Subject: Trade down the Gulf and connections to the Austric Influence in India
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 15 Sep 1996 19:25:26 GMT
Trade down the Gulf
We know that there was trade down the gulf
as evidenced by the presence of indo pacific shells
in Mesopotamian sites.
There is also evidence for a connection
to India, to the Harappans of the Indus Valley
Makkan and Melluha may have had links to points
beyond as well. Here is an interesting theory
much in favor in India at the moment.
The connection to the Austratic Influence
is worth some discussion
Austric Influence in India
http://www.he.net/~skyeagle/austric.htm
Austric is the name given for a proposed language family
that includes Austro-Asiatic and Austronesian.
Some have suggested that the Japanese language
might also be Austric. The government sponsored Indian Gazeteer
states that the Austrics are the "bedrock" of the Indian
population. So, Austric also refers to a cultural and "racial" group.
Although the Austric family cannot be said to be fully accepted by the
scholarly community it is gaining ground rapidly. In India,
it is quite widely accepted among philogists.
The Austric Peoples
The Austric-speaking people do not all belong to one homogenous racial
grouping, yet there is definitely a predominant type to be found. Some
Austric speakers are Negritos and Oceanic Negroids like the Aetas of the
Philippines, the Melanesians and some of the Austronesian speaking
peoples of New Guinea.
Most Austrics, though, are basically a fusion of three primary races:
Mongoloid, Austroloid and Oceanic Negroid. In India, specialists in this
field have noted that the Austric-speaking peoples belong to a larger
racial type that includes many non-Austric speakers and is closely
related to the Dravidian racial type. In fact, it is often said there
is little difference between these two types. They resemble each other in
terms of superficial characteristics in a number of ways, which include:
1. Short to medium stature
2. Fair to very dark complexion. Generally brown-colored.
3. Mesorhinne nose, with greater breadth than length.
4. Slight prognathism, or full lips.
5. Dark, thick, coarse hair.
6. Slight but sinewy build.
On a more subtle plane, here are some less obvious resemblances
between the two groups:
1. Large ratio of B type blood.
2. Rarity of A type, and especially A2.
3. Rarity of P2 gene.
4. Rarity of Rhesus negative,
5. Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase defiency and alcohol intolerance (ALDH).
6. The presence of enzymes giving malaria resistance.
7. Common occurrence of shovel-shaped incisors.
8. Low bi-zygomatic diameter.
The main differences of the Austric type in India from the Dravidian type
include:
1. High forehead.
2. Short face.
3. Bulging occiput.
4. Rarer occurrence of prominent brow ridges.
5. Greater occurrence of Mongolian, or sacral spot.
6. Greater occurrence of epicanthic fold.
Some of these differences, like the Mongolian spot and epicanthic fold,
are obviously due to the greater Mongoloid blood in Austrics, although
this is less apparent in India than in Southeast Asia. Some Dravidian
populations in southern Tamil Nadu and Kerala, and along the border of
Nepal also share these traits. This is aside from the presence of these
traits due to Turko-Mongol admixture. Some of the similarities above are
related to peoples of long presence in tropical areas.
The sacral spot is very common among Austrics, particularly in
Polynesia, but less common among Dravidians than even the Arabs
or North Africans. However, it is significantly higher than
among Europeans. The high skull of Austrics may come from the
Negrito-Melanesoid types who are known for this trait. One of
the most distinctive traits is the short face which can be
found from Polynesia to Madagascar.
Obviously, a great deal of naturual variation exists among
these peoples. Some of them, like the Negritos, Batak and
possibly the Ainu, are very short, while peoples like the
Polynesians are one of the tallest and probably the heaviest
of people. The same type of variation exists in South America,
where the population is short, but the Patagonian Indians
are one of the tallest of peoples. Also, in Africa, in areas
where the population is among the tallest to be found, there
are also Pygmy groups.
The Austronesians built ships with adzes and other tools of
similar genetic affiliation, they used similar types of riggings,
rudders, etc. and also the same method of sewing or fitting
together the planks of their ships. These early Austronesians
seemed to have all carried a few important domestic animals
to almost everywhere they went: the dog, pig and chicken.
Where the Proto-Austronesian people developed is a sticky problem.
Some think the region of the Southern Philippines and Eastern
Indonesia was the likely area, while others favor either Formosa
or South China. Around 5,000 B.C. blade stone tool technology
reached the northern and central Philippines from the south.
Wilhelm Solheim of the University of Hawai'i postulates that active
maritime trade and migration was already going on in Insular and
Mainland Southeast Asia by between 4,500 and 5,000 B.C. Eusebio
Dizon of the National Museum of the Philippines believes this date
can be moved to between 6,000 and 7,000 B.C. based on the most recent
radiocarbon dating.
steve
Subject: Summerians and Akkadians: Pictographic signs
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 15 Sep 1996 20:49:57 GMT
This touches on some of the issues Piotr and I have been discussing
http://www.sron.ruu.nl/~jheise/akkadian/mesopotamia.html
Two cultural groups form the principle elements in the population of
Mesopotamia before the beginning of history and in the millennium
thereafter (the 3rd millennium BCE).
These are the Sumerians and the Akkadians. They lived peacefully
together and created in mutual fertilization, by symbiosis and
osmosis, the conditions for a common high civilization.
Mesopotamian sources in all periods seem to be free of strong racial
ideologies or ethnic stereotypes. Enemies, both groups and individuals,
may be cursed and reviled heavily, but this applies more strongly to
the ruler of a nearby city than to one of a remote territory.
Sumerians
The people responsible for the first monumental temples and palaces,
for the founding of the first city states and most likely for the
invention of writing (all in the period of 3100-3000 BCE) are the
Sumerians.
The first written signs are pictographic, so they can be read in
any language and one can't infer a particular language.
A pictogram of an arrow means `arrow' in any language.
A few centuries later, however, these signs were used to represent
Sumerian phonetic values and Sumerian words.
The pictogram for an arrow is now used to represent ti, the
Sumerian word for `arrow', but also for the phonetic sound ti
in words not related to `arrow'. So it is generally assumed that
the Sumerians were also responsible for the pictographic signs,
or possibly together with (or with a large influence of) the
contemporaneous Elamites.
If the Sumerians aren't the ones who actually invented writing
than they are at least responsible for quickly adopting and
expanding the invention to their economic needs (the first
tablets are predominantly economic in nature).
The name 'Sumer' is derived from the Babylonian name for
southern Babylonia: mät umeri `the land of Sumer'.
(construct state of mätum `country' followed by genitive of Sumer;
unknown meaning in Akkadian)
The Sumerians called their country ken.gi(r) `civilized land',
their language eme.gir and themselves sag.gi6.ga `the black-headed ones'.
[the consonant in between brackets appears in writing depending
on following sounds. Compare e.g. French `les Francais' where
in both words the final -s are not pronounced, but they are
explicitly heard if a vowel follows, e.g. in `les Anglaises'.]
The Sumerian language is not Semitic. It is a so called agglutinating
language, like Finnish and Japanese (and in fact like the majority of
languages in the world).
This is a term in the typology of languages that contrasts with
inflecting languages, like the Indo-European and Semitic languages.
In an agglutinating (or agglutinative) language words are composed by
stringing forms together, often into quite lengthy sequences.
In inflecting languages the basic element (the root) of the word
may change (like `foot', `feet' and sing, sang, sung, called internal
inflection).
Sumerian has no known relation to any other language.
There seems to be a remote relationship with Dravidian languages
(like spoken by the Tamils, now in the south of India).
There is evidence that the Dravidian languages were spoken in the
north of India, being displaced by the arrival of the
Indo-European invaders around 1500 BCE.
Because of the term `the black-headed ones', it is possible
(but far from proven) that the Sumerians are an early branch
of one of the people now living in southern India.
Sumerian/Elamite inventions: Cylinder seals (French Sceaux-cylindres,
German Zylindersiegel) are small (2-6 cm) cylinder-shaped stones
carved with a decorative design in intaglio (engraved).
The cylinder was roled over wet clay to mark or identify clay tablets,
envelopes, ceramics and bricks. It so covers an area as large as desired,
an advantage over earlier stamp seals. Its use and spread coincides
with the use of clay tablets, starting at the end of the 4th millennium
up to the end of the first millennium.
After this time stamp seals are used again. Cylinder seals are
important to historians: they literally give First Impressions
(title of a book by D. Collon, see literature below)
Purpose. The seals are needed as signature, confirmation of receipt,
or to mark clay tablets and building blocks. The invention fits with
the needs caused by the general development of city states.
Geographical spread:
Materials.
Inscriptions are mostly carved in reverse, so as to leave a positive
image on the clay with figures standing out. Some are directly carved
and leave a negative imprint.
See references to images of cylinder seals on the Web:
Literature:
Dominique Collon, `First Impressions, cylinder seals in the Ancient Near
East', British Museum
Publications, London, 1987, ISBN 0-7141-1121-X
Pre-Sumerians
The origin of the Sumerians is unknown. The intriguing question keeps
returning into the literature but has so far unsatisfactory answers.
The Sumerians were not the first people in Mesopotamia.
They were not present before 4000 BCE, while before that time village
communities existed with a high degree of organization. The ``principle
of agriculture'' was not discovered by the Sumerians. This is evident
from words the Sumerians use for items in relation to the domestication
of plants and animals.
substrate languages. A language (in particular as it appears in proper
names and geographical names) may show signs of so called substrate
languages (like the influence of Celtic on ancient Gaul; compare
some Indian geographical names in the US attesting the original
inhabitants). Some professional names and agricultural implements
in Sumerian show that agriculture and the economic use of metals
existed before the arrival of the Sumerians.
Sumerian words with a pre-Sumerian origin are:
professional names such as simug `blacksmith' and tibira `copper smith',
`metal-manifacturer' are not in origin Sumerian words.
agricultural terms, like engar `farmer', apin `plow' and
absin `furrow', are neither of Sumerian origin.
craftsman like nangar `carpenter', agab `leather worker'
religious terms like sanga `priest'
some of the most ancient cities, like Kish, have names that
are not Sumerian in origin.
These words must have been loan words from a substrate language.
The words show how far the division in labor had progressed even
before the Sumerians arrived.
Some craftsmen have Sumerian names.
Some professions are typically Sumerian:
za.dim `stonecutter', from za `(precious) stone'
and dim `to build', `to cut', `to make'.
The stonecutter makes cylinder seals which are a typical Sumerian invention.
These activities
are characteristic for the growing urban society.
Also other terminology is typical Sumerian,
like en.si(k) `city king' is derived form en `lord' and si `region',
[owner of the place, landlord]
`country';
lu.gal meaning `military authority',
later `king'; the word is derived from lu `man', `someone'
and gal `great': `great man'.
Akkadians
(Semi-)nomads in the Near East. Even at the time that a large part
of the population in Mesopotamia had a sedentary (non-migratory)
life in settlements, large groups of people (nomads) at the same time
are migrating.
Nomads roam from place to place in search for pasture and moving
with the season.
Semi-nomads graze their small live stock near the fields of
the settlements, often trading for goods obtained elsewhere
and having all kinds of other interactions. This characteristic
is still present in the Near East today.
Nomads leave little archeological trace and are illiterate,
so not much is known about them by direct means. However, some
description does appear in written form: recorded by the
Sumerians and later by the Akkadians.
Some of the (semi-)nomads, either as individuals or as groups,
mix with the sedentary population and become sedentary themselves.
In times of political or economical crisis they may do so by force,
but they adapt quickly to the current civilization and even to the
dominant language. Their increased influence on the society is
manifested by a change in type of personal names.
Sometimes the names are the only remains of their original language.
In their new positions, they often stimulate further cultural development.
Akkadians, speaking a Semitic language, may have been present in
Mesopotamia since the time the Sumerians arrived, or they may have
diffused into the region later.
Their culture intermingled and they must have been living peacefully
together. On Sumerian clay tablets dated around 2900-2800 BCE found
in Fara, Semitic (Akkadian) names are attested for the first time.
It concerns the names of kings in the city Kish. Kish is in the north of
Babylonia where according to the Sumerian King Lists `kingship
descended again from heaven' after the great Flood.
The proper names often contain animal names like zuqiqïpum
`scorpion' and kalbum `dog'. Kings with Semitic names are the first
postdiluvial kings to rule Kish. They started the first historical
period called the Early Dynastic Period.
A few centuries later the first Akkadian king Sargon of Akkad
ruled over an empire that included a large part of Mesopotamia.
Apparently Semitic speaking people have lived for centuries amidst
the Sumerians and gradually became an integral part of the Sumerian
culture. We don't hear much about them in the first part of the 3rd
millennium, because the (scholarly) language used in writing is Sumerian.
Neighbors
Mesopotamia has no natural boundaries and is difficult to defend. The
influence of neighboring countries is large. Throughout the history of
Mesopotamia trade contacts, slow diffusion of foreign tribes and
military confrontations have been of great influence.
Gutians
Amorites
Literature:
Robert M. Whiting, `Amorite Tribes and nations of Second-Millennium Western
Asia' in `Civilizations of
the Ancient Near East, J.M.Sasson (ed.)', Vol. II, p.1231-p.1242 , with
further references
steve
Subject: Re: Egyptian Tree Words
From: ayma@tip.nl
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 04:44:43 GMT
Saida wrote:
>ayma@tip.nl wrote:
>>
>
>> >cypress--kebes (make the "c" a hard one and substitute "p" for "b" and
>> >you can get kebes out of cypress)
>>
>> **** No, the r is still there....
>Hi, Aayko, welcome to the discussion--but hold on there! My theory is
>that the ancient Egyptian "r" was a very weak consonant--so weak that
>foreigners often did not even hear it, as we have seen in Akkadian
>transliterations of Egyptian names. Perhaps, when the Egyptians
>borrowed a word that contained an "r", they didn't even bother to
>include it.
***Yes, sorry. I only upload once a week, so I responded to your very
first posting, blissfully unaware what followed later...[like someone
else also making the 'ivory link'].
Your 'r' theorie is an interesting point! Can you give some more
examples?
It cannot have been 'weak' in every position?
As i understand you correctly, it worked both ways:
1) Egyptians didn't pronounce it in their own words and
names, so foreigners wrote down these spoken forms.
* Was 'nefer' also not rendered as 'nib' in Akkadian?
I vaguely remember from the Amarna tablets.
2) if the egyptians found an r in foreign words, in a position
it would have been weak in their eyes, they didn't bother to write it
down
* To add a certain toponym to your list:
The Semitic name for Crete was Kaptara/Kaftor,
while the Egyptians called it 'land of the Keftiu'. And the Semitic
form is really old [Akkadian], so I'm sure it didn't come from
Egyptian. Likely both came from a native Aegean form, and the
Egyptians dropped the 'r' . Which matches point 2 [=your last line]!
It seems possible to me that the name Kaftor much later, when Crete
was in decay, was 'transfered' to that island closer to the Middle
East - Cyprus - an easy mistake to make.
That island had always been called Alashia/Elisa. But the Greek called
it Kupros - can that be derived from 'Kaptara"? [with loss of 't'?].
This is personal speculation, mind you.
But i'm rather sure that 'copper' means 'the metal from Cyprus', and
not the reverse: Cyprus='island of copper'
[Like Loren said, cypres is from kyparissos, a Greek name borrowed
from a language before Greek [Luwian??]. so Cypress couldn't mean
'tree of Cyprus' . Still leaving the possibility that
Egyptian kebes is a loan from the same unknown tongue, with the drop
of r according to Saida's rule 2.]
Anyone has an opinion on these island names?
Somebody asked about the word abracadabra; some months ago i wrote a
long piece in a magazine about that; shall i post it? It has to do
with Gnostisism, not with Egyptian.
regards,
Aayko
Subject: Re: Ebla excavations
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 15 Sep 1996 20:36:17 GMT
In article , piotrm@umich.edu says...
>
>In article <51h2t7$i0v@shore.shore.net> whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
writes:
>
>>>Twenty years later, he has managed to uncover quite bit.
>>>I don't care what you surmise, just check his latest
>>>reports and see for yourself.
>
>>I repeat. The city extends substantially beyond the environs
>>of Palace G where the archives were centrally located.
>>So far as I can determine there is little of the rest
>>of the city which has been included in the excavation of
>>Palace G.
>>>
>Once again that is factually untrue. As I write this I am looking at a map
of
>the excavated regions of the site from a recent report by Matthiae and it
>shows much work all over the acopolis. Many different areas have been
exposed
>since they worked on "Palace G" including much later levels in other parts
of
>the mound. Look at a report before you post, please.
>
http://www.sron.ruu.nl/~jheise/akkadian/mesopotamia.html
Neighbors in 3rd millennium
In the east: Elamites
In the west: city of Ebla
The discovery in 19.. of the 3rd millennium city Ebla took
Assyriologist by surprise.
The extend of the Sumerian culture in the 3rd millennium was
not known, but not expected to go so far west.
Ebla is situated at Tell Mardikh 65 km south of Aleppo in Syria
and appeared to be an urban culture in the middle of the 3rd
millennium in the far west of Mesopotamia.
The site shows impressive archeological remains (royal palace)
and has a rich archive of cuneiform tablets which attests a new
(western) Semitic language (called Eblaite) different from and
even slightly older than Old Akkadian.
The Ebla archive is found as a shelved room with ~2100 clay tablets.
Subjects range from administration, textile- and metal accounting,
tax deliveries, temple offerings, letters, state reports and scribal
exercises. Texts and excavations show Ebla to be a complex mixture of
(Sumerian) borrowings and local traditions.
From ~2600-2350 BCE a good deal of Sumerian literacy and school
tradition had been assimilated by Ebla scribes and in addition
they used cuneiform for their own language.
Ebla's power depended on political hegemony over a local territory
with autonomous minor urban centers. Hundreds of villages are named
in the archives, mention is made of large (~6700 animals) heards,
wool industry, and large quantities of gold and silver.
During at least 26 years tribute is paid to Mari (an important city
on the Middle Euphrates), with which Ebla usually had a friendly
relation (exchange of gifts).
From the lack of long distance ventures it is concluded that
Ebla probably was not a commercial empire, but merely profited
of the strategic position at the crossroads of major trade routes.
Ebla ended by a fire in ~2350, probably in a conflict with
Sargon of Akkad, the first Mesopotamian empire.
[this would be prior to the texts of its archives having been written]
It was rebuilt and flourished again during the Ur-III dynasty
and in a period roughly coinciding with the Old Babylonian Period.
A final destruction took place by a Hittite king ~1600 BCE,
[About the same time Mursalis attacks nearby Aleppo]
after which Ebla remained a small village.
Literature:
Lucio Milano, `Ebla, A Third-Millennium City-State in Ancient Syria', in
`Civilizations of the Ancient Near
East, J.M.Sasson (ed.)', Vol. II, p.1219-p.1230, with further references
steve
Subject: Re: ARK OF COVENANT FOUND IN ISRAEL !! (???)
From: millerwd@ix.netcom.com(wd&aeMiller;)
Date: 15 Sep 1996 21:21:18 GMT
In <323b7a04.20666060@news.netpower.no> mortenm@mail.link.no (Morten
Mjøsdal) writes:
>
(snip)
As his eyes became
>>>accustomed to the dim light. so he realised that he was looking
>>>at two Cherubim with wings outstretched over the Mercy Seat. It
>>>was the Ark of the Covenant! Ron collapsed and fainted, and
>>>was unconscious for 45 minutes. Coming to, he crawled out and
>>>announced his discovery. The Director of Antiquities was
>>>informed, and he hurried to the site, and began to enter the
>>>cave, but on doing so his back collapsed and he had to be taken
>>>to hospital where he remained paralysed for nearly two weeks.
>>>He was later heard to say that he would never again try to enter
>>>the Cave and see the Ark. This was miracle number five.
>>
>>> Ron took a Polaroid camera into the cave and
>>>photographed the Ark.
>>
>>>On immediate development, the film was found to be fogged, not
>>>entirely but just over the portion where the Ark was. He then
>>>tried using his 35 mm camera, and when these shots came out they
>>>likewise showed fogging. Then a Video camera was used and the
>>>same effect was apparent. Some strange thing was happening to
>>>prevent the world from seeing the Ark. This was miracle number
>>>six. I have now seen the footage of this video, and all is clear
>>>except where the Ark rests, and in front of it there is a golden
>>>mist. Ron has pencilled in the outline of what he saw and the
>>>Cherubim are of human form with wings outspread over the Ark.
>>
(snip snip)
>>> I should now like to share another item of news in
>>
>>>connection with the above scenario. I have a valued friend and
>>>brother in Christ who is a retired Doctor of Medicine. In an
>>>excited telephone conversation with me a
>>>short while ago he said that Ron Wyatt's testimony about the
>>>chromosomes had caused him to question whether it would be
>>>possible for anyone to have blood so depleted in chromosomal
>>>content. Being a man of faith and action, he committed this to
>>>the Lord, asking for a clear sign that all was well.
>>
>>> Not many days passed before he picked up the New
>>>Scientist for 7th October 1995, and there on page 16 he found
>>>the following heading - THE BOY WHOSE BLOOD HAS NO FATHER
>>
(snippety snip)
>>
>>> So what is the artifact in Mount Nebo? I do not accuse
>>>Crotser lying. He certainly found something. But what is it? My
>>>guess is that it is a REPLICA of the true Ark, made in Jeremiah's
>>>day, and deposited in the cave according to the words that are
>>>found in 2 Maccabees 2:4-8. Why should Jeremiah do this? Because
>>>he was a man of great integrity and honour towards the Lord, and
>>>he lived Amongst people, even his OWN people, who were dishonest
>>>to the Core. They would be watching his every move, and wanting
>>>to know what he was doing. This would mean that SOMEONE would
>>>find the Ark and raid it. and he didn't want that to happen. So
>>>he made a replica, and took it to Mount Nebo. In the event, even
>>>this replica has not been found until recent days.
>>
>>>
>>
>Morten.
Great science fiction. Too bad it was too long to quote the whole
thing. Too bad Graham Hancock claims to have found the Ark in Ethiopia
also. hehe
Next time keep this crap on alt.prophecies.nostradamus where it
belongs.
Amanda
Subject: Re: Norse sailings to Vinland/Markland (Was: Deep Sea Sailing in Palaeolith)
From: billb@mousa.demon.co.uk (Bill Bedford)
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 23:06:03 +0000
Mike/Damon or Peni R. Griffin wrote:
> For what it's worth:
>
> I have in my library a Scholastic paperback called *The Iceberg
> Hermit,* by Arthur Roth. This is the novelized form of a story Roth
> discovered in James Hogg's *Tales and Sketches of the Ettrick
> Shepherd,* 1836. The original story was taken down by an Aberdeen
> schoolmaster, Bunty Duff, from his ex-pupil, Allan Gordon, who claimed
> to have been shipwrecked in the Arctic for many years. He claimed to
> have stayed for some time with a band of Eskimos who recognized the
> name of Christ, some of whom had beards, whose chief he called Herard.
> Though the physical culture he described sounds authentic enough, the
> band refused to practice female infanticide (as, according to Roth,
> was commonly done by Eskimos at that time), resulting in an imbalance
> in the sexes, since the death-rate for men in t
We know that infanticide by exposure was practiced in Iceland so there
is no reason to supose it was not practiced in Greenland.
--
Bill Bedford billb@mousa.demon.co.uk Shetland
Brit_Rail-L list autoshare@mousa.demon.co.uk
Looking forward to 2001 -
When the world it due to start thinking about the future again.
Subject: Re: Egyptology: Opening of the mouth.
From: Greg Reeder
Date: 15 Sep 1996 22:16:41 GMT
grifcon@usa.pipeline.com(Katherine Griffis) wrote:
>On Sep 15, 1996 11:23:11 in article ,
>'stevelowe@enterprise.net (Steve Lowe.)' wrote:
>
>
>>During a recent tour of the British Museum I noticed in the room with
>>the mummies, that on a few of the tomb paintings displayed around the
>>top of the room the English title describing what was happening in the
>>relief was the ceremony of "Opening of The Mouth". The guide was'nt
>>sure what the ceremony involved or what it signified.
>>
>>Can anyone give me a brief description of what was involved and what
>>it signified.
>
>Well, after the deceased had been mummified, it was important to complete
>this ceremony by placing (what appears to be) an *iron instrument* (folks:
>name of this thing, again??) at the approximate location of the lips of the
>deceased, and recite a formulaic phrase that asured that the mummy's mouth
>would be *opened* to be able to speak the magic words necessary to do the
>following:
>
> - Make the Negative Confession ("Not have I done....")
> - Make Obeisance to the Gods
> - Speak the Magical Phrases that opened various doors
> to the *other world*
> - Give an Accounting of Oneself in the Hall of Judgment
>
>and so on. Very important part of the mummification process. The person
>who performed the "Opening of the Mouth" was usually a relative, wearing
>the robes of a sem-priest (at least, this was the case in Tutankhamen's
>tomb), or by a religious priest who completed the mummification process.
>
>I will let people like Greg Reeder, Keith Grenville, and others complete
>*any areas* they feel pertinent to this question. My commects are just
>oversight here.
>
>Katherine Griffis (Greenberg)
>Member of the American Research Center in Egypt
>
The name of the forked shape instrument is Pesh-en-kef or Pesh-kf and
though it can be metal it is usually stone. Some believe that its origin
was a tool to cut the umbilical cord of a new-born infant. ( A.M. Roth
JEA 78, 1992 p113-117.) This instrument was later used as described above
by Katherine. The Sem priest should be thought of as a shaman who helped
the deceased by performing this ceremony and by going into trance state
to help him in the spirit world. See my small article on the web
http://www.sirius.com/~reeder/tekenu1.html about the relationship of the
tekenu to the sem priest. And for an in-depth article on the tekenu and
sem see my article "A Rite of Passage: The Enigmatic Tekenu in Ancient
Egyptian Funerary Ritual," in KMT: A MODERN JOURNAL OF ANCIENT
EGYPT, Fall 1994, vol.5 no.3.
The Opening the Mouth ceremony could also be performed on temples and
statues to make them alive as well. A must have book is THE BOOK OF
OPENING THE MOUTH by none other than E.A. Wallis Budge London 1909! But
reprinted in 1984 by the Ayer Company, Salem, New Hampshire.ISBN
0-405-08315-7 The complet ceremonies are there as well as illustrations
and the hieroglyphs.
--
Greg Reeder
On the WWW
at Reeder's Egypt Page
---------------->http://www.sirius.com/~reeder/egypt.html
reeder@sirius.com
Subject: Re: Egyptian Tree Words
From: petrich@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 23:26:30 GMT
In article <51edoa$69f@shore.shore.net>,
Steve Whittet wrote:
>In article <32348F38.4795@clr.com>, Olice_Certain@clr.com says...
>>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...
That's pure excuse-making. Although English does have some words
of ancient Egyptian origin, Ms. Saida seemed to be overenthusiastic about
finding such words, though she did have the honesty to display several
non-matching Egyptian tree words and pronouns, and Mr. Whittet seems
capable of deriving just about *any* word from ancient Egyptian, while
using the most laughable semantic connections imaginable.
>It began with the premise that the Greeks borrowed a lot of
>the ideas we associate with "Classical Greece" from the
>Egyptians.
Including, presumably, their language :-)
>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
So what if that's an imitation?
>The Platonic Dialoges closely follow the Egyptian ideas
>of what was right and proper as illustrated by their
>celebration of the Goddess Ma'at.
Absolute baloney. How does it follow Egyptian ideas as opposed to
ideas from elsewhere??? And how does it closely parallel some Egyptian
text? For one thing, nowhere do Plato's dialogues contain, as far as I am
aware, instructions to assert that one did not commit any of a long list
of offenses ("I did not pilfer Temple grain", "I did not talk too much",
etc.) when one was being judged. More seriously, there is no discussion
of rule by an allegedly divine monarch who is careful to keep the family
lineage pure by inbreeding.
>The Greeks used Egyptian unit fractions to make their calculations.
So? What would be interesting would be if they used the same
decompositions whenever there would be more than one possible decomposition.
>The Greek science often makes use of measurements which were
>originally made by the Egyptians using Egyptian standards of measure.
If one uses measurements derived from body-part sizes, one will
get approximately the same sizes, so that's a non sequitur.
>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.
WHAT measurements?
>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.
But it was NOT. Many of them rather transparent coinages from
existing words, words often with impeccable Indo-European pedigrees. JUst
to give ONE example, "pentagon" means "five-angle" in Greek, and the first
part is cognate with English "five", not to mention the corresponding word
in just about every other Indo-European language, and the second part with
English "knee", Latin "genu", etc. (>"location of bending"). Anyone with a
good dictionary, like the copy of the American Heritage Dictionary on my
hard disk, can *easily* find other examples, and I've done so myself,
though I prefer not to clutter this posting with them.
It may be possible that many of these words were
imitation-translations, such as an English-language purist calling a
pentagon a five-knee. But are they? One problem here is that such
translations are hard to distinguish from independent inventions.
>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.
WHAT "borrowed jargon"? Present some examples other than "ibis"
and "ivory" and so forth. And DON'T use ridiculous etymologies. Try to
look at some *real* ones before constructing your own. And I mean those
of present-day languages with a long paper trail, such as present-day
English.
>As others have shown, there are enough matches to suggest there
>was some influence, which is the point we wish to prove.
Influence or common ancestry? As in a common ancestor of Egyptian
and Indo-European being Nostratic. Something like *ne- for "we" or *wete-
for "water" is a possible example of that.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
petrich@netcom.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html