Subject: Re: Egyptian junkie pharaohs
From: pmv100@psu.edu (Peter Van Rossum)
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 14:00:56 GMT
In article <3239108e.79015072@pubnews.demon.co.uk> stjg@wpo.nerc.ac.uk (Gonzo) writes:
>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...).
I don't see anyone here dismissing this study out of hand. All the
posts that don't support it say that it is an area which needs further
review and study. That marks my debate with Mr. Szabo who seems to
think the matter has already been definitively settled, it hasn't.
>>They actually make the person
>>proposing the theory demonstrate with real data, that the theory is in
>>
>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...)
Just because you saw one researcher on the program dismiss the study out
of hand doesn't mean that the rest of the archaeological world is in agreement
with him. I say again, this is an area which needs further study. My
objection to Mr. Szabo is that he seems to be saying - "no further study needed,
the contact case is proven, anyone who doesn't believe it is just a member
of the 'stiffy' archaeological establishment bent on hiding the truth from the
public." I'm sick of that kind of accusation being flung about by people who
seem to have such a tenuous grasp of archaeological research - or any type of
scientific research for that matter.
>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), [mad cow stuff deleted]
I'm afraid it will take as long as it takes. As you note, archaeological
theories can often be very hard to test and validate. In my graduate
studies I am constantly dealing with theories that though they've been
around for decades can still not be completely accepted nor rejected.
To me that makes archaeology fun and exciting, to people who want
immediate yes/no answers it makes archaeology frustrating.
I think that's what's wrong with the way many lay people view archaeology,
they think its: 1. easy, 2. straightforward, 3. should provide immediate
answers. All these are wrong.
>>>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........
This is way out of my area of expertise but it seems to me that in the
applications you mention above we are dealing with people who are still
alive and have only been around for less than 100 years. I don't know
if the fact that these mummies have been deteriorating for centuries
and have been exposed to outside elements for large amounts of time might
affect the test. If it can be shown that this wouldn't have any effect,
then I'll consider this point satisfied. Anyone know enough about this
to supply an answer?
>>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.
Agreed.
>Don't you watch the X-files ? Aren't you a believer ?
:)
Peter van Rossum
PMV100@PSU.EDU
Subject: Re: Mummies Flesh sold in Europe:
From: dstaples@livingston.net (Don Staples)
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 09:23:03 -0500
In article <51afga$51c@newsbf02.news.aol.com> grooveyou@aol.com (GROOVE YOU) writes:
>Path: news1.iamerica.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!howland.erols.net!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!portc01.blue.aol.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
>From: grooveyou@aol.com (GROOVE YOU)
>Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
>Subject: Mummies Flesh sold in Europe:
>Date: 12 Sep 1996 22:04:58 -0400
>Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
>Lines: 33
>Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
>Message-ID: <51afga$51c@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
>References: <506inp$h3@news2.h1.usa.pipeline.com>
>Reply-To: grooveyou@aol.com (GROOVE YOU)
>NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com
Humm, apparently not all racists are white.
>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: Clovis: Need info about clovis in Asia
From: rejohnsn@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 11:02:46 -0500
On Thu, 12 Sep 1996, Iskander Aguilar wrote:
> Please send any information about Clovis Projectile Points found in The
> Camchatka Peninsula.>
I don't think any have been. As far as I know, Clovis is a purely North
American form.
Cheers,
Rebecca Lynn Johnson
Ph.D. cand., Dept. of Anthropology, U Iowa
Subject: Re: Archaeology and geology?
From: rejohnsn@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 10:59:16 -0500
Should archaeology undergrads be required to minor in geology, or should
archaeology be a B.S. instead of a B.A.?
Certainly geology is useful, but pedology and geomorphology are really
the only widespread geological needs of archaeologists. Cave geology
isn't relevant to most archaeologists, and mineralogy is only of
particular use to lithic analysts. I'm not that interested in the
minutiae of lithic analysis.
As to whether archaeology should be a B.S. or a B.A. That depends on
whether you think of archaeology as a social or natural science. The
history is on the former's side; archaeology is commonly taught as a
subfield of anthropology, which is undoubtedly a social science. On the
other hand, many archaeological questions tend to be naturalistic, and
many archaeological methods require the technical skills of the natural
sciences.
Still, however we *acquire* our data, it's what we do with it that
counts. I think archaeology should be a social science, which I see as a
loftier goal than natural science. Most of the naturalistic approaches
to archaeology, while believable, I find dry and dehumanizing. Such
approaches treat people as a unique variety of herd animal, with unique
herding behaviors -- but a herd animal nonetheless. Human ethology, you
might say. Cultural influences such as ceremonial and politics get
brief treatment as just other environmental influences: the nature of
the influence is less important that the fact of it. I think that we
need to be in the business of examining past societies rather than past
adaptations. But I also think that the natural science questions have to
be asked and answered to provide a foundation for the social science
questions.
*** All you arkies who just got offended: I don't want, or have time,
to debate this. It isn't my theoretical manifesto. It's just a brief,
brief, brief, brief opinion in response to a request for opinions. ***
Cheers,
Rebecca Lynn Johnson
Ph.D. cand., Dept. of Anthropology, U Iowa
Subject: Re: 200 ton Blocks
From: S.NEMETH@IX.NETCOM.COM (Stella Nemeth)
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 16:30:34 GMT
It's my last morning online, so I guess that this is the last word
from me on this subject on this round.
Jiri Mruzek wrote:
>> >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?
My "local gurus" are online. They just don't have as much patience as
I do with this nonsense. Periodically one of them will show up,
explain the math or engineering behind what actually got done and then
go away again. Round about the third or fourth round, all of this
gets pretty boring. Can't blame them for not sticking it out for
weeks on end.
>> >Aren't you a little too demanding?
>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.
You don't have place, time or motive for aliens. You do have them for
ordinary, human, earthly people. You've got to explain why those
ordinary, human, earthly people couldn't have done what we know that
ordinary, human, earthly people are known to be able to do.
The easiest explanation is generally the right one. If you aren't
willing to go with the easiest explanation, which is that the
Egyptians built the pyramids and the people living in England at the
time Stonehenge was build, built Stonehenge, then the burden of proof
is on you.
>> >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:
I've seen pictures of the Nasca Monkey. I've also seen pictures of
oversized chalk carvings in England. Just because it is big doesn't
mean someone in a spaceship made it.
>> And that includes the current bunch of insulting posts.
>How insulting to speak out for what one perceives as truth..
There are ways and there are ways. Learn the polite ones if you
aren't willing to be known as someone who gives offense. I object to
your opinions. I haven't made comments about your intelligence or
your ancestors.
Stella Nemeth
s.nemeth@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: 200 ton Blocks
From: S.NEMETH@IX.NETCOM.COM (Stella Nemeth)
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 16:30:37 GMT
Jiri Mruzek wrote:
>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.
The problem is that you haven't listened to any of it.
>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!
And it was more than enough to provide the sleds (pictures available
in books of Egyptian wall paintings), ropes (ditto, same pictures) and
baskets (see books on Tutankhamon's tomb for examples) needed to build
the pyramids.
>Some of us point to the intellectual level inherent in the Great
>Pyramid,
>and other ancient wonders, in a constructive approach to history.
They were just as smart as we are. They had tools enough to do the
job. They had the organizational skill to do the job and the
experience building all of the earlier pyramids to provide the
learning curve necessary to do the job. They had a reason to do it
which was satisfactory to them. They had a High Civilization and/or a
Complex Society (I'm not sure how much overlap those two terms have
and I mean both). Denying them their highest accomplishments isn't
constructive. And it is rotten history.
Stella Nemeth
s.nemeth@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: Conjectures about cultural contact
From: pmv100@psu.edu (Peter van Rossum)
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 17:08:38 GMT
In article <51ansq$mpq@midland.co.nz> gblack@midland.co.nz (George Black) writes:
>Yuri wrote:
>>Yes, they had. Sweet potato is the "silver bullet" here.
>
>Which 'sweet potato' do you refer to.
>The Maori arrived in N.Z with the Kumera. This is not a potato nor of the
>potato family AFAIK
[lots of good critique deleted.]
>gblack@midland.co.nzHather, Jon.
I believe the sweet potato which Yuri is refering to is Ipomoea
batatas. The botanical research I have seen (which isn't a lot)
indicates it first developed in the New World. While I don't
think Yuri's web page gives good evidence of it showing contacts
between Polynesia and South America, there is something a little
more interesting I recently came across.
An article by Hather&Kirch; (1991) claims that they recovered the
remains of an Ipomoea batatas specimen in a 900 year old deposit
on a Polynesian island. Hather&Kirch; hypothesize that the best
explanation for this is that it was brought there by Polynesian
sailors who contacted South America. I don't know why Hather&Kirch;
don't think it could be equally likely that it was brought to
Polynesia by South American sailors (the Chimu are known to have
been ablesailors at this time). This does, however, look like a
case that needs further exploration. Anyone have more recent
research on this topic?
If you (or Yuri) would like this article but can't get it through
your library(s) let me know and I'll mail a copy.
Hather, Jon & P. V. Kirch.
1991 "Prehistoric sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas) from Mangaia
Island, central Polynesia," Antiquity 65(249): 887-893.
p.s. even if Hather&Kirch; are correct this still doesn't do much
to bolster the Polynesians brought culture to the Americas idea
since it's much to late (many complex New World cultures had
developed long before this time).
Peter van Rossum
PMV100@PSU.EDU
Subject: Re: Pyramids and Aliens
From: jwc@his.com
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 18:18:32 GMT
"Ann McMeekin" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I've just started to get this newsgroup, and I've missed the start of a
>number of threads. The one I'm particularly interested in is the one
>discussing whether or not humans built the Great Pyramid, and other large
>structures around the world.
>
>I'd be grateful for any theories and information on this subject that
>anyone can provide, along with notes of any books or videos which are
>worth reading on the subject.
>
>Thanks in advance
>
>--
>Ann McMeekin
>am@rtel.co.uk
>100702.75@compuserve.com
>Section Leader for Mystic Places on Compuserve's Mysteries Forum
>GO MYSTERIES
>
Ths is a troll, correct?!?!?
Subject: Re: Archaeology and geology?
From: pmv100@psu.edu (Peter van Rossum)
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 17:45:38 GMT
In article <0000204f+0000450a@msn.com> PALEOMAN@msn.com (S.W. Grasse) writes:
>I'm interested in all opinions on the idea that archaeology majors
>should be required to take at least a minor in geology or that the
>archaeology degree become a degree of science rather than art.
I agree with Ms. Johnson on this point (although not necessarily
the rest of her post :). Some aspects of geology are
useful to archaeologists but I see no reason why it should be a
requirement that an arch. takes a geology minor.
>I would like to work with Archaeologists
>but I am wondering, do archaeologists really fued with geologists?
The archaeologists I know don't feud with geologists. In general
they are excited if there's a chance to get some help from with
more expertise on a given topic. Archaeologists routinely seek
out the advice of geologists, geographers, architects, statisticians,
botanists, computer scientists, etc. The hard part is finding someone
in these fields who wants to put in the time to help. If you'd
like to help I'm sure the avg. arch. would say, "welcome aboard."
Good luck to you and your girlfriend,
Peter van Rossum
PMV100@PSU.EDU
Subject: help with hieroglyph(encoded2)
From: Richard Barnes
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 12:43:45 -0500
third atempt...
*********
table
`!"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?
@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_
begin 600 GLY1.GIF
M1TE&.#=A(`$?`O<``````("`@(```("```"```"`@```@(``@("`0`!`0`"`
M_P!`@$``_X!``/___\#`P/\``/__``#_``#__P``__\`____@`#_@(#__X"`
M__\`@/^`0``````"1@*$C``[+@`7)R%
M]!@,GR<``)\``&^&'``7[P(``0`"`````">%])\``+0`70`"`"P`&QM;*(U8`
M'80``(@``BV4`````!@,GQ(``@!"0E>'$N08!P`!$ET`#```(```#`\```$`
M``&&<`(Y?`(B&+07)PP``````"`$M*P$K+0`(`$``!A1>X8``@\#,0```*P"
M`!@`(#8``M.&M;``71P```"`$K)0$E*P`(``````"``(```#"!1@`!M871S>_
M]\0``#\`6T0``*R_]_```"``7?@``%T`6P%_MY0``````"```*P``````/`"
M`*@`74<`6R!_MZP```````4"`)\````3"``20%"'*``3```3"%"'-)P!%P`%
M%`(````$DI(````````3"`"'=@"'7@```````<```&H;``!=_4`!_4R\21VZ'
MI&0!%P`!+\```*0``)0``$```$<```$``````!`!"?@`O[@!":X``!=_4+A_
M4_IY*9+%DO`%?R\1K$(+)BP`````(`$?`D`(_P`="!Q(L*#!@P@3*ES(L*'#
MAQ`C2IQ(L:+%BQ@S:MS(L:/'CR!#BAQ)LJ3)DP,!J%S)4B7*ES`3MIQ)LZ7(
MFCA=QK3(LF'/G4`1SN1),^7*H`YP(KUH4^'/I5"+=LRITVE2`!2IUH0ZL:E4
MKE&_IC2<(:M6%EF.[T(HT,:I@B?C#<"N>-S.@)6
MY)"_'8GDDDPVZ>23#NI'8XE0QI:<8%,J626/5\JDH(I".A;?ECZ!:&:$UXU)
MYIJI/":.6?9[9)7IJ#BFH=#L>ZMR;C#;J
MZ*.01LJFHI16*J>D-UFJ::68=NII:\W1]ZEZFXYJZJFHIJKJJJRVZNJKL,;_
M*FMIB/YY%(IVFKAHICB>%F9!@/:6:U<8UE52B[Z&2261?":XVXEZ0F16L!DV
M&YY;]V?G)XJ'2+AN:M;8B&^.7KFWJXZSHIJLNI,\"=^ZZ([7+XT(:CONLN;.:
M:R:T^M8*KX2]@OGNOP07;+"I<59X,'X]!;RPL`X3A.;#!B
MO%BATM+K<90)`C=RDCIY>_+*++?L\LL?6=P@S#E2^Z/*-+-%ZZ\YE\LS21?W
M+'3.'0.+\[<@#[UAPC-W&_32/Z^G8+1BUGM@U!G9;!UU34NL=4PCQDLI>U:W
M>?1=XA[[]7Q\,@TDN8(-6B?6[0V+=&=XTNWSVB[J_ZVT?WSW[???>PU.^.&(
M)_XA@XIS"2QS>5/=.+9&VAVIS;'5)7I_EC6+N;YH-&MYXD;&Z;^Z?FT3P?F=IY-
M%BUXX$CMJWG=L!ZG:=^_]]^"'+_[XY)=O_OGHS\TY[I\GBK?8SKL'J/7D
M[1ISVA]C33_#7^V?K>O5FMW9O$,Y@3T%@&>)G_PN-D`"-A!P0Q'>M[*BE/6)
M*$0(]$T!(90Y`TK0;`IH6\7]D224&'(9*1_],B).^FJ"E-$H]M
MR5XANS3#JR22CI<3C(WEBLE*ZII6N'`L(=1A+6L;REKC,
MI2YWR4M`:NJ2W#+A*-$GQY!P47G%?)TM8:;$"RZ3F:F,VS.%%LTC5M-\OSOD
M-7O)S>(DTX_-/%YD)"G%]A$QDD%,7!%EV*%C"LB,FUFDN\+9R&QN;+72F*9T,
MZ5G_SVW>\X;IA(D^KS9-&A;$H87'TI]KPATXSADUJTH%GQ4`)M"\>-',4]20-
MS0D_A9+J@.2D9$$)&D;)CVI-L.G*H1`7*T(Y"J4BKBZ`[L6?1A7JT/':II#0#
M"C!^?DA_P;,?V$[J4B>.U%D^)=Y177A3PBWUED_%95*[2=6J6O6J%VWJ5#SY
MS9:E5*NO7",RC1B7R'EOG4$1*^)XFM:9DNET&C6;:@]SZ4C1:2:UK4B-;)[K7
M25EL@JR1)U:U.4RJ=K)S3,PG86L:J+YV*V^Z6>RTX.38N725I:$"*WEV>5<]J,Z%>=4Z_TF6ZMW6N*_W4VBCZ
MD)=NE*HFL4O>\IKWO.A-KWK7R][VNO>]\(VO?.=+W^+6EK@<-91R>=>P_0+H
MH5GEF6^[,U!%EM29PHNJ!@OQHQY@`UPCA=T8!-*5KU0;B[
M)`2-@F<9V[;^;,.@LZ>&2\S!E5HX:"-&3&Y7C;&*!:7-SDJLQCEFLVEOYI[?^
M)5VT=+QC#),X6(&;<&.PH]W;-#FAG)-C2U_LXA#S&),P+6;U"IN_#M\5Q8[<
M:X67#-SC/AG*7RHS6:%V7QM6V?^T9R;BS-ZL/B6[V<>`QQ_K6VLZU47N-ZV[#^MWPCK>\YTWO>MM;4I=Q-S<)J5Y:\]8O^+QNJ?V]
M;\&B6J;@'#QB19UUAMPS6P2#&(K"K.FQ()J^4%[>XYT2UR8Q_$E&ENW;)U@ZHR
M@OORP.#_$0K&T2V3JZ9;:8B(C=T!1"=6&L;=(J-1?.S7&>4(^ZU*=.]:I;_>I8S[K6XTL]?7U!D>:>-/KF%
M_[GI&#-[/T7>,[4C%>T$8SNOMGVRB,]=[BM[>IVI:'<*]SWOG''[\_YN6<*_
M3.]S^;A-\-=RCV%5+4KK/T?(V!C+B/S_JSC3ESYSSJ7I(V_2_
M4J'\(&-_Z(J.7EB4/O+MF7_HYS]^9T=J?>%1?G;@HI[X"$(H__"IS/T6?Y=4
MA]3Y#LEO;@,S^*>9ES'NV\EX&/I9_N+V^YPPVK[K'_OU)%4E_*=69,=FFT=_
M^^`WS%*RF=2^4>!N^=-)0(W)N=\Y4=_%X@R0H)1Z>9_[<:`
MPE17RC)P2?=R-#6!#]@Z5!(Z6U9_#4@Z2_(:I&6"^X1_'RA$)<!`=2#_.6`!D9EZ?-]+49,-,A44OA\#5:%2OA86,AU)!AV5KA+72AY
M8CB&9%B&9GB&:,@O[:5"4^A5,F96V"0E+*@T^9&%F`:`8@1S8(\*)]'AB&$O]VA%#F>XQ((8^6@E_(@5"(4G#UA^[G
MB)LU1K6'B)087;PGBKIC5YSX=IEX'LTV5P/8*=;EBBFBB$/HB6BB&363"XBM(W&;+#).`(:=S8?:S36-5X9^9/(^#`Z"5=]V)._1'I`26AB-)3!.#HW*7.XV)*-UV]'27$/
MHH^3YXU0*9.V]I)@&)19>7[BI96Y]&A;,&99B.99D699F>99HF99JN99LV99N
)^99PN1@!`0`[
`
end
size 3699
***********
Subject: Re: Egyptian junkie pharaohs
From: pmv100@psu.edu (Peter van Rossum)
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 17:29:03 GMT
In article <323891CC.2AC8@iceonline.com> Baron Szabo writes:
>Peter Van Rossum wrote:
[deletions]
>> Duh, that's how science works - read above.
>
>Getting defensive, are we?
Gee, and why might I get defensive when the field to which I belong
is consistently mis-characterized by someone who apparently knows
bupkiss about it.
[deletions]
>I think the difference between you and I, Peter V.R., lies in our trust
>of the established system. Not really a reason to spout insults, but if
>we stop now that won't happen! ;>
IMO the difference between us has to do with the rapidity with which
we will accept a theory which lacks supporting evidence from other
research. To me, the topic needs more research. My reading of your
post is that you think it should be accepted.
Peter van Rossum
PMV100@PSU.EDU
Subject: Re: Edgar Casey--The theory of civilization not yet known to man--undiscovered
From: Jon
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 19:08:39 +0100
In article <51a0rp$gj3@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
millerwd@ix.netcom.com writes
>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
No, I gave it up. I don't look good in black, and I just couldn't
get the goose step right - gives me rotten backache! Your original
posting fails to mention the bull whip - don't worry I'll bring mine!
--
Jon
Subject: KMT article: Quibell at Hierakonpolis
From: mark@rostau.demon.co.uk (Mark Wilson)
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 19:21:49 GMT
I read with interest the above article in the Fall 96 issue of KMT about James
E. Quibell's discoveries at Hierakonpolis, but was surprised to read on P59,
that the decoration of the so-called tomb 100 "is lost today".
The funny thing is that I was sure I'd seen a photo of the original in
Fingerprints of the Gods. I proceded to dig out my copy of FOG and sure
enough, Fig 54 showed what appeared to be the same scene from the pre-dynastic
tomb shown in the KMT article.
I knew my copy of FOG would come in useful one day, and as I looked closer at
Fig 54 I could see that it corresponded to the two left-most sections shown on
P58 of KMT. It appears more damaged than in Green's watercolour, but was
unmistakably the same scene. According to FOG this fragment is now in Gallery
54 of the Cairo museum (see note 34 to Ch 45 of FOG).
So is this original decoration from Tomb 100 at Hierakonpolis lost or not? If
it is lost, what is it that is in the Cairo museum?
BTW, FOG dates the tomb painting to the Badarian period c.4500 B.C. Does
anyone know if this is correct?
Regards
Mark Wilson
Subject: CFV: humanities.classics (renames sci.classics)
From: dave@dogwood.com (Dave Cornejo)
Date: 13 Sep 1996 17:24:40 -0000
FIRST CALL FOR VOTES (of 2)
unmoderated group humanities.classics (renames sci.classics)
Newsgroups line:
humanities.classics Discussion of ancient Greece and Rome.
Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC, 4 Oct 1996.
This vote is being conducted by a neutral third party. Questions
about this proposal should be directed to the proponent.
Proponent: Chris Camfield
Mentor: Ilana Stern
Votetaker: Dave Cornejo
RATIONALE: humanities.classics
There are several reasons for the move to the humanities hierarchy.
The subject matter of the newsgroup is more appropriate to the
humanities hierarchy, and the newsgroup would have been created as
humanities.classics if that hierarchy had existed prior to its
creation. Numerous people have misunderstood the subject of
sci.classics because of its location in the sci hierarchy. It is felt
that humanities.classics is the best name for the new newsgroup,
because Classics has always been an interdisciplinary study combining
many different fields. (Creating a Classics newsgroup within any
subhierarchy of humanities would place an emphasis on certain aspects
of Classical Studies at the expense of others.)
CHARTER: humanities.classics
For discussion of Classical Studies, especially, but not exclusively, the
study of Classical Greek and Roman culture, languages, history, and art.
Commercial posts unrelated to the field, flames, and spams are
discouraged, unless in Latin or Greek. Binary posts are prohibited.
END CHARTER.
HOW TO VOTE
Send E-MAIL to: hc@infobahn.net
Your e-mail message should contain one and only one of the
following statements:
I vote YES on humanities.classics
I vote NO on humanities.classics
You may also vote ABSTAIN or CANCEL; these are not counted as
votes and don't affect the vote count.
Anything else will be rejected by the automatic vote counting
program. The votetaker will respond to your received ballots
with a personal acknowledgment by mail - if you do not receive
one within several days, try again. It's your responsibility to
make sure your vote is registered correctly.
If you later change your mind you may vote again from the same
email address; only your last valid vote will count.
VOTING PROCEDURE NOTES:
Standard Guidelines for voting apply. One person, one vote.
Votes must be mailed directly from the voter to the votetaker.
Anonymous, forwarded or proxy votes are not valid; this includes
votes generated by WWW/HTML/CGI forms.
Vote counting is automated. Failure to follow these directions will
mean that your vote does not get counted. Duplicate votes are
resolved in favor of the most recent valid vote. Addresses and votes
of all voters will be published in the final voting results post.
The purpose of a Usenet vote is to determine the genuine interest of
persons who would read a proposed newsgroup. Soliciting votes from
disinterested parties defeats this purpose. Please do not
redistribute this CFV. If you must, direct people to the official CFV
as posted to news.announce.newgroups. Distributing pre-marked or
otherwise edited copies of this CFV will result in those votes being
cancelled. When in doubt, ask the votetaker.
Common errors include quoting the entire article and sending your vote
to the vote-takers personal address. Either of these two could result
in your vote not being counted.
DISTRIBUTION:
This CFV has been cross-posted to:
sci.archeology
sci.classics
soc.history
Subject: Re: Celtic Subjects on sci.archaeology
From: Craig Cockburn
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 21:01:09 +0100
Ann an sgriobhainn <3236F324.2C1C@nai.net>, sgriobh Lowell & Nancy
McFarland
>The sci.archaeology newsgroup currently has multiple articles of
>interest to Celts.
>
>Some of these articles include;
>Robert the Bruce,
>Stonehenge,
>Megaliths,
>Ley Lines,
>Mystery Hill, NH, USA
>Ancient transatlantic and Transpacific Sailings,
> Sea Peoples,
> Norse Sailings to Vinland,
> South American Cocaine found in Ancient Egyptian Mummies
>and Sunken Roman Galleys.
>Etc.
>
If anyone has any info on these which they would like to contribute to
the soc.culture.scottish FAQ, could they send it to me (e-mail) please.
The current version can be found at the soc.culture.scottish FAQ link at
http://www.smo.uhi.ac.uk/~craig/internet.html
thanks
Craig (editor)
--
Craig Cockburn ("coburn"), Du\n E/ideann, Alba. (Edinburgh, Scotland)
http://www.smo.uhi.ac.uk/~craig/
Sgri\obh thugam 'sa Gha\idhlig ma 'se do thoil e.