Subject: Re: Sumerian etymology of the word Lugal
From: piotrm@umich.edu (Piotr Michalowski)
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 20:15:06
In article <5294b4$1sj@bart.rogerswave.ca> craig.urquhart@utoronto.ca (Craig) writes:
>
>>>>From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
>>>>Subject: Sumerian etymology of the word Lugal
>>>>Hmmm, the word "lugal", this is not used by more than
>>>>one language to mean "king", "govenor", "great man"
>>>>and generally the more literal "owner of the place"?
>>>No, it is not used by more than one language. It is only used in Sumerian. .
>> . Show us one instance of LUGAL being borrowed into another language, if you
>>please!
>It's not entirely impossible that there should be a relationship, at
>least from the point of view of the forms in question. The root sense
>of log- and leg- is 'say' and they represent evidently the e and o
>grades of one PIE root. Semantically a relationship between 'say' and
>'rule' or 'law' is not at all farfetched. As to the forms leg- 'law'
>and reg- 'king' again an interchange of l and r like that is not
>totally out of the question on universal grounds. But I think it
>unlikely that the PIE roots are borrowed from Sumerian because the
>vowel is suspect and also because I don't know what to do with the -al
>of the Sumerian. Of course it might be that an IE root wandered into
>Sumerian. On the whole though, absent further evidence, I would say
>that it is likely a chance resemblance.
> Or maybe there are more opinions out there, in regards to such a very
>important debate.
I am sorry to disagree, but this is hardly an important debate. There is
little but chance similarity here, and even the phonological issue is less
certain than would appear at first glance. The earliest gloss we have, from
Ebla in the third millennium is nu-gal. There are perfectly good words for
legal norms in Sumerian, such as nig-sisa and nig-gi(na), the latter which is
more than likely a loan from Afroasiatic. The relationship between the word
for "king" in one language and "law" in another, without good linguistic
reasons to posit a loan, is less evident than might seem. This is a red
herring, or, I suspect, a issue that started as a joke.
Subject: Re: 200 ton Blocks
From: Kevin@Quitt.net (Kevin D. Quitt)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 03:02:41 GMT
On Mon, 23 Sep 1996 21:21:42 -0700, Jiri Mruzek
wrote:
>A slew of amazing problems had materialized.
>If you actually tried to move the Hadjar el
>Gouble, I am sure that a slew of problems would ensue, just as well.
So am I, but we're not talking about one thing, moved once. We're talking
about an industry of transporting stones. The workers would quickly learn
the problems and find the solutions. Ask the people who moved the machine
how hard it would have been to move it the second time, and the tenth.
Again, I'm not trying to say it's trivial or easy; it's not. It's a hell of
a lot of work, but it can be done in a straightforward manner by not an
unresaonable number of people.
>I have never disputed that. Of course there are limits to what you say.
>For instance: To mount wheels, you would have several choices like
>hoisting the block up, or dig holes, and then roll the wheel out,
>or build three sides - roll the block, add the fourth side.
>The problem is in getting enough people connected to the relatively
>compact block to carry out all the chores.
That's true. But again, it's not just once, for one block. It's a process
repeated many times.
>Spooling towing lines on the smaller diameter block produces
>a mechanical dis-advantage. The length of rope needed to turn
>the block once, will be shorter than the distance traveled by
>the wheel, which will also spin around once.
That's true, but it probably doesn't really matter. It might mean you need
11 people instead of ten (whatever), but isn't insurmountable. On a level
surface I don't think it would make a lot of difference. Uphill it might,
but then again you can add more people.
>You would really need to spool your ropes somewhere near the outside
>of the taller wooden wheel. This spells troubles for the project..
It would give a better advantage, but I don't think it's a kill. I suppose
one could add rounded blocks of wood that would turn the block shape
cylindrical where the ropes are. Without going out and doing with those
tremendous blocks, it's impossible to say what all the problems are. I am
convinced, however, that this technique can be used to move, by human labor
alone, much heavier loads than many people thought.
>> Once again, I didn't mean for this to be *the* explanation. There have been
>> other reasonable ideas posted.
>
>Such as?
For moving the blocks up the ramps, sledges or mechanical advantage from A
frames could be used. Lots of things could be; I haven't really looked at
moving the directly up as opposed to rolling them up a ramp. I still feel
that the ramp is the most likely.
>Well, only on the side ramps skimpy on material usage.. One could have a
>wide road atop a large-volume self-supporting ramp.
I was thinking not of a ramp that spirals up the pyramid as much as a
straigh ramp at 90 degrees to one of the sides. And of course, once the
block is rolled roughly into place, there's still the problem of accurate
placement; perhaps A frames were used here.
>With a large ditch along the planned route, you could slip a large
>spooler onto the wheel, and thus regain the mechanical advantage.
That's what I was talking about, above, with the rounded blocks. As I say,
I'm not sure they're necessary
>Must I do problem-solving for the skeptical party? :)
Hey! *You're* the skeptic in this discussion!
>I just meant that there is no limit to skeptics simply scaling Lo-Tech
>up to any desired size.
I apologize for personalizing it. And you're right, you can't scale
technology very far. That's what killed the Titanic.
>Wanna launch satellites into orbit?
>Build a sloping ramp high enough..
Nah, just a tower, straight up. But it seems to me that was tried, once...
>With no signs of such a ramp to the higher reaches of the Pyramid,
>this subject becomes purely academical, and generally oriented.
As far as I know, the builders never described how they did their work. Too
mundane for the nobility to worry about and record. My goal was to show
that the materials can be transported via low-tech means, without magic or
alien intervention. I believe we've agreed on that much.
>We still can't duplicate the Pyramid with Lo-Tech methods and
>materials.
Do you have any idea how much that would cost, to the labor unions alone?!
You have to be careful when applying math to artifacts so that it doesn't
become numerology instead. Someone once posted a wonder article on how his
bicycle held all the mathematical, physical, and astronomical constants and
ratios, and he was working on QM at the same time. A real pity I've
misplaced 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
Subject: Second Call for Papers - Grad students
From: niaux@aol.com (Niaux)
Date: 25 Sep 1996 00:32:01 -0400
Below is the second call for papers for the Graduate Student Conference to
be held at Boston University. Please forward this announcement to any
interested parties. Contact numbers for interested students are included
below. Thank you.
SECOND CALL FOR PAPERS
The Archaeology of Work:
An Open Forum For Graduate Students
sponsored by
The Graduate Student Association
and
The Department of Archaeology
Boston University * November 9, 1996
The Graduate Student Association of the Department of Archaeology at
Boston University is pleased to announce its Second Annual Open Forum,
entitled "The Archaeology of Work." The goal of the conference is to
bring together graduate students in the fields of archaeology,
anthropology, history, art history and classics to discuss their current
research as well as issues of concern in the field. The question of
"work", broadly defined to include such issues as food gathering, and
artifact production as well as larger questions of labor and economic
organization, has long been of interest to the archaeological community.
Recent theoretical and technical developments have brought both new data
and new perspectives to these issues. The sessions are loosely defined
around three topics, the social aspects of the production and labor,
technical aspects of production, and modern approaches to the study of
these issues. Presenters should base their discussions on current field
research. Each session will conclude with a moderated discussion.
Attendees may also submit posters for display throughout the day.
There is no registration fee for the conference.
Session I
The Social Aspects of Labor and Production
Scientific techniques have illuminated our understanding of past tool
production and usage, bringing forth new avenues of archaeological study.
At the same time, more critical theoretical approaches, such as
post-processualism and feminism, have called into question long held
assumptions regarding both the social divisions of labor and the cultural
implications of work. This session is intended to explore both scientific
and theoretical approaches and their use in interpreting the impact of
social, political, and ideological systems on work.
Session II
Technical Aspects of Production
While social relations have a crucial impact upon work, the reverse is
also true, that work and its products can have a tremendous impact upon
the creation and transformation of cultures. While looking at the
material remains of production, larger social issues can be examined. New
tool technology enabled early humans to migrate into new environments.
Iron plows revolutionized agriculture. The development of factories and
interchangeable parts radically altered social relations during the
industrial revolution. This session is designed to present new research
in areas such as tool typologies, organization of production, and
technological methods, and to place this information in a larger social
context.
Session III
Techniques of Archaeology
The nineteenth century is gone, and the excavation techniques of men like
Pitt-Rivers have matured into a scientifically rigorous discipline. New
applications of computer technology, chemistry, physics, and geology have
had massive repercussions on our understanding of the archaeology of work.
The purpose of this session is to explore the interface between
archaeology and its allied disciplines. Papers should focus on current
research using innovative techniques and explain how this
interdisciplinary approach affects their results.
Session IV
Rethinking the Past: A Panel Discussion
The panelists for this session will consist of professional
archaeologists drawn from a variety of academic backgrounds, each bringing
to the discussion their own views on the role of work in ancient
societies. The moderator will pose questions to the panel and invite the
audience to comment.
Please return this form (or equivalent) with abstract on a separate
sheet. Abstracts may be submitted on any of the first three session
topics. Papers should not exceed 20 minutes in length. Slide and overhead
projectors will be available. Abstracts should be typed and no longer than
150 words. Submissions on diskette or via email are encouraged. Deadline
for submission of abstracts is October 4, 1996. Abstracts will be reviewed
and based on their suitability for the sessions as described above.
Students will be notified of their acceptance by October 15, 1996.
Title
Author Affiliation
Address `
Telephone email
Submission Session I Session II Session III
Mail abstracts to Lee Payne, Graduate Conference Committee, Department of
Archaeology, Boston University, 675 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, MA 02215
(email: eepayne@bu.edu). Questions? Call (617) 353-3415. There is no
registration fee for this conference.
Subject: Re: Atlantis in Mediterranean
From: Claudio De Diana
Date: 23 Sep 1996 12:53:00 GMT
Ray Haren wrote:
>
>My theory on Atlantis is that it was a city that is now buried under the
>Mediterranean Sea.
>
>During the ice age the Med Sea was nearly completely dry because the
>world's sea leavel dropped and the Atlantic Ocean didn't reach the
>straights of gibralter. The great rivers of europe and africa only
>formed small salt lakes, solar evaporation kept the water level down.
>Its easy to imagine cities on the edges of the deltas of the rivers.
>
>But then around 10,000 years ago the ice melted enough that the Atlantic
>Ocean reached the straights of gibralter. These straights are much
>shallower than the bulk of the Mediterranean Sea 'valley'. The result
>was a HUGE wall of water roaring down the valley wiping out everything,
>including Atlantis.
>
>So Atlantis didn't sink into the sea, the sea rose over it.
>
>Flame at will. No, I mean flame at Will, and my name ain't Will.
>
nice theory, I will not flame you but I will suggest you
two steps in order to make it work better:
(1) Ice Age, what period are you referring to?
In a good geological book you will find a lot of maps
of the evolution of the Mediterranean Sea, from your quote
"The great rivers of Europe and Africa formed small salt lakes"
I infere that you will be surprised by the extension and
depth of the Mediterranean Sea;
However, after having chosen the geological period that fits
better your theory do check:
(2) Manhood, in what period we have got the first evidences
of.. well, depends from what you are referring to with "cities"?
There are also a peculiar kind of "villages" typical of swamps
or shallow lakes (unfortunately I know only the Italian
name "Palafitte") which could fit your purposes, compare the date.
As a matter of fact, however, I have to say that I personally
appreciate your attempt to explain Atlantis Myth on the basis
of real evidences and not taking into account
Alien-Forces & The-International-Consipiration-To-Hide-The-Proofs,
Thanks
Claudio De Diana
************************************************************************
"an agent of the secret group of world dominators that spreads
disinformation amongst the scientific community. Probably a worker for
the Vatican's Pontifical Biblical Commission (formerly The Inquisition)"
****** courtesy of BS who - I think - is also involved in the plot *****
Subject: Re: Linguistic stabs-in-the-dark???
From: petrich@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 06:15:55 GMT
In article <5296ku$282@bart.rogerswave.ca>,
Craig wrote:
> Sk: /Mater/; PGerm /Muter/; Fr. /Merr/
Latin mater (> the French and other Romance ones), Greek meter
(Modern Gerek mitera), Russian mat', mater-, etc.
> PIE *dom > Rus. Dom "House", Eng Domicile, Domestic, Dominion, etc.
Those English "dom" words are indirectly derived from Latin domus
"house", with derivatives like dominus "lord" (< the man of the house).
More directly, those English words are borrowings from Old French
derivatives of these Latin words. A native-English cognate would be
something like *tom- or *tam- (I don't have my American Heritage
Dictionary with me at work).
Here are two good examples of this sound correspondence:
English "two", Old English twa, Latin duo, Greek duo, Sanskrit dva,
Russian dva
English "ten", Old english tien, Latin decem, Greek deka, Sanskrit das'a,
Russian desyat'
--
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
Subject: Re: Stop trashing Henry Lincoln!
From: davep@corp.netcom.net.uk (Dave Parry)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 11:51:23 GMT
Whatever the 'truth' of books by people like Lincoln, Hancock, Bauval
or Gilbert for example, in my opinion they perform a very valuable
service, they stir the interest and the imagination of people who,
perhaps, find the more technical or academic tomes inaccessible and
who perhaps might not otherwise be drawn to examine and speculate on
our ancient past and origins.
Whatever 'professional' historians say, a lot of our conclusions on
our distant past are based on scanty or controversial evidence and so
re-examination of what evidence exists and other interpretations are
valid so long as they do not fly in the face of incontrovertible
evidence.
Authors like those i've mentioned above help ensure that history does
not become the exclusive plaything of 'historians' in fact I would go
further and state that the more speculative authors penchant for
examining a combination of different disciplines - geology,
archeology, meterology, anthropology in combination for example allows
a broader and perhaps healthier view on history than one which is
restricted to the narrow focus of one particular discipline.
The speculative authors (I use the term speculative as a conveniance
here) have their place as I believe that any attempt to open up
history to the layman, such as myself, is a good thing.
The only problem I have with speculative authors are where they have
deliberatlely tried to mislead or falsify but, IMO, none of the above
authors are guilty of that so far. I welcome anything that stirs the
imagination and is based on a decent level of research. Hancock,
Bauval and Gilbert are okay by me.
Cheers,
Dave
"Don't tell me I'm still on that fecking island!!"
Subject: 2nd CFV: humanities.classics (renames sci.classics)
From: dave@dogwood.com (Dave Cornejo)
Date: 25 Sep 1996 13:26:09 -0000
LAST 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: Hatchepsut
From: Saida
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 10:01:24 -0500
Great Lord of the Two Lands wrote:
>
> Reposting article removed by rogue canceller.
>
> pgosun@aol.com (PGOSUN) writes:
>
> > Does anyone have any good references for her?
>
> Depending on what you want her to do, her references may be excellent.
>
> She is unlikely to run off with the wealth of your kingdom and does not drink
> to excess. Nor does she snort cocaine or chomp on coca leaves. She is quite
> neat and tidy and does not consort with men all day long. However, she is not
> very good with children and never was. Nor is she any good for housekeeping,
> cleaning or cooking, nor was she ever any use at those things.
>
> If you want your maid just to be decorative, she's perfect for the job.
>
>
I wonder. I have been doing some drawing of the kings and queens of
Egypt and, not having Hatshepsut's mummy (or identified as such), I used
for my model of her portrait the rose quartzite statue in the Met in New
York, which I trust because the great sculptor here has given her a
typically Thutmosid face with no conventional beauty whatsoever. Plus
the face of the statue agrees in several points to the face of the mummy
of Thutmose I, Hatshepsut's father.
My thought would be, that if you hired Hatshepsut as a maid, she would
probably end up taking over your entire house and have you working for
her instead!
Subject: Re: Sphinx chamber
From: solos@enterprise.net (Adrian Gilbert)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 96 18:42:36 GMT
In article <324575E3.4B03@worldnet.att.net>,
Doug or Kathy Lowry wrote:
>Paul V. Heinrich wrote:
>>
>> In article <51thlf$i67@news.enterprise.net>,
>> solos@enterprise.net (Adrian Gilbert) wrote:
>>
>> > In article <51m5ni$1p7@soap.news.pipex.net>,
>> > brother_wolf@dial.pipex.com (Andy) wrote:
>> > >It says in the lastest (october) edition of encounters magazine that
>> > >Dr Zahi Hawass (some bod in the eygptian goverment) said in may this
>> > >year that the door will be opened in september by a canadian team.
>> > >I shouldn't believe everything you read in Encounters Magazine if I were
>> > you! As far as I know Dr Hawass is Director of the Giza Necropolis and is
not
>> > in the Egyptian Government, though he obviously has great influence. We
are
>> > all waiting to hear if the Canadian tema gets permission to investigate
the
>> > secret chamber at the end of the southern shaft of the Queen's chamber.
(If
>> > you don't know about this then read the article in the solos site
>> > http://www.netlink.co.uk/users/solos Whether they are also going for
secret
>> > chambers under the Sphinx is, I suspect, unlikely. Especially after the
>> Hawass
>> > has been accused of cover-ups in a recent bestseller.
>>
>> Given the character assination that Dr. Zahi Hawass has had to endure
>> from various parties, I not surprised that he being careful about
>> how he handles the excavations going around the Giza Necropolis. If
>> I had people making unfounded and slanderous accusations about me, I
>> make sure everything is in writing and by the rules regardless of how
>> friendly or unfriendly the involved parties seem to be. If things are
>> going slow it is because Dr. Hawass needs to make sure he has himself
>> covered from any malicious slander and gossip to spread about him. The
>> people accusing him of cover-ups and such wrong-doing are whom to
>> blame for much of the slow going.
>>
>> Yours,
>> Paul V. Heinrich
>> heinrich@intersurf.com
>> Baton rouge, LA
>>
>> Standard Disclaimer Applies
>> Paul V. Heinrich
>
>In reading articles, in the "Illustrated London News", from the twenties
>the camber was opened then. It consisted of a short tunnel dug under
>the Sphinx by Arabs in the middle ages. There is also a hole in the top
>of the Sphinx's head dating from this same period. The hole in the head
>was covered by an iron plate and the chamber was blocked when
>restoration work was done. This restoration was the one that added the
>concrete "collar" at the neck and removed the "bobbed-hair" look the
>statue had for centuries. At the same time other work was carried out
>in the area and portions of the beard were found and sent to the British
>Museum.
At last someone has come up with something concrete concerning the chamber! I
have to say I agree with Paul Heinrich concerning the unsubstantiated slanders
being put about concerning Dr Hawass. I haven't met the gentleman but I am
sure he is an honest man trying to do a good job of maintaining the integrity
of the Giza necropolis. I just wish things would move a little faster
concerning opening the the chamber (if there is one) behind the "door" at the
end of the shaft from the Queen's Chamber.
Adrian Gilbert.
Subject: Re: Immortal Emperor
From: michaelb@sunrise.cse.fau.edu (Michael Rogero Brown)
Date: 25 Sep 1996 18:48:51 GMT
Khut Mau (khutmau@unm.edu) wrote:
: I find this topic of particular interest. Are you aware of the mounds at
: Cohokia,across the river from St Louis? It seems that some lesser mounds
: also marked the site of present St. Louis, which was once known as "Mound
: City" I find this interesting, because it might indicate another
: correlation for a great river with the Milky Way. There is also an
: astronomical "woodhenge" at Cohokia. Finally could you recommend a good
: edition of the Pyramid Texts, as I am researching Egyptian cosmology.
That's 'Cahokia'. Cahokia is but one of many mound builder sites in the
eastern US. It is the largest, but there are impressive sites in Oklahoma
(Spiro), Alabama (Moundville), and Georgia(Kolomoki, Etowah, Ocmulgee).
Many of these sites are built near rivers. But then that's because these
where agricultural societies and thus needed water. There is no need to
tie in some mumbo-jumbo about the MIlky Way. And as for 'woodhenge', again,
as an agricultural society, they need an accurate way to measure the seasons
for planting.
--
<< Michael Rogero Brown | Any opinions expressed are my >>
<< (UNIX System Support) | own, and generally unpopular >>
<< Motorola-Plantation Radio Products Group| with others. >>
<< Internet: michaelb@cse.fau.edu | Ask me if I care. >>
Subject: Re: 200 ton Blocks
From: Martin Stower
Date: 25 Sep 1996 19:20:11 GMT
Jiri Mruzek wrote:
>Martin Stower wrote:
[snip]
>> >Comment: Again, the location was Lebanon, Romans didn't form the
>> >population there, they were the colonial masters - therefore
>> >the findings don't even begin to make any sense. Obviously, the
>> >findings were doctored for consumption by the German, and Italian
>> >fascists.
>
>> Translation: if anyone disagrees with me, it's a communist-fascist plot.
>> The Nazis were running archaeology in 1904-5? In 1924?
>
>You disagree, but, somehow, I don't call you a fascist. I just don't
>like being called a racist, and I may have imitated the methods
>of my opponents for the moment. Make an unfair accusation - see the
>damage later.
Well, I think we should all pay due respect to the specifics of what
people have said. Whatever you say about the technical problems, you
still credit the Egyptians with building the pyramids; if you look at
your sources, however, or the Pyramidology genre in general, you'll
find many denials of just that fact, using similar arguments to your
own, and many expressions of prejudice against the Egyptians. Someone
not paying careful attention could get the wrong idea about your agenda.
My impression has been that you tend to write off criticism or opposing
views as the propaganda of some monolithic conspiracy. Perhaps, if you
want what's distinctive about your own position to be noted, you should
take the same approach to your opponents; for example, I don't think it
was Frank who accused you of racism. If anyone cares, they can look at
Deja News, and follow the whole thread.
>Nevertheless, in 1904-5, Germany had colonies, was expansionist, and
>there were racial theories in popular circulation about the Germanic
>superiority. This is no secret, one has to justify one's right to rule
>over other nations. Archaeology in Germany had to be servile to the
>ruling imperial ideology.
Scarcely a situation unique to Germany. I'd suggest you're overlooking
a rather more cogent case of ideological content.
The Pyramidology genre is largely British in origin - specifically, what
the Americans call White Anglo-Saxon Protestant - and its rise coincided
with the effective British colonisation of Egypt in the 19th century.
Protestantism was a crucial component in the establishment of a British
national identity; there was a tendency for the British to see themselves
as a nation especially favoured of God, like Israel. Piazzi Smyth was an
exponent of one of the nuttier versions of that ideology: British Israel.
British Israelites took the idea literally, identifying the British with
one or other of the lost tribes of Israel; the British were therefore the
true inheritors of the Biblical promises, and perfectly entitled to throw
their weight around and tell other people what to do.
How easy and pleasant, when Egypt was under British rule, to attribute
the Great Pyramid to the Adamic race, who, after all, were people rather
like ourselves . . . I can quote some especially flagrant examples of this
way of thinking, if anyone's interested.
>Baalbek's temple site was a religious shrine for millenia. Baal was an
>ancient God. Hence, it doesn't make sense that these German excavators
>didn't find any signs of previous activities. Get it?
Now that's more of an argument. Presumably, then, there's some evidence
for prior occupation of the site. What is it?
>> Roman colonisation did not exclude cultural colonisation. Harmonising
>> local religions with the Roman state religion was one of the ways they
>> consolidated their power - so the findings do make sense.
>
>To the contrary. Let me also point out that the dig involved only
>one area of the platform. Hence the finds don't really guarantee
>that the rest of the platform has to be the same.
Digging up the whole site would be a massive and destructive undertaking.
It's probably better that they didn't attempt it - it leaves something
for others to investigate, with more modern methods.
Hold on - weren't you saying the finds were suspect anyway? Reminds me
of the proverbial man who said: I'll return it next week - and besides,
I returned it last week - and besides, I never borrowed it . . .
The fact that they didn't dig up the whole site would presumably limit
their ability to falsify its character, even if they'd wanted to.
>As Baalbek is
>older than Rome, why should we not consider that the Trilithons were
>out of the Roman league despite their relatively modern machines?
[snip]
>> Which Roman sources? (This being the second time I've asked.)
>
>How many times have I asked you, and others, to check out the image
>of a palaeolithical horseman on my homepages? Yet, no reply! Etc.
As far as I remember, you haven't asked me specifically. Certainly
you've put out a general request, many times.
I looked at the page. What you depict does look like a man riding some
quadruped or other. To be more precise, it looks like a man with a flat-
top and sunglasses riding a quadruped. What bothers me more is that you
describe the image as a cleaned-up bitmap; I'd need to see the original
as well, to make any kind of assessment.
>I'm better than that, or perhaps, not as cowardly.
>I repeated this bit about the Roman sources after Charroux speaking
>of Baalbek in his "100,000 Years of Man's Unwritten History".
>He may, or may not be right, I admit that. There is a lot of
>research that awaits me in these matters.
Good old Robert Charroux. One of the more entertaining exponents of the
genre - and at least he warned his `young readers' not to take him too
seriously . . .
>Jiri Mruzek
>http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jiri_mruzek/ridercut.htm
Martin