers to are brought out. Indeed, one may argue, and perhaps this is
Mr. Bilbo's point, that the very act of translation has inherent power
imbalances. As far as the particular case under discussion (the animal),
the Native perspective is subordinated to the dominant Euro-American
perspective; this is often the case when subordinate perspectives are
presented to the dominant social group. And it may be irrelevant who is
doing the translating: part of what makes the dominant group dominant is
its ability to ignore, without penalty, the subordinate perspective. So
it wouldn't matter if it were a Native or a Euro-American presenting the
Native perspective (assuming the latter even could grasp it); if the
discussion is not presented in terms comprehensible to the dominant
community, they can afford to ignore it altogether. Conversely, the
dominated community cannot afford to ignore the perspective of the
dominant community -- because the dominated community gets ignored if
it does.
But going back to the problem, rather than politics, of translation, this
situation presumes that translation between cultural perspectives is
possible in the first place. Personally, I think that there are better
and worse translations, but there is no perfect translation. Cultures
are not structured identically. The very act of translation results in a
loss of information. It is, in principle, impossible to understand the
Native perspective in Euro-American terms; there might be significant
comprehension, but total comprehension is impossible. So if you want
total comprehension, you have to internalize Native culture.
But can Euro-Americans do that? Part of childhood is enculturation; we
internalize a world-view that shapes not only what we see but how we see
it. I doubt that it is possible to completely discard all of the
cultural baggage we carry as adults so that we may percieve the world as
other cultures do. But I am a Euro-American, which means I have felt no
social pressure to discard the cultural perspective in which I was
raised. Natives (and African-Americans and Hispanics and so on) do feel
that pressure. (I doubt the difference of gender is as significant as
that of culture, at least in this case). I suffer no penalty if I refuse
to try to internalize a non-Euro-American world-view. On the other hand,
if Native Americans did internalize Euro-American culture, would they
really be Native Americans? (Is culture separable from biology?)
That is sort of a moot point, because translation involves two entities;
and it is more than whether a Native American has internalized
Euro-American culture: it also matters how much Euro-Americans will
accept her even having done so. The point here is that difference is
beyond the individual.
So even if Natives could, and wanted to, internalize the dominant
perspective, would that eliminate their subordination? Probably not,
because racism is culture-blind.
This being the case -- if Natives can't hope for total assimilation *even
if they wanted it* (which is not at all the case) -- why should they even
bother with partial concessions to the Euro-American perspective? In
practical terms, because they'd be worse off than they are now. But
outside of purely practical (read political) terms, why should they
bother explaining their world in our terms? Why should the animal be
explained to Euro-Americans in Euro-American terms?
Of course the Euro-Americans cold ignore it otherwise. But this is a
situation where the Natives have the advantage: Euro-Americans came to
the Natives, not vice versa. And if the Natives refused to discuss it in
terms other than their own, then Euro-Americans would be forced to accept
a different perspective in order to satisfy their curiosity -- and
curiosity can be a powerful motivator. It may only be a toenail in the
door, but you have to start somewhere.
Part of being the dominant society means that you can demand everything
on a silver platter, and get it. But that would be total domination, and
where interpretation is concerned, no-one totally dominates. The Natives
control access to their perspectives, to a considerable extent; and if we
seek access to those perspectives, then we need to make some of the same
sacrifices that the Natives have been making to get us to listen to their
political interests. And perhaps that would be a beginning for us to
stop selling our ears, and just open them freely.
Kind of wordy but I hope it makes sense.
And I know that 'the Native perspective' is multiple rather than
monolithic; it was just easier to use the singular in this case.
Cheers,
Rebecca Lynn Johnson
Ph.D. cand., Dept. of Anthropology, U Iowa
Subject: Re: Egyptian Tree Words
From: Saida
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 16:21:24 -0500
Troy Sagrillo wrote:
>
> Saida wrote:
>>
> > BTW, I still can't find anything better for "palm tree" than the "yam" I
> > gave before. Why would I pronounce it like that? Despite its varied
> > spellings, the clue is provided by the spelling *reed, vulture, owl*.
> > That is very clear, no question. Where there is an "i" before a vowel,
> > it must be pronounced "y". That is only logical.
>
> Nope, it is not. All three letters (/i3m/) are consonants NOT vowels,
> including the so-called "alif"-vulture /3/!
Troy, you and I can both be right on this one, according to Gardiner!
He says in his *Grammar* "The hieroglyphs "i" and "w" are consonant
signs, but the consonants represented by them being closely related to
the vowels "i" and "u" respectively, they exhibit peculiarities in their
employment which entitle them to be called "semi-vowels"."
The early Egyptologists (Budge
> among them) treated /3/ as the vowel "a" but this is now known to be wrong.
> Your "yam" may very well have been pronouced */ya:Rm/ in Middle Egyptian
> (assuming of course that /im3/, the form given in dictionaries, is *not*
> the correct rendering). Other examples with Arabic cognates (other cognates
> in other languages very possible):
>
> b3q (bright, white) = Arabic baraq (shining, lusterous, sparkling)
> bk3 (morning) = Arabic bakir (early); bukrah (early morning)
> k3m (vineyard) = Arabic karm (vineyard, grapevines)
> zb3 (flute) = Arabic zamr, zummarah (flute)
> w3D (green) = Arabic waraq (foliage, greenery, leafage)
>
> Moreover, the /i/ in /i3m/ need not be "y" either. Yes, sometimes it was:
> Egypt. /imn/ (right) = Arabic "yamin". But it could also be a glottal stop
> (hamzah): /idn/ (ear) = Arabic " 'udhn"
I misunderstood you before, Troy, about the sign "3" (happy now?) Did
you mean to say that the vulture could either represent an "a" or
something else that sounded like a cross between a very short "a", "e"
or "i"? By way of example, I give the Arabic "walad" (boy). I can
transliterate like this, with two "a's", but the second "a" is
pronounced so very short that it could almost be any short vowel. In
fact, Gardiner says "(The vulture) and the (little mouth) (it being "r"
for those who aren't sure) may be termed "weak consonants", since they
are very susceptible of change or omission; both tend to be replaced in
writing by (the reed or "i")." Yet, as I mentioned in another post,
this "alif vulture" was, in no uncertain terms used to write out the
name of Kleopatra where the "a's" were wanted. Hmmm...well, maybe you
can tell me what constituted a definite long "a" or "ah" in Dynastic
times.
Troy, having to do with the vowel "i", you gave me the Arabic "hamzah"
sound as an example. But that is the "i" sound before a consonant, in
this case "d". It is really not possible for us to know whether the
reed or "i" before a consonant (not the alif vulture, though) was
pronounced very short as in Arabic or longer. Yet before a vowel "i"
must really become "y".
Saida