Newsgroup sci.archaeology 46423

Directory

Hi Frank,
Many thanks for the details about Baalbek (copied below). 
Since i started the thread several months ago, wondering 
how the Ancients managed to shift such huge blocks, yours 
is the very first reply which somehow gave an impression 
of Credibility derived from the basic facts of the location.
I can now actually visualise the Romans doing the job purely
by manpower and ingenuity of Leverages, and at a stroke the 
(my) entire problems of Egyptian constructions are equally 
reduced to the mundane, even tho still amazing as 
demonstrations of their *NON* primitive stature as engineers. 
Thanks also to people like Steve Whittet (also for the reply
about Punt which i forgot to acknowledge :), for their 
calculations and assurances, tho somehow all previous replies
lacked the graphic impact which this one from Germany captured.
It only remains to wonder, what sort of psychological impediment
is it exactly which creates the tendancy in humans towards 
disbelief in mundane solutions, and a readiness to jump towards
"Alien /Atlantis" type proposals ?
This is no triviality of a question, since more than half the
entire planetary population are *afflicted* by "religious" style
beliefs (dont ever forget that "god" is little short of a 
Giant Alien as well, since most believers *seriously* think of
"him" as an External Spirit somehow lurking both "out there" 
as well as "everywhere and internal").
Are they all "mad" (ie mentally disfunctional) ?  How come 
the "forces" which sometimes seem *so* tangible and active, 
as tho of a "black magic" nature, are *so* widespread ?  
We are not dealing with half a dozen idiots on the planet, 
but with several BILLION "idiots" - all chanting daily to "gods"
of various types. *AND* - MILLIONS of those billions also have
Degrees awarded via modern "education" systems dont forget.
THOUSANDS of the of the greatest minds in history have babbled
about "god" and Eden /atlantis in their lifetimes, - were they
all "mad" as well ?
It is far too glib for hard-line sceptic Archaeological 
"scientists" to dismiss this aspect of human tendancy, even tho
scepticism does have great Virtues in supressing the "forces", 
it still does not explain them. Such people have only to look 
at the thoughts of their very own "bosses" at work (Deans, 
professors, Supervisors, whatever) to notice that half of THEM 
also believe in "god" and thus in Aliens, and thus (almost) in
Eden /atlantis etc. A fine line indeed betwixt madness and genius. 
I often use the pseudonym "Anti-Christ" myself in an effort to 
drive away Babbling drivel in my head proclaiming christ will 
solve everything, since ive seen that such thoughts tend to 
INTERFERE with intelligence and produce wimps and "miracle" 
seeking fools out of humans,- even tho, i (like the millions) 
still do not rule out "gods" and (some form of) Atlantis.
So it was with the Egyptians - and ever has been with humanity,
and i still say that the Great Pyramid represents so much *MORE*
than a mere pile of stones.  To me every brick of it speaks of 
their Attempt to rationalise these very problems of "the Gods" 
in human Psyches, and a great deal has yet to be learnt from the
Orionic Pyramid Fields as an overall site of incredible cleverness
of Thought on a par even with Relativity in terms of its
depth and scope. They did not have technology in our sense of 
bombs and electronics, but they certainly had an Awareness of 
"mind forces" which we (Psychologists in general) seem to have
trivialised, yet with no real progress since those Ancient days.
If "science" is ever to become the Supreme Mode of thought which it proclaims 
itself to be (and which i personally strive to pursue),
then it must eventually INCLUDE rationalisation of all these
"mind problems", and not supercilliously dismiss them as
irrelevant /too difficult or unworthy of attention.  
The average human (and Archaeologist) will never get anywhere
near a nuclear reactor, nor understand one, yet they *WILL* 
have to learn to control their own MIND, and that in its way 
is just as Daunting, indeed even MORE daunting, 
since science by admission hasnt worked it out yet.  
But maybe the Egyptians had more ideas than even we on that subject. 
Frank_Doernenburg@do2.maus.ruhr.de
(edited) says:
}The stones in Baalbek are not as heavy as claimed by many authors. 
}The three actually moved weigh just under 800 tons each, and
}only the not-moved block in the quarry weighs about 1000 tons. 
}The stones were transported over a path only 600 meters length
}and about 15 meters *downhill*. The quarry is 1160 meters high, and
}the temple 145 meters.  So it was easy to keep the stones on an even 
}level to their final resting place and it was uneccesary to lift
}them about 7 meters as some authors claim.
As you might know, Rome is the city with the most obelisks outside
}of egypt. They stole the things by the dozen and took them home. 
}The heaviest known obelisk weighs 510 tons, and it was transported
}some 1000's of *kilometers*. This transport was documented by the
}roman author Marcellinus Comes.  The romans even left detailed 
}paintings and reliefs about the ways to move such things : as on the
}bottom of the Theodosius-obelisk in Istanbul.
}They used "Roman-patented" winches, in German called "Göpelwinden" 
}which work with long lever ways. To move a 900 ton stone, they needed 
}only 700 men. The transport was slow, about 30 meters a day, because
}they had to dismantle and rebuild the winches every few meters,
}to pull the obelisk with maximum torque. But in Baalbek, where they 
}moved several blocks, maybe they built an alley of winches, where 
}they passed the block from winch to winch.
}But its irrelevant, because they needed only three weeks per block, 
}and that's OK.  }Oh by the way, the Romans worked a few hundred years
}on the temple, until the project was finally canceled.  }Bye,  }FD
***very informative Frank - thanks :) 
   So (visible) aliens didnt build the GP after all !
   but that does not stop the search for Atlantis, since in a way 
   that word stands for *ANY* ancient civilisations not yet found.
   If you havent already read them, i recommend the books 
   "Keeper of Genesis" and "Orion Mystery" for some stimulation,  kaman.

On Fri, 13 Sep 1996 17:03:57 -0700, Jiri Mruzek 
wrote:
>    Pushing a small car (on wheels with steel bearings, and weighing 
>    a ton at most) is as hard, as rolling a 10-ton wheel!
>
>This claim is an obvious lie. One thing about such 10-ton 
>wheels - they are not perfectly round, and therefore aren't
>well balanced!  This will create problems, when the heaviest half
>will be at the low point of rotation. 
>
>My expert opinion: You got the idea from the "Flintstones" show!
>At any rate, this show abounds in similar cartoon-suitable "ideas".
First, the wheels aren't 10 tons, what they're carrying was.
Second, cars have rubber wheels which have a lot more rolling friction than
hard wheels.
Third, it's no harder to make a large wheel round than a small one.
Fourth, balance doesn't matter, because the wheels turn at very low speed.
Fifth is the difference in leverage between you brute force pushing on a car
and pulling on properly placed ropes.  You have a problem understanding
simple machines?
Your opinion is anything but expert.
>While this statement is indubitably true, I doubt that you have
>worked physically to make your living. 
That's because you don't have the imagination or understanding of a flea.
>Why, last you were talking
>to me, (misrepresenting my opinions) you had an account with
>none other, but:   @nasa.gov!!!
>That makes you a technician, a pen-pusher, etc. Don't pretend to
>be a blue-collar..
First of all, do you think only scientists work for NASA?  You think they
don't have firefighters, trash collectors, drivers, and every other
blue-collar trade imaginable?
Second of all, yes, NOW I make a living as a scientist, but that doesn't
mean it's the only thing I can do or have done.  Maybe when you make it to
twelve (either mentally or physically) you'll understand that a person
doesn't ever have to be just one thing in their life.  On the other hand,
maybe you wont.
>Very realistic - we all have access to quarries in our backyards
>just like you!
Perhaps not, but you could use a large stone to get the idea.
> But, I have worked in a couple of quarries, and 
>nowhere did I see 10-ton rocks, there.
And what kind of quarry did you work in?
>What quarry produces 10-ton blocks, which it moves by your method?
None of the commercial ones do; they'd be stupid to, since it's much more
efficient to use modern machinery.  Now that I've said that, I know of
private quarries that do use this technique, because a simple winch attached
to the front of their truck is more than sufficient to move stones that size
and larger up out of the quarry.  In fact, if you dig up OMNI from some of
the early years, they have a picture and a story about somebody (back east
I believe) who uses this technique.
>Where is this block you spoke about? Perhaps, we can get an
>investigator on the site.. 
It's in Israel, on a kibbutz in the Golan area, acting as a capstone for an
air-raid shelter.  Of course, you'll have to go down through 5 or 6 meters
of dirt, first.
>What gave you the idea?
Some of the wooden objects I've seen in displays of items taken from the
tombs, that look rather like parts of cradles except they're not shaped
quite right for it.
>Where are the witnesses, etc?
On the Kibbutz
>Conclusion: In absence of any evidence whatsoever, we have to
>suspect that you Kevin Quitt are an unscrupulous prevaricator. 
If you had any brains at all, you'd realize that the method will work as
stated whether or not I've done what I've said, and *that's* the critical
piece of information.  It doesn't matter whether I've done it (altough I
have), but rather that it can be done.
>When I want to tell people about something extraordinary like
>prehistorical mathematics, I back my words up with a Web-site, 
>where my proofs are available to everyone to check out. 
So I've seen.  Humorous, if simple-minded.
>The fact
>that there are no skeptical critics (skepto-crits) using my 
>materials proves to you that I have something real there..
No, it merely demonstrates that nobody in their right mind can be bothered
to pay any attention to it.
--
#include 
 _
Kevin D Quitt  USA 91351-4454           96.37% of all statistics are made up
Per the FCA, this email address may not be added to any commercial mail list

In article , 
rejohnsn@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu says...
>
>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
Here is an article which still provides some useful information
despite having been published some time ago, January 1, 1993 in Science.
"The Colonization of America and the Peopling of the New World"
John F. Hoffecker, W Roger Powers, Ted Gobel.
The tools looked at in this article include pre Clovis Paleoindian
bifacially retouched large lanceolate blades and are dated about
9,000 BC.
The majority of the sites examined are in the North Central Alaska 
range and the Tanana valley.
In mentioning similar sites from other regions the article states.
"To date only two stratified Pleistocene sites have been reported
from western Beringa. Berelekh, (near the mouth of the Indigirka)
river and Ushki I (central Kamchatka). At Berelekh artifacts were
originally reported in association with a large concentration of 
faunal debris (chiefly mammoth) that yeilded dates from 
13,420 BP to 12,240 BP. However subsequent investigation revealed 
that although most of the mamoth remains are buried 3.5 to 4 m below
the surface, the artifacts are found at depths of 1.5 and 2 m."
"One teardrop shaped bifacial point was recovered on the riverbed"
The Kamchatka dates were 11,000 BP
One more site was reported as under excavation near the Omolon river in 
western Chukotka.
The gist of the article was that there really has been no evidence
found after extensive exploration covering a period of fifty years
of any occupation of Beringa, east or west, dated to earlier than 
the Clovis culture.
In separate articles there were other conclusions drawn. To sumarise.
The earliest dates are to the south suggesting the actual route
of migration was to the north. After climate warmed new areas
were colonized by flora and fauna and the hunters range extended
with the territory populated by game animals.
Fladmark has shown that the Aleutian and Queen Charlotte islands
provided one of the earliest refugia extending across the northern
pacific to have been extensively populated by man.
steve

Sat 14 Sep News Story relates that 19th Dynasty Pharaoh's Tomb found
near the Valley of the Kings at Luxor.
Any more details available?  Who did the dig?  Where exactly is it?
Who was the King?  When and how did they find it.
It's told as a story out of Al Ahram, the Cairo newspaper.
Tom Simms

In article <323A0B51.25EE@eds.com>, Hugh Stewart McKenna
 writes
>I missed this whole topic due to usenet servcies being down.
>Could someone post a syonopsis, or e-mail it to me?
>What does this do to the the traditional story of the earl of
>Douglas throwing the casket at some attacking Moors, and crying
>"BraveHeart, you were ever to the front. Where you go I will follow!"
>(or words to that effect)?
Some people, around 1920, claimed that they had uncovered the casket,
supposedly buried in Melrose Abbey on its kindly return from the Moors
in Spain, which contained the heart of the Bruce. They enclosed this in
a modern casket and reburied it shortly afterwards.
The modern casket has now been re-exhumed (for what purpose is unclear -
the people involved are certainly not planning to open the supposedly
14th century inner casket to see what it contains) but those of a mind
are prepared to attempt to milk any sentimental capital they can from
the odd event.
-- 
Alan M. Dunsmuir

Visit our Kings' Valley Web Site.  Intriqued?  Mail response
to poster.  You may have enough credit to take part.  We also
are planning an IPO on this because we have attracted some
really heavy broadcast interests.
Tom Simms                                   Tareq I. J. Albaho

               Visit our Kings' Valley Web site.  
                        Intriqued?  
          Perhaps you have the credit or bucks to take part.  
        We are looking into an IPO for this venture now that
        some very heavy broadcast people have shown interest.
Interested?  Reply to poster:
Tom Simms                                      Tareq I. J. Albaho

               Visit our Kings' Valley Web site.  
         http://www.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/~attia/kings/kings.html   
           OR
         http://watnow.uwaterloo.ca/~reda/kings/kings.html
                        Intriqued?  
          Perhaps you have the credit or bucks to take part.  
        We are looking into an IPO for this venture now that
        some very heavy broadcast people have shown interest.
Interested?  Reply to poster:
Tom Simms                                      Tareq I. J. Albaho

In an article dated Fri, 13 Sep 1996 14:00:56, Peter Van Rossum
 writes
>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 paragraph needs much more prominence in this discussion.
No one else seems to have suggested that cocaine used (quite possibly) by a
19th century German archaeologist (none was in the Manchester mummies)
could have SOAKED into the CENTRE of the mummies' hair over 100 years.
This process would hardly affect the recent convictions on forensic evidence
that drugs in the centre of hairs "must have been ingested".
-- 
Mike Yates         Frome   Somerset   England

In article <518vou$2ok@thighmaster.admin.lsa.umich.edu>, piotrm@umich.edu 
says...
>
>
>> Steve,
>> 
>
>> The letter you quote is not unambiguous evidence that wood was imported
>> from the Gulf to Mari.  Here's the problem. 
1.) Was Dilmun a source of wood?
2.) Was Dilmun a source of other materials; metals, pearls and sealstones?
3.) Was Dilmun a source of wood to other places in southern mesopotamia?
4.) Was Dilmun a source of metal to other places in southern mesopotamia?
5.) Were any of these places en route to Mari up the Euphrates?
6.) Was there trade between Dilmun and Mari?
7.) Does the letter I cited mention laborers from Dilmun being in Mari?
8.) Does trade pass through Mari and continue on to Syria?
9.) Does trade pass through Mari and continue on to Ebla and Ugarit?
10.) Does trade pass through Mari and continue on to Babylon?
>> Are you aware that the term "Dilmunites" in line 7 is the same word 
>>translated in line 14 as "nobles"? 
So what? The word appears to apply to people from a particular place
and their rank is determined by the context.
In reference to a type of wood or metal Dilmun could mean 
noble wood or noble metal, it could even mean noble place, 
a place that was clean and bright pure and shining, endowed 
with trees and pure clean water, an oasis.
Dilmun axe means clean and pure and shining [metal] axe
Dilmun shekle means clean and pure and shining [metal] shekle
The metal which most comes to mind as described by those terms 
is a bronze made with tin as compared to easily corroded copper.
If Dilmun is a source of bronze (marine spoons) then there
is a certain overlap of all the meanings. The pure and shining
place is the source of the pure and shining metal. This noble
place becomes legendary and eventually a generic term used to
refer to anything wonderful.
There are also many instances of the use of the word Dilmun 
as a topynm where its translation would be inappropriate. 
>> Check the original; the word in both is "dilmun."  What
>> Potts skips over all too lightly is that Dilmun is multivalent.
Again, so what? So are the words used for trees and timber,
much is left to the discretion and assumed background knowledge
of the translator.
>> It's attested on four bilingual lexical lists as an adjective 
>> that simply means "noble."  
If your point is that all Dilmunites are seen as also being nobles,
or persons of importance, treated like the foreign nationals are
in Arabia today, as someone different and unique, thus special
and uniquely powerful, a wielder of authority acting in the role
of a virtual prince or potentate simply because of being something
rare and exotic, why would that suprise you? Have you not experienced
it firsthand yourself?
>> 
>> So the problem becomes, how can you tell whether dilmun means "person
>> from Dilmun" or "member of the nobility"? 
That is another sense of the word noble which could also apply.
As I have often explained to Piotr, these are not mutualy exclusive
designations. My sense is that it could have the sense of foreign 
national from the Gulf and  probably was used much in the same sense 
as modern Arabians use the term Westerner. 
>>  We have translators relying on intuition, saying to themselves 
>> that "Dilmunite" works here so we will use it, but it doesn't 
>> work there so we will translate it in the next line as something else.
It helps to be able to think analagously...my recomendation is that 
you use the original word in such instances and then eventually no 
translation will be necessary.
>> 
>snip
>> 
>
>...POtts as an archaeologist, his use of textual data ...
>...the letter that has been cited by Steve,...
>...the translation leaves much to be desired...
From your perspective this is true. It is a Mari letter
which unequivocally refers to wood, which is the point
which was to be proved.
>There are indeed no nobles in this text;
That was not the point at issue. see the discussion above
> it is a message concerning the provisioning of a 
>caravan that, among others, included envoys from Dilmun.
That was the point at issue. Since you now agree that
it has been made, why do you continue to argue?
How does a Dilmunite laborer accused of theft and beaten
and thus delaying the departure of the caravan work in 
the sense of pure and clean except by reference to 
coming from a place which is clean and pure...?
>A much improved, collated text, together with a very different translation,
>is found in B. Groneberg's article in Memoires de N.A.B.U. 2 (1992).
Does this "much improved, collated text" dispute the fact
that this Mari letter makes an unambiguous reference to wood
in the context of its being included in the caravan being
provisioned? Potts is not translating this in a vacum. There
are other references to wood being transported.
Gud Cyl A 15 LL 18
"16. gis ba-lu-ub gal-gal, gis esi, gis ab-ba bi"
G 14, 241 F13
"gis gisimmar"
>Since you have been working in Dilmun I assume that you know of the
>collective work edited by POtts, Dilmun: New Studies in the Archaeology
>and Early History of Bahrein (Berlin 1983) and Theresa Howard-
>Carter's long review article of this work in the Journal of Cuneiform
>Studies 39 (1987) 54-115, in which she suggests that Dilmun was a
>city in southern Mesopotamia and not necessarily Falaika.
Dilmun was spread out over hundreds of kilometers along the Gulf 
and included much more than just Bahrain, just as "the West" includes
more than just America. The sense of clean and pure is still attached
where the person from such a place is as capable of miracles as the
metal he brings with him.
From Faikala in the north Dilmun spread inland as far as Hofuf 
and Ain Dar and south as far as Quatar in the east and Hawtah 
in the west.
Speaking of Ain Dar, the site caps a ridge where people 
could probably have been seen approaching some days before
they actually arrived. The stones of its foundations are large
boulders of what we call in the construction industry 
"a cubic yard and over". It is laid out like a military site
and there is no immediately obvious reason for its presence
other than to protect the approaches to the oasis of the 
eastern region.
steve

In article <12SEP199622511279@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov>, 
baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov" says...
...snip...
>
>...Nick Clapp ...film describing the discovery of the lost city of Ubar in 
>ancient Arabia. Ubar, a major center in Arabia for the frankincense trade 
>thousands of years ago, existed only in myth until its discovery in the 
>early 1990's, when its location was revealed by various remote sensing 
>technologies, historical research, and traditional archaeology. 
The first discovery of extensive settlement in Southern Arabia's,
Rub Al-Khali, along it's undetermined border with Yemen and Oman
associated with the trade in Frankincense was probably made by
ARAMCO surveyors working on the development of a new oil field 
in the southern region in the mid seventies. Hawtah will serve
as a part of the linkage connecting the supply to places which 
can use it.
Any archaeology which exists in a region being developed as an
oilfield is subject to rather abrupt excavation by armies of
earth moving equipment on a par with what was mustered for 
operation Desert Storm.
In 1993 the first dirt strips were being built to allow them
to fly in construction workers and equipment for this operation
which is viewed as hampered by a total lack of roads, communications,
water, sewage treatment, housing etc; and which will get those things
at the expense of anything in their path...
>Dr. Ron Blom is a remote sensing specialist and a geologist at
>JPL, whose participation in expeditions to Ubar in 1991-92 
>helped to locate, excavate and further understand the lost city. 
I would love to have any additional information which becomes
available about these sites.
steve

In article <32348F38.4795@clr.com>, Olice_Certain@clr.com says...
>
>Loren Petrich wrote:
>
>[Big snip]
>> 
>> Ek'wosko:r. True, our knowledge is incomplete in some ways,
>> but there is enough known to exclude Ancient Egyptian as the 
>> ancestor of the Indo-European languages.
>> 
>
>I've been following this thread for quite a while, and I think
>that Steve and Sadia are only trying to point out the possibility 
>of some English words *borrowed* from Egyptian.  I don't think 
>either of them has tried to claim Ancient Egyptian as the 
>ancestor of the Indo-European languages.  Just my 2 cents...
The discussion actually goes back a couple of years.
It began with the premise that the Greeks borrowed a lot of
the ideas we associate with "Classical Greece" from the
Egyptians.
There are elements of architecture such as the 
"fluted Doric columns" which Hatshepset's architect 
used in her mortuary temple which anticipate the 
Greek orders of architecture by almost a millenium
The Platonic Dialoges closely follow the Egyptian ideas
of what was right and proper as illustrated by their
celebration of the Goddess Ma'at.
The Greeks used Egyptian unit fractions to make their calculations.
The Greek science often makes use of measurements which were
originally made by the Egyptians using Egyptian standards of measure.
It has been shown that the calculations of the earth's 
circumference made according to Erathosthenes on the basis 
of astronomical observations and measurements he claims to 
have made himself actually agree with the measurements having 
been made during the reign of the Hyksos for example.
The cultural, scientific, religious, architectural, engineering,
military, trade and natural philosophical jargon of the Egyptians
ought to have been borrowed along with the Egyptians social
stratification and concepts of order.
When we look at the linguistic comparisons it thus makes some
sense to look at the borrowed jargon as well as the words for
body parts and the counting numbers from one to ten.
As others have shown, there are enough matches to suggest there
was some influence, which is the point we wish to prove.
>
>
>Olice Certain
steve

Since I don't do graverobbing, I can't claim any authority here, but it 
seems to me that after human flesh has aged into four digits the color of 
the original skin would be speculation. 
Steve Russell

In article <51eari$69f@shore.shore.net> whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) writes:
>From your perspective this is true. It is a Mari letter
>which unequivocally refers to wood, which is the point
>which was to be proved.
No, this was not the point to be proved.  The issue was your insistance, 
with capital letters, that I was wrong when I pointed out that there is no 
evidence for wood coming from the gulf to Mari.  It is one thing to speculate, 
it is another to bend the evidence in ways that make no sense at all.  First, 
the caravan is not coming from Dilmun, but from Ekallatum to Mari, that it it 
is going roughly from north to south, in exactly the opposite direction that 
your idea would require.  Given the context and other information from 
Mari, it might be logical to speculate that it was in fact on its way 
back TO DIlmun.  Second, it is a small amount of aromatic wood that was used 
in the making of perfume, which is a long way from the timber that you think 
is coming.
>
>Does this "much improved, collated text" dispute the fact
>that this Mari letter makes an unambiguous reference to wood
>in the context of its being included in the caravan being
>provisioned? Potts is not translating this in a vacum. There
>are other references to wood being transported.
>Gud Cyl A 15 LL 18
>"16. gis ba-lu-ub gal-gal, gis esi, gis ab-ba bi"
>G 14, 241 F13
>"gis gisimmar"
What does this have to do with anything?  What does a small amount of 
aromatics for a caravan going to DIlmun have to do with timber for 
building a temple?  Gudea is hundreds of years earlier, and he actually says 
where he gets his wood from--from Iran and points east, not from the gulf.  As 
to gishimmar, that is the old reading of nimbar, which means date palm and 
there is no evidence that I know that would suggest that Mesopotamia needed to 
import it from anywhere, as that is precisely the one wood they had plenty of! 
  Of course there are many references to wood being transported, but it 
usually comes down stream, from Lebanon and Iran, and not upstream from the 
Gulf.  You made up all this and now you want to throw any reference you find 
to the word "wood" as somehow evidence for your "theory" and it simply does 
not work.  As for Mari, read the inscription of king Yahdun-Lim, where he 
specifically describes his expedition to the Mediterranean coast and his 
cutting down of trees in the mountains of Lebanon, among others.  Also, take a 
good look at the cylinders and inscriptions of Gudea.  He mentions the sources 
of many of the precious good for the building of the temple of Ningirsu.  You 
simply cite "wood" out of context.  Frankly, I do not understand this kind of 
reasoning, no more than I do your strange Arabic etymologies, nor do I 
appreciate your rude and childish insults when called upon to provide evidence 
for ideas that you pull out of hat.  
Why do we have to go in circles--there is no way you can force the evidence to 
prove your point. 

Matt:
Thank goodness - I thought that you were serious (about the post that is).

In article , piotrm@umich.edu says...
>
>In article <50vhk3$icg@shore.shore.net> whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) 
writes:
>>
>(insults snipped)
>
>>Please, try and listen to what I'm saying. The destruction was
>>by armies of  Mutawalis I c 1600 BC. The question is why were
>>the armies of Mutawalis I on the move?
>
>Could we keep our facts straight?  
>The Hittite ruler held responsible for the 
>raid on Babylon in 1595 (middle chronology) was Murshilish I.  
>Muwattalis reigned much later (c. 1308-1285) and has nothing to do with 
>this. He was the Hittite king at the time of the battle of Kadesh. 
I appreciate your calling a potential typo to my attention...
even you deserve to get some credit when you do things right.
I would also be remiss not to note this significant improvement 
in your spelling, though it is still not quite right yet...
"At the beginning of the 16th century BC the Hittite king
Mursilis destroyed Aleppo" and is credited with having brought
Hamurabis reign in Babylon to an end; is how Michael Roaf
has put it.
"Mursilis was murdered by his brother in law who seized the throne.
very soon internal dissension and Hurrian enchroachment had 
reduced the Hittites realm to the neighborhood of their capital"
It seems likely that Babylon, which was on the other side of the
Hurrians territory, was destroyed by a strong Hurrian empire not
a weak Hittite realm controlling a neighborhood and nothing more.
[The modern descendents of the Hurrians (Kurds) and of the
Hittites (Turks) are still waging battles over the same 
territory as their ancestors did]
Hattusas founded c 1650 BC by the Hittite king Labarnas
who took the name Hattusilis after the city.
Now there is a period of some 320 years during which
the Hittites are busy doing something but nobody seems
to know exactly what, or exactly who was in charge.
Indeed there is a higher chronology for Hamurabi which once
placed his reign c 1750 BC; at any rate
The Kings of Hati
			Tudhaliyas III
			Suppiluliumas I c 1330-1370 BC 
Arnuwandas II
	/Zanazas(killed in Egypt)
		/Telepinus (king of Allepo)
			/Piyassilis (King of Carchamish)
				/Mursilis II
			Muwatalis II/Hattusilis III
	Mursilis III (Uri-Teshep)/Tudhaliyas IV
				Arunwandas III/Suppiluliumas II
Mursilis II was the Son of Suppiluliumas I 
Muwatalis II ruled after Mursilis II 
Hattusilis III was allied with the Kasites and
made a treaty with Egypt c 1296 BC
whom he fought at Kadesh c 1285 BC
Mursilis III ruled before Suppiluliumas II
The Kasite kings ruled Babylon and Dilmun c 1415-1154 BC
Suppiluliumas I  was eventually suceeded by Mursilis III
who also fought Ramesses II at the battle of Kadesh 
in the mountains c 1285 BC
Who is this predecessor of Suppiluliumas I, Mursilis
to whom we ascribe that he founded the Hittite empire 
c 1595 BC with the destruction of Babylon?
What did he ever do that makes us think he got any farther
than Aleppo?
steve

	I think I have found the smallest arrow head ever made.  I'm looking
for data on such small arrow heads.  Any one have any info?  Thanks.
Jim.

In article <842642448.14538.0@rostau.demon.co.uk>, Mark Wilson
 writes
>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). 
I certainly don't remember seeing it when I was in Cairo in '94, nor is
it shown in the official catalogue, which seems a bit odd given the
importance and beauty of it. Further, I can't find any mention of it in
any guide books, and no text I have consulted has a photograph of it
which also seems a bit odd if it is still extant. However, I don't want
to say that it is not extant.
>BTW, FOG dates the tomb painting to the Badarian period c.4500 B.C. Does
>anyone know if  this is correct?
Jeff Spencer (Early Egypt, London 1993) dates it to Naqada II (Gerzean);
that is ca. 3500-3100 BCE.
AFAIK, the location of the tomb is under cultivation or moderm domestic
architecture at the moment, which means that it is probably totally
destroyed. Can anybody comment on this?
-- 
James
      "I'd rather fall off Ilustrada than ride any other horse!"

I think that you are using the term "New Archaeology" incorrectly - that 
is a term that is applied to a reaction to the descriptive/chronological 
aspect of archaeology. This reaction occured in the 1960s and it's main 
"guru" was Lewis Binford - although David Clarke advocated a similar 
approach in England. He advocated a scientific approach to archaeology 
using hypothesis formation and testing using the deductive method (granted 
his whole outlook and use of philosophers of science was outdated...) - 
but he advocated a scientific approach to archaeology. Today we call his 
approach Processual Archaeology. Just for your information.

Oh and another thing, Mike - the history/anthropology dichotomy is a 
basically a British/American approach that has to do with the development 
of these disciplines (history of your own people in Europe and studying 
Native Americans in the U.S. - and that's a whole 'nuther problem). I'm 
not sure what you are talking about when you refer to anthropology as a 
psuedo-science - if you are refering to the whole post-modern movement, 
look out, Mike, it's invading history too. I follow the scientific 
movement from the 1960s, as most archaeologists do - although the whole 
post-modern or post-processual thing has its points - I suggest you read 
some of Mark Leone's stuff for example (but avoid Shanks and Tilley like 
the plague - although you should read it).

In article <3217A15C.7A10@pi.net>, Leslie Sitek  writes
>
>BTW, Brutus was fourth in line from Aeneas; of course according Geoffrey.
All fair enough.  The Brutus thing 'may' be a red herring.  But it's
also worth considering that there were a number of Pictish (ie. p-
celtic) and Irish kings called Bruid or some variant thereof.  In other
words it's not completely impossible for there to have been a British
'Brutos' or 'Breutos'. Also -> Don't get hung up on the -us ending, as
it's frequently a Latinisation of the Brythonic -os ending.
-- 
Andrew R Climo-Thompson
Cornish Language Advisory Service
Web sites at www.deansoft.com/clas and www.ex.ac.uk/~ajbeer/clas

To answer part of the question as to why people are so quick to believe in 
aliens, et al. and ignore the possibility that humans may have been the 
ones who actually built all these things....
S. Elizabeth Bird (in For Enguiring Minds: A cultural study of supemarket 
tabloids; 1992, University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville) suggest that it 
is a form of control. Many people feel that science is dangerous and feel 
out of their control. This is extremely contradictory to the way science 
once was in the 40s and 50s - as the saviours of humanity. For people to 
believe that their opinions (even though they may be based on tenuous, at 
best, "facts") are just as good as the "scientists". It has to do with a 
lack of education in science and the scientific methodology (to be wrong 
in science is just as important as demonstrating validity). Carl Sagan 
makes the same point in his book "The Demon-Haunted World" - very 
interesting.
Anyway, just my own two cents.

In <32388CE7.2910@iceonline.com> Baron Szabo 
writes: 
>
>Canadian joins probe of crater left by comet......Vancouver Sun,Sept.9
They got this a bit wrong, it is thought to be a meteorite and not a
comet.
>
>OTTAWA---In the 1980s, Alan Hildebrand said the evidence proving that
>a comet killed off the world's dinosaurs 65 million years ago could be
>found on Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula
I see. My mistake: I thought you were referring to Walter and Luis
Alvarez who discovered the iridium layer and came up with the impact
hypothesis in 1980. They also got a lot of flack for their idea. 
Hildebrand et al. suggested Chicxulub as the K/T impact crater and
published on it in _Science_ in 1990 and _Geology_ in 1991.  Hildebrand
did get some heavy resistance from geologists who worked for Pemex
(Mexican Petroleum company) who had been mapping the structure as a
volcanic center since the 1960s.  But since Hidebrand initially
published, the weight of evidence has swung to impact site: melt rock,
tektites, shock metamorphism, etc all indicate it's an astrobleme.  It
does make me wonder though if Hildebrand's article was initially
rejected for publication in _Science_ in the 1980s.
>
>Noone believed him --- not the bigwigs in geology who know craters,
>nor the editors of leading scientific journals like Science and
>Nature.
The study of craters is still a fairly new (but rapidly growing) field.
It wasn't long ago that Gene Shoemaker (renowned from the
Shoemaker-Levy comet which impacted Jupiter) was having trouble
convincing people that the structure now known as Meteor Crater in
Arizona was an impact site.
[snip]
>(PS: I'm enrolled in Classical Studies in college!
> Am currently doing Latin and History of Greece with much more next   
>semester!  Thanks, August, for the prompting.)
Congratulations on your matriculation.  Now be sure that you don't let
them ivy towered eggheads slip a lot of their *unjustified assumptions*
which they've been teaching for years passed you (why do I get the idea
that you're going to make them work to justify their ideas? ;-)). 
Regards,
August Matthusen

In article <51ej0p$g7l@shore.shore.net> whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) writes:
 I wrote:
>>Could we keep our facts straight?  
>>The Hittite ruler held responsible for the 
>>raid on Babylon in 1595 (middle chronology) was Murshilish I.  
>>Muwattalis reigned much later (c. 1308-1285) and has nothing to do with 
>>this. He was the Hittite king at the time of the battle of Kadesh. 
You responded:
>I appreciate your calling a potential typo to my attention...
>even you deserve to get some credit when you do things right.
>I would also be remiss not to note this significant improvement 
>in your spelling, though it is still not quite right yet...
>"At the beginning of the 16th century BC the Hittite king
>Mursilis destroyed Aleppo" and is credited with having brought
>Hamurabis reign in Babylon to an end; is how Michael Roaf
>has put it.
>"Mursilis was murdered by his brother in law who seized the throne.
>very soon internal dissension and Hurrian enchroachment had 
>reduced the Hittites realm to the neighborhood of their capital"
>It seems likely that Babylon, which was on the other side of the
>Hurrians territory, was destroyed by a strong Hurrian empire not
>a weak Hittite realm controlling a neighborhood and nothing more.
>[The modern descendents of the Hurrians (Kurds) and of the
>Hittites (Turks) are still waging battles over the same 
>territory as their ancestors did]
(snip irrelevant material)
Since all you seem interested in is being testy and unpleasant, I will simply 
point out to you that once again you are stating your inventions as fact.  
I fail to see what improvement you are suggesting.  There is no evidence at 
all to suggest that a Hurrian army destroyed Babylon; both a Babylonian 
chronicle and a Hittite text tell us it was the Hittites under Mursilis.  
Indeed, it was the Hittites who had problems with some army on their way back 
from Babylon, which is probably why they had to abandon the statues of Marduk 
(chief god of Babylon) and his consort Sarpanitum in Terqa 
(Hana), modern Tell Ashara, on the Euphrates, up from Mari.  There is now 
inscriptional evidence from Terqa itself that makes reference to the problems 
that the Hittites had.  Apparently there is mention of a defeat of Ha-at-tu-um 
(and other spellings), which has to be the Hittites.   The texts are not yet 
fully published, but have been mentioned by O. Rouault, "Cultures locales et 
influences exterieures: le cas de Terqa," Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 30 
(1992) 247-56.  Once again you have invented a whole scenario without any 
evidence.   
Finally (sigh), the Turks are not the descendants of the Hittites, as the 
Turcic tribes arrived in Anatolia from Central Asia about 2000 years after the 
fall of the Hittite state, and the Kurds are hardly descendants of the 
Hurrians.  The kind of information you posted here from the net is simply 
nationalistic propaganda which, like religion, cannot be discussed.  The 
Kurdish language has nothing whatsoever to do with Hurrian or the related 
Urartean language, and Turkish is hardly Indoeuropean.  Please check your 
facts once again.  May I suggest that you look at the actual information that 
people use to make general statements in popular atlases rather than base 
fictitious historical reconstructions on such popularizations.   

In <51e66i$15n@shore.shore.net> whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
writes: 
[snip]
>Fladmark has shown that the Aleutian and Queen Charlotte islands
>provided one of the earliest refugia extending across the northern
>pacific to have been extensively populated by man.
Steve,
Aren't you overstating Fladmark just a tad???  I didn't think he had
evidence for Paleoindians (i.e., earlier than Clovis) on Queen
Charlotte.  I know you posted about that recent find described on the
Sitka list, but there were still questions about that. 
Regards,
August Matthusen