Newsgroup sci.archaeology 46297

Directory

matthuse@ix.netcom.com(August Matthusen) wrote:
[snip]
>Not to mention "the top of the pyramid being older then the bottom" 
>which appears to imply that the top was built first????
>
>Regards,
>August Matthusen
He's alluding to the results of the Pyramids Radiocarbon Dating Project.
The samples of organic material (charcoal) from the mortar got older,
the higher the course they were taken from.
I have a theory, which is mine, which is my theory . . .
The charcoal was a chance contaminant of the materials used to make
the mortar.  As building progressed, they dug deeper and deeper into
the deposits of this material, so the charcoal got older and older.
On the other hand, if the sand was radioactive enough to skew the
results, some people must have absorbed a hell of a lot of rads.
Martin Stower

degrafx@netwrx.net (Gilgamesh) wrote:
>Martin Stower  wrote:
[snip]
>>>First, who is 'they'.
>
>>I'll treat this question with more seriousness than I think it deserves,
>>and approach it be way of elimination: they weren't aliens, and they
>>weren't Atlanteans, and they weren't people out of the Bible.  They lived
>>locally.  Does this help?
>
>No, for there is not a shred of substantiated proof in it.
You want proof of who I was talking about?  Because that's what your
question addressed.
>>>Secondly, the 3 GPOGiza contain not a stroke of impression
>>>to classify whose expression this was.
>
>>Why would they?  Do you seriously imagine that they built the pyramids to
>>leave us better informed?  Or that they had any intention of the pyramid
>>interiors being open to public inspection?
>
>Considering their decorative artistic expression in many other works,
>and that the Giza Plateau is one of the Wonders of the world,
>something must have been left in it.  No, all are empty and void of
>anything.  Since real tombs in Egypt contain artistic expression why
>would not these great tombs contain anything.
>One, they are not tombs.
Which tombs?  Pharaonic Egypt lasted for some 3,000 years.  It didn't
remain static throughout that period; the way they did things changed,
in specific, identifiable ways.
Have you studied that civilisation, beyond the most superficial popular
level?  Obviously not - but still you pontificate.
The `decorative artistic expression' found in 4th Dynasty tombs occurs
in the offering chapel - NOT the tomb chamber - NOT the passage or shaft
leading TO the tomb chamber.  An Egyptian tomb was a complex structure, with
several functionally distinct components.  To reiterate - since evidently
you missed it the first time: the temples - which were the functional
equivalents of the chapels - WERE provided with reliefs, inscriptions,
statues and so on.  So were the causeways.  Despite massive depredations,
evidence of this remains, and the evidence points to three names: Khufu,
Khafre and Menkaure - as indeed do the pyramid names found in the
surrounding tombs:
    Khufu's Horizon
    Khafre is Great
    Menkaure is Divine
- as indeed does the Debehen inscription - heard of that?  But of course
the Egyptians didn't know what they were talking about, did they?
(And of course the pyramids were different in some ways from other tombs.
The pharaoh was different from other people, and the architecture is -
among other things - an expression of status.)
There's massive irony here.  This fallacious argument about the lack of
inscriptions goes back to the 19th century.  Here's an early version of
it:
    The quarry-marks in the chambers of construction of the Great Pyramid,
    and upon the stones belonging to the Second and Third, prove that
    hieroglyphics were made use of before these buildings were erected;
    and the inscriptions in the tomb of Trades shew that they had been
    employed at that time for sepulchral purposes: they abound, in fact,
    upon almost every Egyptian tomb and sarcophagus, from the earliest
    ages down to the time of the Romans; and the exception formed by the
    pyramids, appears to corroborate the antient tradition that those
    buildings were the mausolea of the Shepherd Kings, who conquered
    Egypt, and who were entirely of a different race, and hostile to the
    religious institutions of the country.
Who wrote this?  Col. Howard Vyse, the discoverer of the quarry marks.
In fact he was the originator of this argument.
>>I see you're simply ignoring the crew names and mason's markings found
>>in Khufu's pyramid.  If you're going to do that, then I suggest you
>>back up your decision with some serious argument - and I mean something
>>better than Sitchin's dishonest and inept rantings on the topic.
>
>No, his rantings are justified.  For KHUFU was misspelled.
I see.  I ask for something better than what Sitchin says.  You come up
with - what Sitchin says.  No marks for English comprehension.
On what basis do you claim that `Khufu' was misspelled?  Is it because
you've seen the cartouche in situ?  No.  Is it because you've seen a
good picture - photo or drawing - of the cartouche?  No.  (Sitchin's
undersized and low definition photocopies don't count - you can scarcely
see the cartouche, let alone the relevant sign.)
You say it because Sitchin says so.
It so happens the drawings of which Sitchin provides such inadequate copies
were done by John Shae Perring.  They're reproduced in Vyse's book, and on
a much larger scale in Perring's own publication.  They do not show what
Sitchin says they show - it's that simple.  They show the `kh' sign as
a circle containing three horizontal hatching lines - a perfectly
unambiguous rendition of the sign.
To corroborate this, I cite two other sources: the photograph in Stadelmann's
Die Aegyptischen Pyramiden, and the print in Lepsius' Denkmaeler.  The latter
is based on a drawing done just five years after the discovery.  Sitchin's
misspelling claim is simply, visibly false.
>>To pursue the question of relevance, perhaps you'd like to explain why a
>>pyramid, bang in the middle of a necropolis, might have a sarcophagus built
>>into it?
>
>An empty one.
The sarcophagus is empty now, therefore it was always empty.
Brilliant argument.
>And one whose volume is equal to the surface area. (or is it double)
I can think of no better commentary than that given by Kingsland - engineer,
Theosophist and a man with his own unorthodox views about the pyramid - in
his book, The Great Pyramid in Fact and in Theory (Part I, p. 96):
    The Coffer must of course in the first instance have been designed
    to be of a certain size; but the workmanship is so rough and faulty that
    we cannot concede that that design was in any way intended to be a
    standard of measurement.  Had such been the case we must conceive that
    the greatest possible care would have been taken in constructing it; and
    we see from the exquisite workmanship exhibited in, for example, the
    plane surfaces of the Casing Stones, and the marvellous fitting of the
    joints in these and in the King's Chamber itself, that there was no lack
    of skill to execute the perfect workmanship which a Coffer intended as
    a standard of measure would undoubtedly have exhibited.
>UFO Video Analysis - Ovni Chapterhouse
>Nellis Air Force Base Stills!!!!!!
>http://www.netwrx.net/users/degrafx/ufovideo.htm
>all video all the time
Since you clearly fail to grasp the implications of that sarcophagus,
I'll recycle some old material, and explain it.  First of all, Kingsland
again:
  . . . When Professor Smyth went to the Pyramid in 1865 he was
  astonished to find that there is actually a ledge or groove cut
  into the sides at the top, into which to slide a lid, and also
  dowel-holes into which pins could be slipped in order to fix
  it--all after the manner of many of the Egyptian sarcophagi.
  The so-called ``Coffer'' is in fact a Sarcophagus, whether
  actually intended to contain the body of a King or otherwise.
  It is very similar in construction to the Sarcophagus in the
  Second Pyramid, more particularly in the matter of the groove
  and dowel-holes for the lid.
This from a man who actually DISPUTED the `tomb theory'.
It's certainly worth quoting Petrie's detailed comments on the
sarcophagi of Khufu and Khafre:
  The coffer in the King's Chamber is of the usual form of the earliest
  Egyptian sarcophagi, a approximately flat-sided box of red granite.
  It has the usual under-cut groove to hold the edge of a lid along
  the inside of the N., E., and S. sides; the W. side being cut away
  as low as the groove for the lid to slide over it; and having three
  pin-holes cut in it for the pins to fall into out of similar holes
  in the lid, when the lid was put on.  It is not finely wrought,
  and cannot in this respect rival the coffer in the Second Pyramid. . . .
  [The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh, 1885 (1990 reprint), p. 29]
  The coffer cannot have been put into the Pyramid after the King's
  Chamber was finished, as it is nearly an inch wider than the
  beginning of the ascending passage.  [The Pyramids and Temples of
  Gizeh, 1885 (1990 reprint), p. 88]
Regarding Khafre's sarcophagus:
  The coffer is well polished, not only inside but all over the outside;
  even though it was nearly all bedded into the floor, with blocks
  plastered against it.  The bottom is left rough, and shows that it
  was sawn and afterwards dressed down to the intended height; but in
  sawing it the saw was run too deep and then backed out; it was,
  therefore, not dressed down all over the bottom, the worst part of
  the sawing being cut .20 [inches] deeper than the dressed part.  This
  is the only error of workmanship in the whole of it; it is polished
  all over the sides in and out, and is not left with the saw lines
  visible on it like the Great Pyramid coffer.  The finish is about the
  same as on the walls of the King's Chamber, and the horizontal
  polishing lines can be seen inside the N. end.
  The lid is lying on the floor of the chamber, unbroken; it was slid
  on to the coffer, and held by a projection on its base, which fitted
  into the undercut grooves.  When finally slid into place, two pins
  (probably of bronze) dropped down out of holes in the lid, into
  corresponding holes in the W. side of the coffer.
  The designers were evidently afraid, however, of the coffer being
  turned over, so as to let the pins drop back into the lid; they
  therefore sunk the coffer into the floor.  To make it still safer
  they put resin in the pin-holes, where it may still be seen; then
  the pins, being ready heated, were put into the holes in the lid,
  which was quickly closed; thus the pins sank 1/2 inch to 1 inch,
  melting their way into the resin, and probably forcing it up their
  sides.  This process made sure that there could be no way of
  getting the lid off without breaking it, and the design answered
  perfectly; the lid never was drawn off.  On one side of the groove
  in the coffer may be seen a little scrap of cement.  This shows
  that the lid was cemented on in grooves and that it was never slid
  back, or it must have rubbed of such a fragile scrap.  The
  cementing on of the lid was also of use to prevent any shake; so
  that the labour of wrenching it off, and bruising the undercutting
  to pieces by wriggling and jogging it up and down, must have been
  enormous.  This seems, however, to have been the way of forcing
  it, as the undercutting is much broken, and the cement in the
  groove, and the melted-in pins, make it impossible to suppose any
  other mode of removing the lid. . . .
  The coffer being 42.0 inches wide, can never have been taken through
  the passages, as the upper passage is only 41.3 wide, and the lower
  is 41.2 and 41.6.  Hence it must have been put into the chamber
  before the roofing was laid over it, and so before the Pyramid was
  built upon that.  [The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh, 1885 (1990
  reprint), pp. 35-36]
Both sarcophagi were both built into their respective pyramids; evidently
the builders considered them essential to the function of each pyramid.
They both have what could be called a one-shot, one-way locking mechanism:
close once and never open again.  Perhaps something other than a
sarcophagus would have such a lock, but I can't think what, and you
certainly haven't offered an alternative suggestion.
The way Khafre's sarcophagus is let into the floor is another indication
that it wasn't intended to be opened again.  It's far from unique in
this respect: a similar arrangement is found in other tombs, including
one of the satellite pyramids of Menkaure's pyramid.
Khafre's tomb chamber also has a small pit in the floor, resembling
the canopic pit or chest found in other pyramids and tombs.  Belzoni
included it in his drawing of the chamber, long before its function
was recognised.  The resemblance is striking when the floor plans of
Khafre's tomb chamber and later pyramid tomb chambers are set side by
side - a comparision presented in Aidan Dodson's book on royal canopics.
The Khufu and Khafre sarcophagi are the right SIZE for sarchophagi;
the surviving sarcophagi in the satellite pyramids, attributed to the
Queens of the Pharaohs, are slightly smaller, consistent with greater
male stature.
The sarcophagi are uninscribed, but this is hardly indicative: Egyptian
sarcophagi underwent a definite stylistic development, from plain,
uninscribed boxes to the elaborate, inscribed, anthropoid sarcophagi
of later times.  Even Unas, the first Pharaoh to have the Pyramid Texts
inscribed on the walls of his tomb chamber, had an uninscribed sarcophagus,
similar in design to Khufu's.
The sarcophagi are in pyramids in the middle of Old Kingdom cemeteries.
Stylistically, they're Old Kingdom sarcophi; built into their respective
pyramids, they anchor them firmly to that context.
The design, material and placement of the sarcophagi suggest that they
were the last line of defence for some important content, consistent with
the other security arrangements found in these pyramids.  I wonder what
that content might have been?
Martin Stower

Stella Nemeth wrote:
....
> I don't find the attitudes inherently racist.  I generally find them
> inherently uneducated, which isn't always the same thing.
....
> And anyway, the people who believe the "alien theory" ALSO think that
> Neolithic EUROPEANS weren't capable of building Stonehenge and the
> like.
> 
> Therefore their theory isn't racist in any reasonable definition of
> the term.  Just dumb.
I retract the remark; I would call it at least very parochial, which 
for some people, is "potentially" racist. But it certainly isn't 
necessarily so.
Jim

mbwillia@ix.netcom.com(Mary Beth Williams) wrote:
>>>What then would be the impetus for these women to marry Norsemen?
>And familiarity also is known to breed contempt... Where would be the
>attraction for women raised under egalitarianism to marry patriarchal,
>hygenically-challenged, hairy, vermine-infested, socially-clueless,
>status-less, etc., etc. Norsemen?  
This description is excellent and timeless - it holds good even
today! This is exactly how Norsemen still are - so what impetus
can Norwegian women raised under egalitarianism to day have to
marry those patriarchal, hygenically-challenged, hairy,
vermine-infested, socially-clueless, status-less, etc., etc.
Norwegian men?
Beats me!
Incredably, though, a few of them do. Only goes to prove how
inscrutable women really are, I guess  ..... :-)))
(Sorry, Mary Beth - no flame intended! But that troll of yours
was just impossible to resist!) 
But, please do not confuse humble Norse Greenlanders, neighbours
of the native Marklanders for hundreds of years, with those
greedy and haughty representatives of the colonizing European
states, so convinced of their own superiority. Pale skin and hair
does not automatically make anyone into a malechauvinistic
imperialist swine. Greenlanders were hunted and enslaved as "wild
people" just as native Americans, Africans and other peoples
were.
The inhabitants of 90 farms - which should be several hundreds of
people - turned to the peoples of America in their need, and
emigrated from Greenland. If we knew which tribes had a social
system most likely to accept them, we might also have some
indication of where to look for possible archaeological traces.
Although I fear these will be few, anyway. The emigrants can not
have brought much with them, and once in America, they left
Christianity, and probably joined the local culture. So their
archaelogical remains, if any, may be impossible to distinguish
from the archaeological remains of the local native peoples?
If some intermarriages took place, BTW, it would be wrong only to
think of Norse men marrying Indian women. That emigrant group
from the Western Settlement of Greenland must of course have
consisted of men, women and children - the entire population. If
they settled in America, I do not think we shall envisage
marriages from day one. Maybe only after a generation or two, and
if so, is there any reason to think that the natives did not
marry Norse women as well as men?
You say that your ancestors lived in those parts of the country -
maybe we are related, Mary Beth? ;-)
I have referred to the documentation - but admit of course that I
am doing some guessing here, too. Or suggesting some possible
hypotheses - call it whatever you like. We know there were
contacts and we know a substantial group of people emigrated. So
what happened to them? What are your views on this? Or do you
take it as so much fiction?
Best regards,
______________________________________________________________
Kåre Albert Lie
kalie@sn.no

Saida wrote:
> 
> 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"."
They are also called "weak consonansts"... ;-)
>  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)
> >
> 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"? 
No, I meant that in Middle & Old Egyptian the /3/ vulture is the phonetic 
/R/ and not a vowel of any sort whatsoever (but this was discussed in the 
other post).
> 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. 
True, but in *written* Arabic, when someone took the the trouble of 
vowelling the text, the second "a" is a fatah (short /a/), never anything 
else. 
> 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")." 
Gardiner is right. And that change or ommission tends to become much more 
prominate in later texts when the /r/ was falling out of pronunciation. 
However, Gardiner, at least as far as I can see, seems to have been unaware 
that the /3/ (vulture) was being used as an /R/ in Old and Middle Egyptian. 
(the texts with Semitic loanwords in Egyptian which confirm this had yet to 
be discovered).
> 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.
I dealt with Kleopatra in the post you mention and the issue of Group 
Writing (the special writing system for non-Egyptian words), so I will drop 
it here. However, your question about "what constituted a definite long 'a' 
or 'ah' in Dynastic times" *is* valid here. The answer is nothing -- vowels 
(long or short) were *not* indicated in *standard* Egyptian orthography. For 
non-Egyptian words, the *non-standard* Group Writing system I mentioned 
seems to have indicated vowels to a certain degree. In Old and Middle 
Egyptian Group Writing the vulture /3/ is used to render "r" and on occasion 
"l" (as might be expected) -- the vowel "a" is not rendered at all. In Late 
Egyptian Group Writing the /3/ *is* used to indicate "a" (as the /R/ had 
been lost in pronunciation) -- this trend continues into Ptolemaic and Roman 
practice. However, I must emphasise, with only a very few exceptions, this 
practice is *only* for non-Egyptian terms and standard Egyptian does not 
indicate vowels of any sort.
> > 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"
> 
> 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". 
No, hamzah is NOT a vowel either, not the "i" or any other -- it is a 
glottal stop (the sound of the "h" in the English word "hour"). Arabic, like 
every other Semitic language, *never* starts a word with a vowel. (However 
to be fair, I really should have noted that the /'/ = the glottal stop.) And 
just to be clear, I am *not* saying that the transliteration of Egyptian
 /idn/ begins with a vowel "i", but with the glottal stop followed by an 
unrepresented vowel of some sort ("a", "i", or "u").
> 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".
The problem is that you are treating the reed leaf (commonly transliterated 
as /i/ with a hook instead of a dot on top) as the vowel "i" (or the 
consonant "y"). Again, it is not a vowel; vowels were not written. What is 
clear is that it very frequently is used to indicated a glottal stop (the 
hamzah (aka, alif hamzatun) of Arabic, the aleph of Hebrew). Here are some 
Semitic loans written in Egyptian -- the Egyptians were hearing the Semitic 
glottal stop as their reed leaf:
Egyptian /ibi/ = Semitic loanword "father": Arabic 'ab, Ugaritic 'ab, Sabaic 
'b (vowels unknown), Amorite 'abum, Ethiopic 'ab
/ibti/ = "to perish; destroy; go away": Ugaritic 'abd, Akkadian abatu, 
Phoenician 'bd, Arabic 'abada (to run away)
/ixti/ = "sister": Ugaritic 'ukht, Arabic 'ukht, Akkadian ahatu (with a 
rocker under the "h" for "kh"), Sabaic 'ht (read as 'kht)
As you can see the Egyptian /i/ is equated with a Semitic glottal stop (and 
yes, it is even followed by a vowel (in those languages where we know the 
vowelling, though it is not normally written)).
However, to get back to the original point, the /i/ could be used for both 
the glottal stop or as /y/ -- we just might not know which the Egyptians had 
intended in some words, and it may have varied as time marched on.

Elmo wrote:
>Hey, i think that the fact that people (like myself) are posting
>articles here asking for more details and opinions about something
>that they saw on a TV show means that we are taking what they say with
>a grain of salt.
>Judging by the number of people discussing the Sphinx chamber on this
>news group, i would have to conclude that what was said was at least
>BASED on some hard facts.
>Its not always easy find the time to get  current information about
>topics like this, especially when your not working or studying in this
>field. TV shows can provide a lot of information in a short time, to a
>lot of people. The more people that know about the type of work being
>done in this  field, the more support, both morally and finically,
>archaeologists are likely to receive.
I have nothing against either Discovery or the Learning Channel but I 
think people need to distinguish between shows which are valid 
documentaries and which are not and also to be aware that many of 
these programs are quite old - they are often not produced by the 
channel itself but taken from network programs or foreign channels.  
For instance, I watched a documentary on Discovery once about 
kangaroos in Australia and how they interact with modern society - 
creating problems on golf courses in Sydney and Melbourne and so 
forth.  When I saw the credits I realized that the program had been 
made in 1976 - 20 years ago.  If you wanted real information about 
kangaroo populations, etc, this program would be of no help.
Archeological information especially can go out of date fast - 
theories go in and out of fashion with new discoveries.
As for the Sphinx chamber, there may be a room down there - there 
probably is a room down there, if they have x-rayed it.  But how does 
this relate to Edgar Cayce and Atlantis?

I should certainly hope my ass were stupid...I don't even want to THINK 
about the trouble it would get me into were it smart.  
On the other hand, I would find insults cast by my ass far more amusing 
than those from my mouth.
But that's just me.
Cheers,
Rebecca Lynn Johnson
Ph.D. cand., Dept. of Anthropology, U Iowa

Doug Weller (dweller@ramtops.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: let's get some dates please? Are you saying that some Polynesians
: migrated say 1200 BC?
Yes, I do, Doug.
Around 1200 B.C, a new wave of Polynesians, the Lapita ware peoples, was
settling the Western islands (Fiji, etc.). They were making a major
expansionary push. 
Enc. Brit. (1992) has a long and useful article about Pacific Islands (v. 
25). What it says is that around that time the peoples of the Lapita ware
culture were sufficiently advanced to engage in long ocean voyages. 
(Their heartland was in the Bismarck Archipelago, closer to New Guinea.)
Sophisticated water craft (most likely single hulled) was available
around 4000 years ago. (p. 245) 
So there's nothing that would have prevented those people from arriving
to S. American coast (not necessarily a planned expedition). The fact
that some of the Olmec statues have a negroid appearance (there are two
types of facial features, the negroid, and the Asian) is a strong pointer
to Melanesian origin. 
The Olmecs, with their impetus for building large public projects and
monuments, appeared seemingly out of nowhere as a sudden burst of a very
rich cultural influences unprecedented on the continent before them. The
hypothesis that they carried influences from Asia and Oceania seems like
a very valid one. 
All the best,
Yuri.
            =O=    Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto    =O=
  --- a webpage like any other...  http://www.io.org/~yuku ---
I am not young enough to know everything   ===   Oscar Wilde

Eric Brunner (brunner@mandrake.think.com) wrote:
: 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.
[more innuendo and argument by ad hominem omitted]
Eric,
How about arguing based on evidence?
Yuri.
--
             #%    Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto    %#
  --  a webpage like any other...  http://www.io.org/~yuku  --
Students achieving Oneness will move on to Twoness   ===   W. Allen

In article <5176cm$mcc@news1.io.org>
          yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
> The stuff about the pharaohs is interesting, but obviously more testing
> and thinking about it are needed to come to definitive conclusions. 
I haven't seen it put better.  Nothing has been proved yet, but
some fascinating questions asked.
(I disagree with you about a lot of things, but it's nice to see
you haven't jumped on this particular bandwagon).
-- 
Doug Weller  Moderator,  sci.archaeology.moderated
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list:  email me for details

In article <32375d04.0@news.netwrx.net>
          degrafx@netwrx.net (Gilgamesh) wrote:
> Doug Weller  wrote:
> 
> >'Gilgamesh' doesn't realise that there is more than 1 way to spell
> >Khufu, and is just slavishly quoting Z Sitchin. 
> 
> Great, it's weller again.
> So much has happened since last we spoke.
> I hope you have been keeping track of the most recent
> of scientific findings.
I have, Jason.
I note you don't quarrel with my statement that there is more than
one way to spell Khufu, and that you are simply quoting Sitchin
without doing any research yourself.
And as for this:
"Ancient Egyptian writting though, I would like to know how many
other misspelling occur in the writtings.  I bet very very few, if not
none at all.  The writting was an art, much like the complexities of
Oriental writtings, leaving little room for error."
Even the most rudimentary study would have showed you what a
ridiculous statement that is.  The scribes were only human,
and it certainly showed in their work. Mistakes abound.
-- 
Doug Weller  Moderator,  sci.archaeology.moderated
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list:  email me for details
... Hey, don't ask me, I'm just an Anthropomorphic Personification.

To all past Center for American Archeology or Foundation for Illinois
Archeology staff and field school participants (or anyone who has "passed
through" Kampsville). We are updating records and have some interesting
upcoming events. We would like to know where you are now. Please drop us a
message at CAAEDP@aol.com (or regular mail is PO Box 366, Kampsville, IL
62053). Let us know your current address and we will put you on our
mailing list for current and upcoming CAA events. We'd love to know how
you are doing and where the winds of fortune have taken you. Hope to hear
from you. Thanks.

Thanks for the input, Paul.
These are valuable references.
Best,
Yuri.
Agapito A Manansala (sac51900@saclink2.csus.edu) wrote:
:  Don't know if these have already been discussed but here are some 
: interesting recent mtDNA studies suggesting SAN-Pacific-SE Asian-Japan 
: gene flow:
: R.L. Cann and J.K. Lum, "Mitochondrial Myopia: Reply to Bonatto et
: al.," (letter to the editor), Am J. Hum. Genet. 59:256-258, 1996;
: Cann, R.L., (1994) "mtDNA and Native Americans: a southern perspective," Am.
: J. of Hum. Genet. 55:7-11.
: Leon-S, F E; Ariza-Deleon, A; Leon-S, M E; Ariza-C, A; Parham, P.,(1996)
: "Peopling the Americas," _Science_ Volume 273, Number 5276, pp. 721.
: Paul Kekai Manansala
--
             #%    Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto    %#
  --  a webpage like any other...  http://www.io.org/~yuku  --
Students achieving Oneness will move on to Twoness   ===   W. Allen

Peter van Rossum (pmv100@psu.edu) wrote:
: In article <514emo$33g@news1.io.org> yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
: >Atzecs were in the stone age EVEN THOUGH the Incas were expert
: >metalworkers. They had contacts. So your point is mute. 
: Where did you read that there is good evidence of direct contacts
: between the Aztecs and the Inca?  I have seen articles positing
: connections between Western Mexico and South America, but these
: are not the Aztecs.  
I'm not going to insist on this point, but I've been reading recently
that the landbridge between S. and N. America had regular communication
routes (before Columbus). Also, the Aztec "poltecas" were avid travellers
and traders. I would be surprised if they never made it to S. America.
Don't have the refs, but I didn't read it in some Alien-inspired web-site
or anything... It was a serious scholarly work -- the only ones I read. 
Yuri.
--
             #%    Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto    %#
  --  a webpage like any other...  http://www.io.org/~yuku  --
Students achieving Oneness will move on to Twoness   ===   W. Allen

Randal Allison (rallison@mail.myriad.net) wrote:
: yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
: >Atzecs were in the stone age EVEN THOUGH the Incas were expert
: >metalworkers. They had contacts. So your point is mute. 
: So Aztec jewelry and metalwork was not really Aztec work, but magically 
: spirited in work?? Who told you thatthe Aztecs were not metal workers and 
: that they were in the stone age??
Gee, Randall, I've been in the museums all around Mexico and Guatemala, 
and saw those fine gold and other objects. The one in Oaxaca was quite 
impressive...
This is just a conventional saying about them being in the stone age.
: >There are some connections between Mayan and Chinese writing systems.
: So what? They look share a few similarities, but which serious Maya 
: scholars suggest that the Maya learned writing from the Chinese.
Some Chinese scholars are claiming this.
: You are 
: slipping again, Yuri. Cite the examples, don't rely on the "I've already 
: discussed this," or "I've updated a new website" form of presentation. 
: Facts, man. Give us the facts right here.
I don't have the refs on this handy. I can't do everything, you know. One
day... For now, all I can say is that I've seen this material a few years
ago. 
[in reference to Olmec-Polynesian connection:]
: Suggested, yes. But proven, no.
I just sent out a post about this.
For my previous posts on the matter, see on my webpage at:
: >http://www.io.org/~yuku/dif/diff.htm
:    Your conjectures about cultural contacts are exactly that. Relying upon 
: reports of a few trinkets which may have washed ashore and a few 
: similarities does not now, nor has it ever proven cultural contact. 
I have presented a lot more evidence than this.
:    The "innability of the opposing side (Gee!! Are we at war??) to 
: disprove" your theories is a moot point Yuri. You posted early in the 
: thread that the Olmec were clearly Polynesian, and that the civilizations 
: of the Americas were founded upon influences by trans-pacific contacts. As 
: such, you assume the burden of proof.
Sure do, and I am doing as much as my schedule allows.
: No one responding to your theories 
: needs to disprove you, and very few have tried. Rather, most of us have 
: posited some challenges to your theories, and asked for some evidence to 
: support your views. It is your responsibility to provide the answers to 
: the challenges and requests for information. That is a part of the 
: dialectic process. 
Thanks for the lecture.
Yuri.
--
             #%    Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto    %#
  --  a webpage like any other...  http://www.io.org/~yuku  --
Students achieving Oneness will move on to Twoness   ===   W. Allen

Jiri Mruzek  wrote:
[concerning Baalbek]
>Romans reported that the place was so old that the local populace didn't
>even have any legends other than the usual fare about being built at the
>beginning of time by the Gods. Amazing how some would-be-experts around
>here have the gall to ascribe the place entirely to Roman architecture!
Amazing can serve up something this lame as evidence.
Which Romans reported this?  Where did they report it?
What exactly were they referring to?
Martin Stower

In article <519kkc$9uo@news1.io.org> yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
>Peter van Rossum (pmv100@psu.edu) wrote:
>: Where did you read that there is good evidence of direct contacts
>: between the Aztecs and the Inca?  I have seen articles positing
>: connections between Western Mexico and South America, but these
>: are not the Aztecs.  
>
>I'm not going to insist on this point, but I've been reading recently
>that the landbridge between S. and N. America had regular communication
>routes (before Columbus). Also, the Aztec "poltecas" were avid travellers
>and traders. I would be surprised if they never made it to S. America.
>Don't have the refs, but I didn't read it in some Alien-inspired web-site
>or anything... It was a serious scholarly work -- the only ones I read. 
>
>Yuri.
I'm glad you won't insist on a point for which there does not appear
to be any supporting evidence.  I don't know of any work that 
suggests there was direct overland contact between Mesoamerica and
South America.  I don't understand why you can't supply a reference
for something which you claim to have read "recently."  Without
any supporting documentation on your part, I'll stick to my 
position that there is no evidence of direct contacts between the
Aztecs and South America - maybe you should consider revising your
position.
The Aztec long-distance traders were called the Pochteca.  There is
good evidence that they engaged in far-flung trading missions within
Mesoamerica - probably as far away as Guatemala.  However, there is
no evidence that they traveled as far as South America.  If they did
we would expect to find artifacts of South American origin in Aztec
sites.  I've not heard of any such materials being found.
I don't get the impression that you have a good understanding of
Mesoamerican cultures or the archaeological research which has been
done in the region.  I suggest that before you continue, you first
spend some time in the library and read some of the many books
that have been written by Mesoamerican archaeologists.  Its hard
to take your claims seriously when you don't seem to have a good
command of the data.
Peter van Rossum
PMV100@PSU.EDU

In article  I mistakenly wrote:
> Even with the relatively
>limited amount of research which has been done at Olmec sites, shows
>that there were settled villages in the area by at least 1500 B.C.,
Make that by at least 1700 B.C. - and I still won't be surprised if
ongoing research pushes this date back as well.  Sorry to have just 
made things a little worse for you Yuri.
Also Yuri, note that at approximately the same time the Olmec sites
are becoming more socio-politically complex, so are sites all over
Mesoamerica - From the Maya region, to Oaxaca, to the Basin of Mexico.
While these cultures appear to have been in contact with each other,
each also has its own distinctive flavor.  How do you explain this
with your Polynesians/Chinese brought civilization to the Olmec idea?
Peter van Rossum
PMV100@PSU.EDU

CONFERENCE ANNOUNCEMENT:
The Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office
in cooperation with the Gales of November Conference
is sponsoring:
Shipwrecks of the Great Lakes
October 10 - 12, 1996
Radisson Hotel, Duluth, Minnesota
The conference is aimed at a wide audience of archaeologists, historians,
sport divers and the interested public. Shipwreck investigations in the
Great Lakes will be the focus of the conference, but other aspects of
underwater archaeology and the history of water transportation in the
midcontinent also will be featured. A principal goal of the conference is
to explore methods of shipwreck preservation and interpretation.
For those interested the conference announcement, program and registration
information is online at:
http://www.mnhs.org/prepast/mnshpo/ship/ship.html
Thank you,
Eric Swanson (swany@skypoint.com)
Minnesota Historical Society
St. Paul, Minnesota

Droid wrote:
> >I've long wondered why we represent a circle in 360 degrees.  Is this a
Richard Ottolini wrote:
> It comes from Mesoptamian culture that used a base-60 counting system-
> decimal times the perfect number 6.   6, 60 & 360 have lots of integer
> divisors.
You're right about Mesopotamia, but the 360 degree circle has little to
do with sexagesimal numbers and more to do with the division of the
sun's monthly motion into daily slices of about 1/30th of the monthly
slice. In the mathematical astronomy this became standardized. Borrowed
by the Greeks, it comes to us through Arab intermediaries.
Marc Cooper
nic.smsu.edu

In sci.archaeology kalie@sn.no (Kaare Albert Lie) wrote:
[snip]
>Later on, as they needed more timber for new ships and for roof
>beams in houses and churches, for chests, doors, etc. (there were
>16 churches in the Norse settlements in Greenland - and in one of
>the churches they had allowed themselves the luxury of building
>one wall entirely from wood) they probably got it from the
>nearest source that they knew about, which would be Markland. And
>going to Markland for ship timber, it would be rather stupid of
>them to bring the timber to Greenland and then build new ships.
>The obvious solution would be to build the new ships in Markland,
>and then sail them home. But lack of iron was a problem. In the
>report that tells about the ship blown off course during traverse
>from Markland to Greenland in 1349, it says that the ship had no
>anchor, and that it was smaller than the Icelandic ships. The
>lack of anchor indicates that it was locally built in a place
>where there was no iron (or very little iron) - and that would be
>either Greenland or Markland. But it must have been built in a
>place with timber available, which excludes Greenland. (There was
>driftwood to be found in Greenland, but a ship builder would much
>prefer to pick his materials of different dimensions and shapes
>in a wooded country. They needed to select lots of branches and
>roots with natural curvature for ribs, for stem and stern.)
You can make an anchor from stone, it does not work as well, but it
does work. (I have not idea if the Norse used stone anchors.) It is
also a possibility that they had lost their anchor(s). Anchors are
expensive to carry, most of the time they are just dead weight. OTOH,
you may have to cut loose you anchor. So one of the decisions a
captain has to make is how many anchors to carry. Too few and you
can't "anchor" safely, too many and you carry the dead weight. Also, I
don't think it is even possible to build a ship from driftwood. And I
would be surprised if they used roots (but I have been surprised
before).
>Another report says that in 1189 the Greenlander Asmund
>Kastanrasti came to Iceland in a ship that was nailed together
>solely with wooden nails, and bound together with sinews. Wooden
>nails instead of iron nails was unusual, and again indicates that
>Asmund's ship was built far away from available iron supplies.
>The most probable place would again be Markland.
Wooden nail? Not pegs? Do you have a reference for this since I would
like to read up on the technology.
Matt Silberstein
-----------------------------
The opinions expressed in this post reflect those of the Walt
Disney Corp. Which might come as a surprise to them.

In article <519jpi$9uo@news1.io.org> yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
[stuff about Polynesia deleted]
>The Olmecs, with their impetus for building large public projects and
>monuments, appeared seemingly out of nowhere as a sudden burst of a very
>rich cultural influences unprecedented on the continent before them. The
>hypothesis that they carried influences from Asia and Oceania seems like
>a very valid one. 
>Yuri.
You seem to be woefully out of date here.  Even with the relatively
limited amount of research which has been done at Olmec sites, shows
that there were settled villages in the area by at least 1500 B.C.,
and there is a continuity of occupation right through the period of
large monument building and finally decline.  
For the past 7 years Ann Cyphers has been running a large scale project 
at the Olmec site of San Lorenzo.  As this data is analyzed and 
published it will not be surprising if this research pushes San Lorenzo's 
history much further back.
The idea of strong evidence of Polynesian, African, Chinese, etc.
influences on Olmec civilization only seems to have strong support
amongst those like yourself who do not have a good understanding
of what has been found at Olmec sites.  Get thee to the library.
Peter van Rossum
PMV100@PSU.EDU

In article <3238680D.D28@PioneerPlanet.infi.net> Saida  writes:
 or Troy? I am not sure.
>> 
>> `k3m = Semitic `Akram (a Semitic name written in Egytian)
>> y3mt = Semitic Yarmuta (a Semitic toponym written in Egyptian)
>> 
Just out of curiosity, what are the Egyptian references to y3mt and is the 
interpretation as Yarmuta certain?  Out of laziness, I have not checked it, 
but would be grateful for references.  Is this supposed to be the same as 
the Ur III place name (Syrian) Yarmuti, which is one of the few Ur III Syrian 
toponyms? 

In  Jon 
writes: 
>
>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 
CooL!!!  As long as you promise not to turn out to be a Nazi in
disguise!  ;)
I couldn't resist keeping this one going...hehe
Amanda

Arg!  I'm having a hard time expressing myself!!!
My question is still not answered!  Thanks for trying though. :)
> >>Do they ever only write single letters of the alphabet7
> 
> >       It was all syllables.
If it was all syllables, how do you isolate an alphabet that I assume
consists of single letters? (while syllables consist of sets of letters)
(do you see my question now?)
> In most systems, but not in all. And, that from Gordon, who, no matter
> what else he did, "wrote the book"  on  Ugaritic, which was alphabetic.
Was Ugaritic the language of the Phoenicians (coastal Canaanites) or was
it Aramaic?
> >>How
> do we know the Greeks used a Canaanite alphabet?
> 
> >       The names and appearances of the letters.
But when/where do these letters appear alone? (not as syllables)
-- 
zoomQuake....220+ of the best ancient history related links on the net.
http://www.iceonline.com/home/peters5/index.html