Subject: Re:Early Human occupation of Southern Mesopotamia: was: Linguistic debates are of marginal archaeological interest to most.
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 13 Sep 1996 00:22:56 GMT
In article <518lk7$f6j@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>, m.levi@ix.netcom.co
says...
>
>In <517ki3$g19@shore.shore.net> whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
>writes:
>es.
>>
>>
>>I have seen Dilmun. It stretched from Faikala down through Jubail
>>to a complex stretching from Safaniyah south to Tarut, Al Khobar
>>and Bahrain, Hofuf and Al Hasa controlled territory as far inland
>>as Ain Dar, and as far South as Yabrin and Quatar.
>realise how green that desert really was.
>>
>>The west coast of Saudi, anciently known as Midian is a paradise,
>>its mountains are still lush and full of wild game. its terraced
>>fields remind you of China or Peru with roads winding along the
>>face of 9000 meter cliffs.
>>
>
>What you have seen is Saudi. Maybe the Saudi coast is Dilmun; maybe
>not. There's no evidence one way or the other. No artifacts have been
>recovered in the region to substantiate our interpretations of the
>texts -- not a single tablet, nothing inscribed with the name Dilmun,
>no 3rd m. building levels.
>
>Everybody is dead certain Saudi must be Dilmun. Why? Because it's
>green and produces dates. That's enough to put it in the running, but
>not enough to prove the connection. Take into account that Saudi is
>not the first all-but-certain Dilmun candidate. Twenty years ago
>everyone "knew" it was Bahrain.
"The Gulf in Prehistory", Joan Oates
"Undoubtedly the most unexpected discovery in Gulf Archaeology
in recent years was the identification of a type of prehistoric
pottery known to archaeologists as Al Ubaid after a small site
just west of Ur where it was first excavated and previously
associated soley with Iraq and adjacent areas of Syria and Iran.
The discovery of this very distinctive painted pottery in 1968
in the Eastern Provence of saudi Arabia some seven hundred km
south of UR aroused great interest and led archaeologists to
search for comparable material in other regions in and bordering
on the Gulf, in particular in Bahrain and Quatar.
In the Eastern Province some forty sites were identified.
(Burkholder and Golding, 1971; Bibby 1973; Masry, 1974)
situated for the most part along the beter watered coastal
areas well south of Kuwait and inland near Hofuf."
>>
>>I see the term "lugal" used frequently which I think
>>means "governor", in association with words like
>>"gis" which seems to mean wood or tree in Sumerian and "Eme"
>>which seems to mean "beam".
>
>Lugal means king (lit. "great man"). Lugal is sometimes used, along
>with sukkal ("royal advisor"), as an adjective indicating a grade of
>quality. It's pertinent to the dilmun question in that it demonstrates
>how a title can function as an adjective. Thus the title dilmun might
>have been reapplied to describe the quality of commodity X.
The point was that Lugal was associated with "gis" and "Eme"
meaning the great man, the king or governor, ordered some wood
whether or not he ordered it from Dilmun is another question.
Since you bring it up would you prefer to explain the Ubaid
pottery found in Dilmun as evidence of Ubaid trade with Dilmun
or evidence of Ubaid settlement in Dilmun? The later choice results
in extending southern Mesopotamia south as far as Quatar.
>
>But the central problem with interpreting dilmun is distinguishing the
>toponym from the adjective. This is not straightforward. For example,
>we have receipts that document that "dilmun" dates and onions were
>grown in Mesopotamia. What does dilmun mean in this context? Perhaps
>these things have some past association with Dilmun, but perhaps not.
>All one can say with certainty is "dilmun" goods were not necessarily
>imported. And this is a problem because lots of conjectures about the
>on-going trade with the historical Dilmun are based on passing
>references to "dilmun" things. Why belabor the point? Because, even
>if a receipt for "dilmun wood" HAD been recovered at Mari, it wouldn't
>prove that the wood in question had come from the Gulf. It might have
>been called "dilmun" for some other reason.
"Some aspects of Neolithic Settlement", B De Cardi
"Pottery was not the only foreign commodity reaching the
Gulf settlements during the Ubaid period. At Dosariyah,
Kursaniyah and Abu Khamis as well as the inland site of
Ain Dar, a small but significant number of obsidian blades,
knives and beads have now been recorded. (Masry 1973, 75).
Although obsidian occurs in the Hadramaut, it is more likely
that these objects were made in central Anatolia and distributed
from there through southern mesopotamia along with the ceramics
of the region (Crawford 1978, 129)
No similar material has yet been found in either Bahrain or
Quatar, but other exotica from those areas include a couple
of carnelain beads from al-Markh and al-da-asa and several
of Amazonite from the latter site and ras Abarauk 4.
The nearest source of both minerals being India."
>I'll admit that some Dilmun references are suggestive (excluding those
>culled from myths because the genre does not provide reliable
>economic-political information) that an emporium existed in the Gulf.
>But it's bad methodology to make sweeping assertions about Dilmun
>without archaeological confirmation.
I could go on with a more extensive list including shell seals,
eyestones and pearls found at Ubaid sites...
"Early Maritime cultures". M Tosi
...Bioarchaeological studies and the discovery of the remains
of African plants in the Oman peninsula and Baluchistan"
"isolated instances of the imprint of sorghum in unbaked
clay bricks dating to around 3000 BC at hill 8 an agricultural
settlement in the oasis of Burami...together with rice indiginous
to the Gulf of Bengala..."
"Dilmun a Trading Entrepot", G Weisgerber
"Around 2500 BC Dilmun is first referred to as a supplier of wood
by Urnanshe, king of Lagas. His sucessors Lugal anda and Uri'inimigna
(before 2300 BC) dispensed various textiles, resins, oil and silver
out of the state storehouses to merchants of Lagas.The merchants were
to trade the goods in Dilmun for copper and other wares such as linen,
resin and bronze marine spoons."
>
>On the question of early human occupation of southern Mesopotamia,
>look at the actual archaeological evidence. There isn't any.
Nayeem in the "Pre and Proto History of the Arabian Penninsula"
lists a total of about 256 sites, many of which I have
photographed along with a few not listed.
"During the reign of Guda of Lagas copper, diorite and wood
were delivered from Makkan and Meluhha delivered rare woods,
gold, tin, lapis lazuli and carnelian to Lagas. Naram Sin
warred against Makkan." Ibid
>
>
>Kate
>
>
steve
Subject: Re:The ocean was an empire larger than Libya and Asia combined
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 13 Sep 1996 01:01:24 GMT
In article , souris@netcom.com says...
>
>"Michael W. Jackson" writes:
>
>>...no longer legend, no longer myth.
>>...an ancient site in the Aegean Sea
>>...part of the ...civilization ...
How about establishing a few guidelines before we go
through this yet again...This time let's discuss the
archaeology, and not the legend...
>>
>> ... Plato,...born in 428 B.C., ...Critias and Timaeus,
1.) Stick to the story Plato told, not tangental conjectures
>...parallels between Plato's story and Minos/Crete/Thera.
2.) Pick a date and stick to it consistently, If the story
refers to something which happened c 1628 BC, explain the
reference to an empire larger than Libya and Asia combined...
>...rational discussion of this subject.
3.) Back up statements of opinion with archaeological facts
>...Plato's story.
4.) Plato atributes the tale to Solon so the date of the original
tale is c 610 BC. What events c 610 BC might the Egyptians have
thought worth boasting of to the Greeks visiting their emporia?
>...mixes fact with what Plato (or Solon) considered appropriate
5.)List the statements made in the story, show where each dovetails
or does not fit with the theory proposed.
>...explain everything about the story.
>...Plato states that Solon invented Greek names for things in the story
>...because his readers would not be familiar with the originals.
>...Atlantic Ocean ...
6.)If you locate the story elsewhere, explain the references to
the Atlantic Ocean and the Straits of Gibralta...
>
>...historical Atlantis dull...
7.)not necessarily
>...Troy ...is ...small and grungy.
8.)It might be nice to give Zanggers theory a fair shake this time
before dismissing his ideas out of hand tell us why a discussion of
what early peoples existed in the Mediterranean in the Bronze Age
is mot relevant to the story.
>...our building skills have gotten a lot better in 3000 years,
9.)This statement begs a fair comparison
>...Homer.
10.)While we are at it why not consider what Homer had to say?
>
>...Plato's description...
11.)Let's do it right this time...
>
>Henry Hillbrath
steve
>
Subject: Mummies Flesh sold in Europe:
From: grooveyou@aol.com (GROOVE YOU)
Date: 12 Sep 1996 22:04:58 -0400
Two hundred years before West Africans were enslaved and sold in the West,
the bodies of thier Nile Valley ancestors were being marketed and
distributed throughout Europe. Illiterate Arab villagers often used Mummy
cases for firewood and sold the corpses for medicinal purposes.there were
businesses in Cairo and Alexandria where"mummified human flesh" was being
packaged and exported throughout Western Europe. "Sick".....one ambitious
man, John Sanderson, spent a year in Egypt(1585-1586) and purchased more
than 600 pounds of mummified flesh, which he exported to England and sold
for a substantial profit. It was not uncommon for some indivisuals to
create artificial mummy by slicing the flesh off of recently deceased
corpses and packing it in asphalt for several months, in an attempt to
duplicate the real thing. During the European Renaissance, many artists
added powdered mummy to their paints with the hope that it would prevent
their pictures from cracking with age. As recently as 20 years ago, it was
reported that ground mummy could be purchased for $40.00 an ounce at a
pharmacy in New York city. "Now will the real cannibal please stand
Up?!!......this is sick and barbaric(not surprising) behaior, I know one
thing for sure, if these mummies were white they would not have been
destroyed and mutilated post mortum, let alone being put in display
cases for profit. Why dont we just dig up william churchill, or george
washington and place the corpses in one these European museums, "Oh
NOoooo," we wont disturb their peace...this would be
"Sacreligious"'!!!...LOL..The proof is in the pudding!...Eurocentrics will
use smoke screens to convince some that this Ancient black civiliztion was
their own, but if you examine the way they handle the Ancient remnants of
this civilization , it will be very clear to you that the truth is that
they (Europeans ) have no kinship whatsoever with this great Ancient
civilization. In the 1500's Egypt still considered a black civilization
, therefore , no respect or consideration was owed to this inferior
(Chuckle) Ancient culture. It wasnt untill it was discovered that Egypt
was the first civilization , then all of a sudden Egypt was suddenly
claimed as non-black civilization (also to justify slavery). I wonder why
we dont raise the Titanic?
Subject: Re: Help!!! Question reference Ancieny Egyptian Sculpture...
From: Greg Reeder
Date: 13 Sep 1996 04:26:36 GMT
Date:
Wed, 11 Sep 1996 16:34:29 -0400
From:
Tankman
Organization:
Earthlink
Newsgroups:
sci.archaeology
"What is the meaning of having the left foot forward on standing Ancient
Egyptian statues.. any help is welcome
Please respond by EMAIL"
grenvill@iafrica.com (Keith Grenville) wrote:
>
>
>Firstly, the apparent forward movement was energized which indicates life. All "living" statuary has
>the left foot forward - all "dead" statuary has the feet together, in other words dead and/or mummified.
> In the convention of Egyptian art, based on wall paintings, the whole body had to be shown, all the
>limbs. Ancient Egyptian art was formulated from the rules of primitive art and remained so for 3000
>years. Apart from the Amarna period, it was the Greeks who developed sculpture. Their earliest pieces
>can be viewed in Athens Archaeological Museum, with the left foot forward. So you see all tomb
>paintings stylized with two arms, two legs. Indeed, only the face is in profile with the eye full
>frontal. A statue could also be viewed in profile and both legs could be seen. Also, it can be
>considered that having a leg forward gave the sculpture stability. It is interesting to note that
>seated statuary did "not" have a leg forward at all. Hope this throws some light on your question.
>----
>Keith Grenville
>Cape Town, South Africa
>
It is true that statues that show the deceased in an Osirized form have
the feet together because he is in mummiform. And when seated the
deceased is shown with legs together. But statues of the deceased could
also be standing in the striding position. After all the deceased was not
"dead" but going forward into the world beyond. These striding statues
were placed in the tomb. Just one example is the serdab statue of
Mereu-ka ( Dyn VI, Saqqara) . This is THE statue of the deceased set up
to receive the offering of the dead and he is striding forward. He is
animated. It is the left foot that is forward and that makes the right
foot support the weight and balance the figure. Women are shown with
their feet closer together but the left foot is slightly ahead. Men lead
the women in this ancient art. They are the dominent motif.
You say the Greeks developed sculpture. I would say that Greek sculpture
developed FROM Egyptian sculpture as anyone can see that the Greek Kouri
can be traced back to Egyptian sculpture -left foot forward and all. The
Greeks did liberate the human form in new and revolutionary ways but
great sculpture does indeed come well before them and well before the
Amarna period. Just check out any book on ancient Egyptian sculpture and
marvel at the classic masterpieces from Old Kingdom Egypt.
See Heinrich Schafer, PRINCIPLES OF EGYPTIAN ART. Griffith Institute,
Oxford!
--
Greg Reeder
On the WWW
at Reeder's Egypt Page
---------------->http://www.sirius.com/~reeder/egypt.html
reeder@sirius.com
Subject: Re: Egyptian junkie pharaohs
From: amann@extro.ucc.su.oz.au (Angus Mann)
Date: 11 Sep 96 22:32:56 +1000
On 10-Sep-96 08:24:56 Baron Szabo wrote:
>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.
I'd love to find out why someone forgot to post "No Smoking" signs in the labs
the tests were conducted in :)
--
Angus Mann, Sydney Australia
eMail: amann@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU
Finger amann@postbox.usyd.edu.au for Public Key
2D 35 17 4A 78 78 89 05 97 F0 FB 54 1F 26 CF EE
--
Subject: Re: Norse sailings to Vinland/Markland (Was: Deep Sea Sailing in
From: gans@scholar.nyu.edu (Paul J. Gans)
Date: 13 Sep 1996 03:46:58 GMT
Mary Beth Williams (mbwillia@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
[deletions]
:
: 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?
[more deletions]
I have no argument with the main thrust of Mary Beth's argument.
BUT, my medieval spirit goes get aroused by the repetition,
however inadvertent) of the Great Medieval Bathless People myth.
It is a widely shared idea, that folks in the Middle Ages were
somehow allergic to bathing and positively reveled in rolling
around in dirt and filth.
'Taint so, folks.
Setting aside the modern American tendency to take one or two
baths a day as slightly abnormal in the other direction, folks
in the European Middle Ages bathed with reasonable frequency,
more often in warm weather and less so in the winter.
Cleanliness was considered important, most homes had bath tubs
(which were real tubs) and most towns and essentially all cities
had public bath houses. Being dirty subjected one to the same
social stigma that it does today.
Bathing was difficult, hot water had to be heated, carried,
and poured into the tub. Usually the male head of house bathed
first, his wife second (same water), and the children were
scrubbed last. Seems primative to us, but then, we have
hot water heaters.
There exist contemporary pictures of men and women bathing side-
by-side in separate tubs.
Indeed, mixed-sex bathing (medieval folks did not suffer as much
from nudity taboos as we do) eventually got the Church so riled
up that a number of edicts were issued against it. We know that
these were not very successful because the edicts were re-issued
over and over again.
According to the chronicles, the Norse were considered fanatics
about bathing. They even seem to have had a tradition of bathing
in cold water in the winter time. Or perhaps that is an English
myth designed to teach the young just how tough the Norse were.
As for lice, they were assiduously picked. Lice and other vermin
are symptoms of human occupational density. It was (until 1950
or so) essentially impossible to have any number of humans living
together without vermin of various sorts joining in. Indeed
even today various insect "friends" are common in towns and
cities, and rats and mice are not unknown even in fastidious
America.
Two things seem to have inspired the Medieval Dirt-Loving myth.
One was the tendency of some ultra-religous folks to show their
contempt for the corporeal by wearing hair shirts, not bathing,
etc. This worked *only* because bathing was the norm, not the
exception. The other thing was the lamentable tendency of
Renaissance folks to take bathing a bit less seriously than
their forbearers, but that is another story.
------ Paul J. Gans [gans@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
Subject: Archaeology in Northern Black Sea Region
From: "Vit A. Botsynovsky"
Date: 13 Sep 1996 10:11:08 +0300
OUR PUBLISHING HOUSE in Odessa, Ukraine, specializes in publishing scholarly works on archaeology and numismatics.
We have published the titles "Essays on the Monetary Circulation in the North-Western Black Sea Region in the Late Roman and Byzantine Periods" by E.S.Stoljarik. Roman Empire - North-western Black Sea region - Coinage and coin circulation, the late third century - fifth century AD. Byzantine Empire - North-Western Black Sea region - Coinage and coin circulation, the late third century - fifth century AD. ($25.00, hardback, 285 pp., 145X210, ill., tables, maps, index). "The City of Tyras" by P.O.Karyshkovs
kij and I.B.Klejman. Greece - Colonies - History, 4th century BC - 4th century AD. Greece - Colonies - Archaeology. Rome - Empire - History. Barbarians - History. Barbarians - Archaeology. ($35.00, hardback, 414 pp.,145X210, ill., tables, maps, index). "Essays in Northern Black Sea Region Numismatics" by N.A.Frolova. The Bosporan Kingdom monetary circulation, 3rd century BC-2nd century AD. Bosporan Kingdom and Rome Empire, policy and coinage. Scythian king Scilurus' coinage and Olbia, comparison with the
Western Black Sea Scythian Kingdoms monetary policy. ($25.00, hardback, 200 pp.,145X210, ill., tables, index). "Bison Hunting and Human Adaptation: A Case of the Comparative Study of the Upper Palaeolithic in Southern Ukraine" by G.E.Krasnokutsky ($20.00, hardback,200 pp.,145X210, ill., tables, maps, index).
We can offer you a Determinant Catalogue of "Ceramic Stamps of Tauric Chersonesus" (2 vols.) by V.L. Katz in Russian. Published by Saratov University. General characteristics - Chersonesian ceramic stamps - Magistrate stamps - Unofficial stamps - The chronological outline of Chersonesian stamping - Catalogue of dies - Magistrate stamps - Unofficial stamps - Determinant of Stamps - 612 drawings are in the 2nd volume - Index - Summary (20 pages) in English ($30.00, hardback, 280 pp. (170X210) plus 500 stam
ps).
We plan to issue in the near future bilingual (Russian-English) books "Rare and Unpublished Coins of the Northern Black Sea Littoral Ancient Cities" by V.P.Alekseyev ($10.00, soft binding, 145X210, 25 coins, tables, bibl.) and "Tools, Weapons, and Adornments of the Northern Black Sea Littoral Yamnaya Culture" by L.V.Subbotin ($30, hardback, 200 pp., 210X297, ill., tables, maps, index, bibl.).
Processing the following books is being in progress: "The Bilenke Burial Ground (Relics of the Great Migration Epoch in the Lower Dniester Region)" by A.A.Rossokhatsky ($40.00, hardback, 300 pp., 210X297, 150 ill., tables, maps, index), "Hoards of Roman Coins in Eastern Europe and Transcaucasia" by V.V.Kropotkin ($90.00, hardback, 210X297, ill., tables, maps, index).
All prices include post delivery.
If you wish to receive these books, will you write or come to our office.
Our organisation would be pleased to make available to you the recent Russian language archaeological books which we will deliver on your order. Perhaps your are not aware of what is being published in the NIS countries. We could send you new books whose subjects lie within the range of your interest, if you outline it to us. We would also like to provide archaeological books issued in the last years and interesting you.
Our address: UKRAINE, 270011, ODESSA, TROITSKAJA STREET, 25, . Phone: (0482) 231882.
Subject: Re: 200 ton Blocks
From: Jiri Mruzek
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 23:57:07 -0700
Stella Nemeth wrote:
> Jiri Mruzek wrote:
> >Stella Nemeth wrote:
> >> OK. What do they use for evidence of this?
> >> I'd like to make what I am really asking clear. I'm not talking about
> >> negative evidence. That would be the kind of thing where we talk
> >> about how heavy the stones were, which we have been doing here,
> >Sorry to interrupt, but you have been disseminating wrong data
> >about the weight of the granite blocks above the King's Chamber,
> >and you haven't yet admitted it.
> I haven't disseminated any evidence about the weight of any blocks
> anywhere. I, personally, don't have the figures or the ability to
> calculate them. I have repeated evidence provided by others about
> what the weight of the blocks are. If you have objections to that
> evidence, you will have to take it up with the persons providing it.
OK, Stella, but your voice repeating evidence provided by others
sure rang loud and clear and confident above this group.
I'd love to take it up with your local gurus, I mean scientific
authorities, but who are they? Aren't you a little suspicious
that they didn't rush gallantly to your side? How can you trust
these persons lurking in the shadows of anonymity, who seem to
derive pleasure out of fooling innocent girls like you?
> >> and deciding that ordinary people with low level technology
> >> couldn't possibly have moved them without knowing much about
> >> what such people are capable of.
> >> Positive evidence would be evidence that there have
> >> been alien visitors who were in the right place and at the right time
> >> to have built the pyramids, an explanation of why they would want to
> >> do that in the middle of a cemetary, and proof that they were the ones
> >> that built the buildings.
> >Aren't you a little too demanding?
> Not at all. There have to be two kinds of evidence for me to believe
> that "little green men" built all of the ancient large building
> projects that we find all over the world. First of all you have to
> have some proof that alien visitors have been here and an explantion
> of why they aren't still around visiting. And second, you have to
> prove that human beings couldn't possible have built the monuments
> attributed to ancient cultures.
> >Given evidence "there have
> > been alien visitors who were in the right place and at the right time
> > to have built the pyramids, and an explanation of why they would want
> >to do that in the middle of a cemetary," - you would still insist
> >on more proof that they did it?
> Of course I would. Just because Americans have visited London doesn't
> mean that Americans built the Tower of London. We weren't there at
> the right time for starters. And the English were perfectly capable
> of building it for themselves, thank you.
Place, time, motive in tandem would count for naught to Stella,
as she would annoy the aliens by periodically trying to pull off
their various body parts, thinking they were fake.
> >As usual, you are forgeful of my proof of advanced mathematics from
> >the Stone-Age: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jiri_mruzek/
> I haven't looked at your home page. If it is about math, I am not
> qualified to make a decision about it, so my reading your "article" is
> pretty useless all around. So it isn't that I am "forgetful" of your
> prood, it is that I don't consider anything you've written here
> interesting enough to make me surf the Web and locate your home page.
Nihilism reigns supreme in thy heart, oh Stella.
My webpages are not about math, but about math & life, math and its
application in art.
How fickle you are in your ways - you just said that you would
love to see proof of something extraordinary in our history -
I offer you such proof, but now, you won't copy the url into your
browser, for magical transport to the Lair of Nasca Monkey:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jiri_mruzek
Well, it's not for lack of trying on my part.
> And that includes the current bunch of insulting posts.
> Stella Nemeth
How insulting to speak out for what one perceives as truth..
namon
************************************************************
Wolf! Wolf? Wolf! Wolf!! Wo.. (SLURP) Woof! Woof!
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Subject: Re: 200 ton Blocks
From: Jiri Mruzek
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 01:07:59 -0700
Matt Kriebel wrote:
> John Webster (webster@rock107.microserve.com) wrote:
> : 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.
Re: "But along comes some bozo who doesn't understand how simple
machines
work, is convinced that *all* technology started with the roman empire
That bozo - hmm, do I recognize myself, as the initiator of this thread?
The bozo - is it me? Perhaps, but his opinions certainly aren't mine.
Along comes some bozo.. Hmm, you are the fresh contributor here, mein
herr.
We have discussed the subject of various methods of building the Great
Pyramid, when you show up and claim that we have no open interest in
all manners of such possible construction by LO-Tech methods.
How dare you?
FYI, it is the present consensus of historians that the Ancients, and
namely Egyptians had only so much knowledge, and so much technology,
and nomore!
Some of us point to the intellectual level inherent in the Great
Pyramid,
and other ancient wonders, in a constructive approach to history.
> 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.
Nice propaganda methods! Bravo, Eiffel Tower was built by Aliens!
Ja, ja ..
Note, how you turn everything a round 180 degrees..
> 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.
Matt, you may have the shotgun, and double-loaded grapeshot approach -
(You some kind of Wako?)
but you're the one getting peppered..
Subject: Re: Egyptian junkie pharaohs
From: stjg@wpo.nerc.ac.uk (Gonzo)
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 07:43:27 GMT
pmv100@psu.edu (Peter Van Rossum) wrote:
>Hey, what a surprise, scientists don't always jump on a bandwagon every
>time someone proposes a new theory.
>
Yes, they are often quicker to dismiss a theory rather than even admit
there might be some element of truth in it (theories in general...).
Okay, there are some real crackpot ideas out there, but in this
particular case there are no spacemen involved, no supernatural
events, no Atlantis, just a questioning of the actual/accepted level
of human achievment in ancient times.
>They actually make the person
>proposing the theory demonstrate with real data, that the theory is in
>accordance with other data, and it is superior to other theories. Boy, what
>a bunch of arrogant snobs. BTW - read above with sarcasm.
>
There's a difference between doing what you suggest and actively
calling an idea absurd. (I don't include some of the more fantastic
ideas floating about in this newsgroup...)
>>I mean, there is a clear sulphurous layer seperating the relevant strata
>>that mark the dissapearance of most saurian species! And it took him
>>almost ten years to convert the stiffies!
>
>Duh, that's how science works - read above.
>
But should it take so long ? Would science move along a lot faster if
some views weren't so entrenched. Granted, maybe not so important for
this particular subject matter (sci.archaeology), where more evidence
is better and things are more different to prove (e.g. it can be a
highly interprative science) , but it took them 10 years to decide (or
should that be 'accept' ?) that there was a possible health risk due
to Mad Cow disease (albiet minuscule), or look at the Australian
Doctor who was ridiculed because he suggested it was bacteria that
could cause stomach ulcers and even cancer :he had to actually swallow
some of the bacteria , which gave him the expected ulcers, and then
cure himself before anyone *really* started believing him *and* then
some respected professionals still didn't believe it . Science does
work by debate, yes, but I think some people tend to be actively
negative rather than supportive or even just open minded about a
subject (i.e. difference between calling something 'absurb', or just
saying "I won't believe it until u can prove it to me").
>>So! What is it gonna take to get the establishment stiffies to
>>postitively prove or disprove the cocaine/nicotine evidence and all of
>>its implications?
>
>For starters, how about proof that it could not be due to contamination,
>
If you've read the rest of the posts on this subject, a forensic test
- recognised in law (US & European) shows ingestion during life was
used. That's fairly strong. Of course, there is *always* the
possibility that the test could give the wrong results - but then I
would guess that's been fairly extensively debated/examined as wrong
results get people fired or sent to jail........
and
>that no locally available plants could give similar results when the same test
>is applied.
>
That's the main hypothesis anyway for the nicotiene anyway. The Coca's
a bit more difficult.
>Golly shucks, that just might take a little bit of research before
>there's enough evidence to make the theory solid, or disprove it.
>
Again, there is no argument with that.
> But if it
>is disproved, no doubt the hyperdiffusionist/Altantis crowd will claim that
>the truth is being hidden. Judging from the drivel that gets spouted out
>here, that seems to be the usual tact.
>
Don't you watch the X-files ? Aren't you a believer ?