Subject: Re: Pyramids and Aliens
From: Neill Brower
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 19:32:49 GMT
In article <32457780.111D@worldnet.att.net>,
Doug or Kathy Lowry wrote:
>August Matthusen wrote:
>>
>> Baron Szabo wrote:
>>
>> > I warn you, the resident stiffies are a terribly paranoid lot. Always
>> > rambling on about fabulous things like trolls, pyramidiots and even
>> > Invisible Pink Unicorns(TM)! ;>
>> > Sorry August, I couldn't resist!
>>
>> No problemo, Peter. Just keep in mind that Invisible Pink Unicorns(tm) do
>> not like to be mocked and you can never tell when one is right behind
>> you. But don't let that get you paranoid; if they're really out to get
>> you then you're not paranoid.
>>
>> Regards,
>> August MatthusenAugust Matthusen wrote:
>>
>> Baron Szabo wrote:
>>
>> > I warn you, the resident stiffies are a terribly paranoid lot. Always
>> > rambling on about fabulous things like trolls, pyramidiots and even
>> > Invisible Pink Unicorns(TM)! ;>
>> > Sorry August, I couldn't resist!
>>
>> No problemo, Peter. Just keep in mind that Invisible Pink Unicorns(tm) do
>> not like to be mocked and you can never tell when one is right behind
>> you. But don't let that get you paranoid; if they're really out to get
>> you then you're not paranoid.
>>
>> Regards,
>> August Matthusen
>
>They called Hitler paranoid...was he? The whole world was out to get
>him. :-)
"Even paranoids have enemies" ---Stanlin
Subject: Re: 200 ton Blocks
From: blair@trojan.neta.com (Blair P Houghton)
Date: 29 Sep 1996 13:13:25 -0700
Jiri Mruzek wrote:
>Kevin D. Quitt wrote:
>> 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.
>
>Up to a certain weight that might be true. But, we're talking about
>stones bigger than that.
Comes the question: Can Jiri Mruzek imagine a stone
so large that Egypt can not lift it?
That is to say, "bigger than what?"
If I claim that a million-kilogram rock is a piece of cake
to cut, carve, transport, and erect, do you state that
oh you meant a two-million-kilogram rock, which is unquestionably
impossible even to comprehend?
>It would matter greatly with the Baalbek Trilithons. How many people
>does it take to pull these. How many ropes? How big would the wheels
>be? It would matter greatly with smaller blocks under more difficult
>circumstances.
You'd make a depressing leader.
>>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.
>
>Here you are talking small blocks.
It might mean you need 1100 people instead of 1000.
>> 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
Wooden sledges on greased wooden crossbeams.
Just don't let go.
>> 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.
>
>Yes, and no. As to the records, how come the Egyptian folklore
>did not become enriched by sundry stories from the Pyramid?
>Mighty strange isn't it? Of course, I presume that there is such
>a thing as Egyptian folklore.
Not an extant one from that period. That's what happens
when a civilization dies. The oral traditions that molds
its social order disappear. To modern Egypt, the pyramids
are an Archaeological curiosity, like the Anasazi are to
natives of the American southwest, and the Incas and Aztecs
are to the Mestizo and Mesquite of Mexico.
If there was any folklore remaining from that time, I doubt
you'd be able to make statements about how it is not possible
to erect large structures without anachronistic technology.
>> >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?!
>
>But you seem to think the Egyptians were economical idiots? Face it,
>it would be idiotic to engage an entire economy for decades in the
>production of one tomb.
Not the *entire* economy. The seasonally unemployed.
Those not disposed to agricultural work. Those with
masonic, engineering, or managerial skill. They had the
luxury of being able to utilize this excess manpower
because the valley of the Nile was the richest, most
productive place on Earth.
As for who's an economical (or in this case astronomical)
idiot, I think you're better off not leaving easy gainsay
lying about.
>Why, they could have built magnificent
>granite forts instead, from which they could have laughed at their
>enemies for millenia.
They didn't have enemies of any worth. They ruled the
entire civilized world.
>Like I say, accusations of numerology do not faze me, I've faced them
>before. See here old excerpts from Fidonet-Science, in which the
>moderator, Jeff Sterling tries to stick me with a witchdoctor label.
>
> JM But, did I do it? Nope. I'd rather step into the lion's den -
> JM till the lion miauies! (Lion's den meant Fidonet -Science)
>
> JS> Actually, pal, my good natured humor is one reason you haven't been
> JS> told to take your "numerology" to another echo, post haste! Your
> JS> post was presented in a manner that at least -looked- like science
> JS> (which is the worst thing about it... less knowledgable individuals
> JS> might be suckered into thinking it really -is- science
> JS>, which it most definitely is not
>
> JM You look like an Angel, talk like an Angel, walk like an Angel.
> JM You're nothing but a DEVIL IN DISGUISE!
You tell him, Jiri. Just do it without losing
your place in the soup line...
>Next, the moderator issued the first plea to Fido mathematicians,
>since there were always a few math professors there:
>JS> appeared to swallow his bunk about ancient cavemen hiding the secrets
>JS> of the universe in "mathematical" relationships that were supposedly
>JS> buried within their artwork. (Sigh!)
Jiri! You've been holding out on us, you hoodoo.
How can you let Fidonet have all the fun?
>And so Jeff just banned me on his own authority.. (for being impolite)
For asking for it.
>Jiri Mruzek 355/113=3.141592..(Now, that's what I call Numerology!)
Pi has a perfectly reasonable value without needing to be
approximated by arbitrary fractions.
--Blair
"Speaking of holes."
Subject: Re: Sitchin, Hancock and Bauval on Art Bell tonight (9/27/96)
From: millerwd@ix.netcom.com(wd&aeMiller;)
Date: 29 Sep 1996 20:50:23 GMT
In <94991447@ramtops.demon.co.uk> Doug Weller
writes:
>
>In article <324CA02E.2CDB@erols.com>
> Rodney Small wrote:
>
>> James Shannon wrote:
>> >
>> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> > Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 07:19:13 -0600
>> > From: Bill Teague
>> > Subject: Sitchin, Hancock, and Bauval on Art Bell tonight
>> >
>> > All,
>> >
>> > Zacharia Sitchin will be a guest on Art Bell tonight (Fri/Sat
9/27-28)
>> > beginning at 11pm Pacific. He will be on for only 1 hour.
>> >
>> > After that Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval will be on to discuss
what
>> > Art kept alluding to last night as a HUGE power struggle
concerning
>> > events surrounding the announcement that the chamber under the
sphinx
>> > will be entered this December.
>> >
>> Thanks for the information. However, a few months ago, we were told
>> that the Sphinx chamber was to be opened in September. Why the
delay,
>> and is the December date now firm, or just a guess? Also, when is
the
>> Great Pyramid shaft explored by Gantenbrink's robot in March 1993
going
>> to be explored again with a fiber optic probe to examine what is
behind
>> the small door? Thanks.
>>
> I'd be interested in this also -- but I don't believe that Hancock
> and Bauval will be very good sources of information.
> I'd like to know where the announcement was made about a December
> opening of the 'chamber' (presumably the one discovered in
> the 1920s?)
> Sitchin has been shown to have less knowledge of Sumerian, on which
> he considers himself an expert, than a sophomore studying it (yes,
there
> are courses in Sumerian_. But anyone who would say 'Ah, Iberia
> sounds like Hebrew, so Spain was settled by Jews' obviously
> has a few problems.
>--
>Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
>Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
I listened to the entire program and also taped it. Sitchin was a
joke. I tried to give him a chance, but when he claimed that the
Temple Mound is actually a control center for aliens, I had to start
laughing. Also, he speaks about his "theories" like a fifth grader
that just saw "Star Wars" for the first time. I was definitely NOT
impressed. That, and when I used to work for a bookstore, we kept his
books in science-fiction.
As for Hancock and Bauval, they were a lot more well spoken. They had
not heard about a December opening either, and were very interested to
know more about it. Bell then got Hopeland on the air, and he said
that he has been asked to participate in the project and that it IS
going forth in December. Of course, Hancock and Bauval also mentioned
that last time they were in Egypt in August, Hawass threatened to cut
off their heads, thrown them in a pit, and shit on them. Seems to
explain why they weren't told about the rescheduled excavation. The
rest of the interview is Hopeland, Bauval, and Hancock argueing with
one another about archaeology and letting the public know the truth,
etc. Anyway, I think that about sums it up.
Amanda
Subject: Re: Edgar Casey--The theory of civilization not yet known to man--undiscovered
From: millerwd@ix.netcom.com(wd&aeMiller;)
Date: 29 Sep 1996 20:56:57 GMT
In Jon
writes:
>
>In article <52i0os$q2b@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>, wd&aeMiller;
> writes
>>In Jon
>>writes:
>>>
>>>In article <52f1dn$8do@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>, wd&aeMiller;
>>> writes
>>>>In <3wOwiPAYGcSyEwlx@skcldv.demon.co.uk> Jon
>>>>writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>In article <527alg$9c4@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>, wd&aeMiller;
>>>>> writes
>>>>>>In Jon
>>
>>>>>>writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article <51qlag$3sj@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>, wd&aeMiller;
>>>>>>> writes
>>>>>>>>In Jon
>>>>
>>>>>>>>writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In article <51n7v8$deu@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
>>>>>>>>>millerwd@ix.netcom.com writes
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Fly on a plane that follows little red lines, of course.
>>Then
>>>>to
>>>>>>>>>>make
>>>>>>>>>>>>it interesting...the plane won't land...we'll just
parachute
>>>>out
>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>>>back and happen to land about two trees away from the main
>>>>>>entrance
>>>>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>>>>>>the city. Of course, we'll have to shoot a couple of
nazi's
>>on
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>way
>>>>>>>>>>>> before we can get to the door where we shout the ancient
>>>>>>password
>>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>>>>>>entry :"Mellon!"
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Hey, this could become a great screenplay. hehe
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Amanda :)
>>>>>>>>>>>I am afraid it won't work. You see Atlantis is underwater.
>>By
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>time
>>>>>>>>>>>we got two tree away from the entrance by parachute, we
would
>>be
>>>>>>>>very
>>>>>>>>>>>wet, and, more upsettingly, dead. Moreover, the only way
that
>>>>we
>>>>>>>>>>could
>>>>>>>>>>>shoot Nazis on the way down is if they were in a submarine!
>>>>>>Tricky
>>>>>>>>>>this
>>>>>>>>>>>one. I suggest that the way forward is to get the Nazis
drunk
>>>>in
>>>>>>a
>>>>>>>>>>bar
>>>>>>>>>>>in Cairo, then enslave them, and force them underground to
dig
>>a
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Transatlantic tunnel. If we happened to come across any
>>>>>>fossilised
>>>>>>>>>>>Egyptian sailors on the way, whose remains were loaded to
the
>>>>>>gills
>>>>>>>>>>with
>>>>>>>>>>>cocaine, this would be a bonus. But I'm not going until you
>>>>agree
>>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>>>>the thigh length rubber boots!
>>>>>>>>>>>--
>>>>>>>>>>>Jon
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Well, well. Ok. As long as the thigh-high leather boots can
>>be
>>>>>>>>purple
>>>>>>>>>>and green tye dye. :) As for the tunnel...good idea!
Perhaps
>>>>we
>>>>>>>>can
>>>>>>>>>>use our enslaved nazi's for even longer working hours if we
let
>>>>>>them
>>>>>>>>>>chop up and snort any mummies they find.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Amanda
>>>>>>>>>>:)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>P.S. For all you people out there, who haven't followed this
>>>>>>thread
>>>>>>>>>>from the beginning....It's a JOKE!!!! DOH!!!! Laugh!
Have
>>>>>>fun!!!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Get bent!
>>>>>>>>>You mean - gasp, you're not serious. How can I find Atlantis
>>>>without
>>>>>>>>>you - who will wear the boots. No calm down Jon, surely she
>>jests
>>>>in
>>>>>>>>>case any Nazis are looking in. No, the mummies have to be
>>>>preserved
>>>>>>>>>to confound the Egyptologists. Now any really expert
>>>>archaeologist
>>>>>>>>>should regularly confound Egyptologists - it's modern form of
>>pig
>>>>>>>>>sticking!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>--
>>>>>>>>>Jon
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Sorry, but I had to be careful there for a day or two. I heard
>>the
>>>>>>>>Nazi regime was reading our posts. Can't let them in on the
>>>>secret,
>>>>>>>>now can we? Darn, I really thought the mummy idea was good.
:)
>>I
>>>>>>>>guess we'll just have to settle for Nazi slave labor. Of
course,
>>I
>>>>>>>>could always drive the heel of my boot into the back of the
slow
>>>>>>>>workers.....(grin)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Amanda
>>>>>>>It's OK, I have the whip for that - you only have to kick them
for
>>>>>>>fun, but watch out for the ones who enjoy it!
>>>>>>>--
>>>>>>>Jon
>>>>>>
>>>>>>We'll just have to make them scrub the toilets. :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Amanda
>>>>>TOILETS! Sub Atlantic cesspits. You have to remember to leave
>>loads
>>>>>of clues, but no substantial information. This is the essence of
>>all
>>>>>ologys. I eons to come, when our transatlantic tunnel to Atlantis
>>>>>lives on a mountain peak somewhere a geologist will find some
>>>>>fossilised human shit, a jackboot, and build an entire theory
about
>>>>>the 20th century from it, then an archaeologist will find several
>>>>>human fossils bearing whip and boot marks, dating from the same
era
>>>>>and come up with a totally different hypothisis. Then the telly
and
>>>>>newspapers will get involved and there will be heated debates in
>>>>learned
>>>>>societies - we are not only in the business of discovery, but
>>creating
>>>>>employment for thousands of otherwise unemployable people in
>>millenia
>>>>>yet to come. It is an onerous burden Amanda!
>>>>>--
>>>>>Jon
>>>>My only comment today...hehehehehehehe :)
>>>>
>>>>That and fossils of human skulls with piercings.
>>>>
>>>>Amanda
>>>Who told you about my mind control electrodes - you've been reading
>>>Mein Kampf again haven't you?
>>>--
>>>Jon
>>Actually I ran into a little blue guy with a pink tribal tatoo and he
>>said that after the original set was put in, they had to wait for a
>>while to make sure they worked right, and you will be getting a new
set
>>in about 5 weeks that shouldn't tune in all that static interference
>>anymore. That way your hair won't stand on end anymore when you
listen
>>to the radio in your car. He also said that he really enjoyed that
>>night at your place last winter. :) He really wants you to take his
>>sister out to dinner. The only thing is that she has a big purple
mole
>>on her left kneecap.
>>
>>Amanda
>>
>He's too late - I already have a little blue wife with a purple left
>knee cap. On the other hand I'm willing to swap - any offers? As
>for the new mind control system - I think I'm going to miss having
>the BBC World Service, Classic FM, CNN, and a strange little man
>called Tony, who only transmits in morse code, coming into my skull
>24 hours a day. I've gotten used to it. Beep beep! Time for a cold
>beer.
>--
>Jon
Hey! I thought you British types drank your beer warm. :)
Or was that stout? hurm
Say hi to Tony for me....I haven't seen him in ages.
Amanda
Subject: Re: The Egyptian concept of Ma'at in the Platonic Dialoges: was Re: Egyptian Tree Words
From: S.NEMETH@IX.NETCOM.COM (Stella Nemeth)
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 22:04:14 GMT
piotrm@umich.edu (Piotr Michalowski) wrote:
I have no problems with most of what you said, but two of your
statements give me pause. And some questions.
> ...When it
>comes to proto-IE, it could not have borrowed from Egyptian, as the latter
>language did not even exist, not to mention the geographical problems.
Just how early is proto-IE supposed to be that it is older than
Egyptian?
> .... As for
>later times, no one has ever doubted the masses of outside loans in various IE
>groups and individual languages, not to mention secondary borrowing between
>them.
Well, that's a relief. There have been times when I couldn't have
been sure that borrowed words were acceptable ideas to linguists.
>Of all the languages that IE came into contact with, Egyptian could
>not have been very important.
This is the statement that gives me pause. It might be true of IE as
a whole, but it certainly can't be true of Greek or even of Roman, or
of the other languages that influenced Greek and Roman. It might be
great linguistic theory, but it is lousy history. Egypt was a major
force in the Mediterranean area for thousands of years, and the Greeks
and later the Romans were involved with the Egyptians for a good part
of those thousands of years. I'm sure they borrowed a few words
during that time.
Stella Nemeth
s.nemeth@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: 200 ton Blocks
From: S.NEMETH@IX.NETCOM.COM (Stella Nemeth)
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 22:04:00 GMT
Jiri Mruzek wrote:
>But you seem to think the Egyptians were economical idiots? Face it,
>it would be idiotic to engage an entire economy for decades in the
>production of one tomb. Why, they could have built magnificent
>granite forts instead, from which they could have laughed at their
>enemies for millenia.
There are two small problems with this objection to the Egyptians
building the pyramids.
One, if you are building a tomb for a living god, nothing is too good
or too expensive for him. Especially if the living god in question
has total control of the purse strings. Just because you think that
building a pyramid is silly doesn't mean that it didn't make perfect
sense to the Egyptians who continued building expensive tombs for
every king (sometimes more than one per king) and for most of the
king's family and the local nobles for several thousand years. It is
very easy to tell when the economy was in trouble in Egypt. The tombs
got smaller.
Two, before you build granite forts, you need to have enemies against
whom a fort is a reasonable response. The Egyptians were the meanest,
baddest folk around. And the Egyptians had a desert on two sides for
protection, a huge inland sea on the third side, and a mass of white
water and mountain ranges on the fourth to protect them. In short,
they laughed at their enemies for millennia without the forts. They
didn't need them.
What sounds like economic idiocy to one generation makes perfect sense
to another. Try to remember that they are not us and we are not them.
Stella Nemeth
s.nemeth@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: Sphinx
From: S.NEMETH@IX.NETCOM.COM (Stella Nemeth)
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 22:04:02 GMT
sca00186@msn.com (usha reddy) wrote:
> I want to ask you all experts the question that has been on my mind
>since I visited Egypt last year.
> Why was the sphinx built at a much lower level than the pyramids. It
>seemed that one almost had to dig a well there to expose it.Being
>curious I have been reading about the Sphinx I have read that in the
>last several centuries the sphinx was completly covered and never
>depicted or partially covered and partially depicted by various
>people who have seen it.
I've seen drawings from the early 19th Century of the Sphinx partly
burried. I'm not sure if this is what you mean by "never depicted" or
not. I'm not aware of ANY depictions of the Sphinx in Egyptian wall
art. There are lots of little Sphinx however.
> Why did the builders of this great monument who could move huge
>stones to build all that and seemed very intelligent - choose a site
>that would sink and /or cover their monument with sand even in the
>time of their own kings. Was this something deliberate for they
>wanted to keep the sphinx hidden or they just didt know it was a bad
>site - I think not for within a stones throw are the pyramids that
>were never buried in sand.
The pyramids were also partially buried. Not just the ones at Giza,
but others as well. For all we know there are others still buried in
sand.
What happened was that the builders could not imagine that so much
time would pass that their greatness would be forgotten, or that
peoples of a later time wouldn't expend the effort to keep their
monuments free of sand.
One more thing. Although it looks like the Giza Plateau is flat, it
isn't. The pyramids look like they are all sited on the same level,
but they aren't. The one that looks the biggest, isn't. It is just
sited on higher ground. Basically the Plateau is actually a short
mountain. The Sphix is on lower ground for the same reason that the
house on the right of mine is on lower ground than my house (I can
only see the roof of it from my patio if I stand on something). The
ground is lower there, so the house is lower there.
> please help ease my mind
I'm not an expert on pyramids, but I hope this helps.
Stella Nemeth
s.nemeth@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: Linguistic diffusion: was Re: Egyptian Tree Words
From: S.NEMETH@IX.NETCOM.COM (Stella Nemeth)
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 22:04:11 GMT
petrich@netcom.com (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>In article <51uied$fe7@shore.shore.net>,
>Steve Whittet wrote:
>>In article , petrich@netcom.com says...
>... and Mr. Whittet seems
>>>capable of deriving just about *any* word from ancient Egyptian, while
>>>using the most laughable semantic connections imaginable.
>>The idea of semantic connections is that people tend to pick up
>>words and phrases from other people they are in close contact with.
>>English today contains bits of language from every place and English
>>speaker has ever been. That is really no big deal.
> There you go again, O ink-squirting squid :-)
> Just because *some* words, like those for "ibis" and "ivory" and
>"ebony" came from Egyptian does not mean that just about *every* word
>did, as you have effectively claimed, with your ability to construct
>Egyptian derivation of just about *any* word.
I've been following this thread, although I've mainly stayed out of
it. Frankly, I think you are overreacting. I haven't seen Steve or
Saida claim that every word in English originated in Egyptian. I have
seen them say, as he did in the paragraph you quoted above, that some
words for some objects entered Greek and Roman though Egyptian, and
that the English versions of those words still show the Egyptian
influence.
>>The point is that our history does not come to a sudden
>>screeching halt when we get back as far as Greece and Rome.
Which I think is an excellent point to make. The ancient Greeks were
traders. It comes to no surprise that they might have borrowed the
words for certain trade goods from the places that provided the goods.
>>>>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 :-)
>>Some elements of their language, yes. The Egyptians believed that
>>a thing did not exist until it was given a name. They scratched
>>the names of people off of monuments to eradicate their existence.
> What's the relevance of that comment to the question of
>Egyptian->Greek? Or are you squirting ink again? :-)
Let me see if I can translate for you.
"The Egyptians believed that a thing did not exist until it was given
a name."
Names were very important.
If you didn't have a name, or if your name was removed from a
monument, you stopped existing.
"They (the Egyptians) scratched the names of people off of monuments
to eradicate their existence."
If you dealt with the Egyptians on a trading mission, you tended to
use their words for the objects being traded.
If you dealt with the Egyptians with any frequency, you picked up
their ideas of the importance of names.
If you didn't already have a word for an object, you also picked up
the Egyptian word for it, and might be more likely to hang onto that
word, or even let it supersede the one you already had, because of the
Egyptian belief in the importance of **correct** names.
Does that help?
Stella Nemeth
s.nemeth@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: Conjectures..A Response To Ignorance
From: S.NEMETH@IX.NETCOM.COM (Stella Nemeth)
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 22:04:09 GMT
pmv100@psu.edu (Peter van Rossum) wrote:
>The default hypothesis of no contact occurred is easily falisifiable.
>All you need to find is one authenticated Polynesian object, of pre-16th
>century date, which could not have arrived by natural means, at a
>pre-16th century New World site. If an object satisfying these criteria
>was, or is, recovered then I (and any honest scientist) will be convinced
>that contact occurred - of course we would then need to look into the
>scale and impact of that contact.
There is one very important problem with using the hermetically sealed
New World as the default hypothesis. (I don't claim that you,
personally, believe in such a tightly sealed New World.) If that one,
isolated object is located it is very easy to insist that the object
was a hoax, or that it was improperly excavated, or ... I think you
get the picture. In fact, in the Northeast of North America that is
exactly what occurred with not just one object, but scores of objects
which were Norse in culture. Until, of course, an entire settlement
of Norse of the proper period was discovered on the same coast. Now
all of these objects are explained away as the result of hand to hand
trading and not as possible examples of contact.
I neither believe, nor disbelieve in extensive contact either in North
or South America, but I'm beginning to believe with Yuri that the
default ought to be that contact was possible, but not currently
proved.
Island hopping in North America via the northern routes both in the
Atlantic and the Pacific are not only possible, but obviously already
proven. There is still some question of how often it happened and
when it happened and how long contact lasted each time it happened.
Contact itself is no longer in question.
As for South America, there are ways that contact either by the
peoples of the South Pacific, or the peoples of Africa could have
happened, or by the peoples of South America to either the South
Pacific or Africa for that matter. We know it is possible. That much
has been proven through tests of low-tech sailing ships and navigation
methods. What hasn't been found is either a settlement site or major
artifact collection.
Stella Nemeth
s.nemeth@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: 200 ton Blocks
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 29 Sep 1996 22:11:28 GMT
In article , jhallen@world.std.com says...
>
>Were the blocks in the Pyramids really 200-Tons?
No. The 200 tom blocks were obelisks. If you want to know more about
them you might try reading "Cleopatras Needle" by E A Wallis Budge
> How many of the blocks weighed this much?
There were some large blocks used in the foundation of the
temple of Jerusalem. Some of them weighed 264 tons. And a
number of others in other monuments. There are some seventy
blocks in the Great Pyramid in the range of 70 tons.
If you want to know more about this you might read
"The Pyramids of Egypt" by IES Edwards
which does give you plan and section of many of the
larger pyramids of Egypt.
If you want to know more about the Great Pyramid
"the Giza mapping project" on line, or books by
Petrie or Tompkins are a good bet.
"Secrets of the Great Pyramid" by Tompkins has a
useful appendix on the measurements of the Great Pyramid
and Petries book also goes into this in some detail.
The World Almanac says that the The Great Pyramid had
>blocks which averaged 2.5 tons, with some up to 30 tons.
>
>According to my engineering handbook, the density of limestone is 155
>lbs/ft^3. Thus a 200-ton cube would be 13.7 feet on a side, a 30-ton cube
>would be 7.3 feet on a side and a 2.5 ton cube would be 3.2 feet on a side.
That is pretty close. I use 150 lbs a cu foot and break the measurements
down into cubits since that is the unit the Egyptians measured in.
One foot is 4 palms of 3 inches. A geographic cubit is fifteen inches,
a Biblical cubit is 18", an Egyptian cubit is 21" and so forth.
>
>200-tons is a huge amount (2700 people, 300 cars or 2 space shuttle
>orbiters). I have my doubts that a 200-ton cube could be lifted or
>positioned accurately.
You can be skeptical if you wish, but the Obelisks exist and you can
go visit them in Egypt, Constantinople, London, New York, Rome, Paris
and Florence to mention but a few places where they were taken in the
nineteenth century.
> Lets say you got the static coefficient of friction down to .3, that
>one person can pull 100 lbs, and you want to pull the cube.
>You would need 1200 people.
Assuming you were going to drag the thing around, and do it with
no mechanical advantage, yes you would. On the other hand if you used
the same sort of simple machines the Egyptians and mesopotamians used
to lift water from wells (a shaduf) and raise sail on their boats; ie
a mast and counterweighted boom, then you would have no problem.
Allow each mast and boom is designed to be operated by a team of two
to four men and to lift three tons eight feet per lift. Such a small
mast and boom would probably have been a portable tripod and beam
arrangement.Larger masts are raised by sliding them over a rope fixed
between two posts connected by a cross piece.
(IES Edwards "The Pyramids of Egypt" p 144)
What you then do is divide the load by the capacity of each lifting
station and also in half by lifting one end at a time.
So to lift one end of a 200 ton stone you need to lift 100 tons.
you divide the 100 tons by fifty masts and booms and have each one
lift 2 tons. Allowing four men per lifting station and fifty
stations you need 200 men. You raise the block a few feet and then
slide a barge under it. After that ypou can float it any where you
want to take it.
> 3/4" nylon rope from the local hardware store has a test tension
>limit of about 1 ton, so you would need 60 thick ropes,
>with 20 people per rope.
You divide the strain on the rope by using a block and tackle.
> If all the people stood in a line, one on each side, the line
would be .3 miles long. This could be shortened by spreading
>the people, but you would then need more people.
If you surround the block which is 100 feet long with fifty
stations twenty five to a side each has about four feet to work in
at the point of contact.
>
>To lift a 200 ton block would require 200 nylon ropes.
It would require fifty slings connected to counterweighted beams
extended at say a 1 to 1 ratio over the cross piece of a tripod mast.
>
>Now the 1200-ton blocks from Baalbek would be 25 ft. per side and would
>require 7200 people using 360 ropes in a line more than a mile long.
I doubt they are cubes. More reasonable proportions are a length of
twice the height and a height of twice the width 12 1/2', 25', 50'.
Divide the weight in half again by lifting one end at a time.
Now you are down to a paltry 600 tons. Use a hundred lifting points,
fifty to a side. Each one needs to lift six tons. Extend your boom
at a 3 to 1 ratio, now the distance you can lift is decreased but
mechanical advantage is increased by a factor of three.
>It sounds like these were not positioned accurately or lifted,
>however. I'm amazed that they were able to even cut them.
Notches were made by wedges then ropes coated in bitumen were
dragged through sand in the notches to make an abrasive saw.
>
>30-tons sounds much more reasonable. You only need 180 people
>and 9 ropes for pulling or 30 ropes for lifting.
The only limit on what could be done was the imagination of the
architects and engineers involved. These were not stupid or poorly
organized people or slaves, but highly motivated skilled workmen
who had done this many times before.
>
>It might just be possible to construct a wooden crane which can lift 30-ton
>blocks (it's easy to construct one which lifts 2.5 tons).
Yes, I agree
> The largest living organism after all, is a tree: a sequoia in
>California which weighs 1400 tons. I'm sure that in 2500 BC,
>there were plenty of high-quality trees available, from which
>simple cranes could be constructed.
Absolutely
>Lets say the crane is at a 60 degree angle and is carrying a
>30-ton block at the end of the line.
I don't think that was how they worked. What I believe they used
was a mast and boom much like the shaduf used to raise water.
One end was counterweighted and the boom could be offset to
increase the mechanical advantage at the expense of the height
the load could be lifted in one step.
> The line going from the top of the crane to the people would
>be at 30 degrees from the angle of the crane. The crane would have to be
>able to handle 52 tons of compression (ignoring its own weight). I think
>this is pretty easy for large trees (which have to handle that much weight
>plus weather).
I think the obvious analgy is the mast of a 100 foot long vessel
(IES Edwards "The Pyramids of Egypt" p144) which needed to take the
wind load on its sail. That is a 25 ton load eccentrically loaded
and subject to impact loading. In lifting a stone block. it isn't
the mast which is loaded parallel to its axis but rather the boom
loaded perpendicular to its axis which needs to take the strain.
> I'll have to get a strengths of materials book and check
>this out more accurately.
Feel free, the Fb of long straight grained woods like cedar,
can run 2800 where pine is closer to 1200. Hard woods can
achieve some astounding numbers. I got my lists from the
Wood Manufactures association and will be happy to give you
any species you like.
>Note that no wheels, bearings or even joints would be needed
>for this- just a strong pole of wood with ropes connected to
>the top.
They did have the block and tackle which is illustrated in the
carvings on the walls of the tomb of Ipi at Saquarra.
>If they did have blocks and shafts, you could make a far better
>crane- one with a fixed low-load stay-line and a windlass (the Romans had
>such cranes which could carry more than 9 tons: see Engineering in the
>Ancient World by J.G. Landels).
Yes, but lets keep it as simple as possible since this is c 2500 BC.
>
>The crane has the advantage that it is easy to do accurate positioning- you
>just need side ropes to position the block. Removing the ropes once the
>block was lowered would have been an interesting challenge, but not an
>impossible one. The most difficult part is getting the pyramid started.
>Once you have a stable peak, you could use it to mount a crane.
No, I think the heavy blocks were positioned in the center of the
pyramid to begin with and raised as it went up. In the Great Pyramid
the heaviest were placed about halfway up and ran 70 tons. The lighter
3 ton blocks of which the bulk of the pyramid was constructed were
probably passed up the pyramid from crew to crew.
>
>I have to agree with the other poster that the ancient Egyptions were
>probably not idiots and built a ramp which would have been a larger
>construction project than the pyramid itself. It is far more likely that
>they used cranes. It would seem to me that getting high quality rope is
>really the bigger problem. I wonder what kind of rope they had? Papyrus?
They used hemp ropes reinforced with leather. Their slings may well have
been fairly heavy cables. Those they used to hog their vessels appear
to have been more than a foot thick.
>Joseph H. Allen
steve
Subject: Re: Egyptian junkie pharaohs
From: Baron Szabo
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 15:26:37 -0700
frank murray wrote:
> [most snipped]
> i've tried to elicit defence of the 'tomb" theory from the
> mainline egyptologists on this newsgroup, but they seem too
> involved with bashing the latest teenager who just wandered
> on board after reading his first snip of stichen...either
> that or giggling among themselves about the IAC...
It is sad to see adult trained professionals unable to distinguish the
nature of those they are talking to, and thereby rationalize how best to
communicate with them. Oh well. It has occurred to me that these
adults in question have a bone to pick, in general, and take it out on
hapless young peoples. It's a little bit like irate drivers taking out
their frustrations with other drivers out on still other drivers,
thereby increasing the problem. Oh well. Certainly all of our
professional regulars are not guilty of this. Most are OK.
___
You have failed to mention the (IMO best evidence) that the pyramids
were indeed tombs (and whatever else that was connected to this).
That is the underground sarcophagus pit-rooms (I can't think of a better
term without saying "burial chambers"). You know:
/\
/ \
/ \
/ \
\ \
__________/\ \ \________
/ \ \ \
```_\ \_``````
|____| <--This kind of thing.
Even if no bodies have been found in OK pyramid chambers, still there
are sarcophagus-sized boxes in cramped little rooms. What other purpose
could these serve? I have thought hard about this, and there are few
logical answers aside from a burial purpose.
There IS the fact that these rooms provided an effective shielding and
climate control from the outside desert, with a regular temperature and
shielding from outside elements. But I think that this could have been
achieved with smaller structures. No?
--
zoomQuake - A nifty, concise listing of over 200 ancient history links.
Copy the linklist page if you want! (do not publish though)
----------> http://www.iceonline.com/home/peters5/
Subject: Re: Linguistic stabs-in-the-dark???
From: Saida
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 18:06:36 -0500
Greg Reeder wrote:
>
> Saida wrote:
> >Loren Petrich wrote:
> >>
> >> In article ,
> >> Alan M. Dunsmuir wrote:
> >> >In article <324DA973.7CE0@PioneerPlanet.infi.net>, Saida
> >> > writes
> >> >>Apropos of your cute graphic of a cigarette, I wonder if you know that
> >> >>the Polish word for this item is "papieros", although I certainly am not
> >> >>about to claim this word came from ancient Egyptian!
> >>
> >> >Why on earth not? It is entirely analogous to all the other claims you
> >> >have been making. Why bother with Latin or Greek 'papyrus' when you can
> >> >jump directly to whatever collection of Egyptian hieroglphics catch your
> >> >fancy here?
> >>
> >> There is no need for a direct jump. Consider, courtesy of my
> >> trusty AHD, this:
> >>
> >> English paper < Old French papier < Latin papyrus "papyrus plant, papyrus
> >> paper" < Greek papuros < Egyptian (?)
> >>
> >
> >This just goes to illustrate that I am more cautious in my examples than
> >you lads think I am. At present, I don't know of any Egyptian word for
> >this plant or product that looks like the Greek "papuros", but I"ll
> >certainly look into it.
>
> I want to play this game. My dictionary (Webster's New World) tells me
> that the word papyrus is probably from ancient Egypt. So how is this for
> an explanation? P3 PERI. This is from P3 "the " and peri or pir which
> means a "strip of linen, bandage, bandlet," etc. (Bubge Dict. 234b)
> The word papyrus then may be a Greek corruption of the ancient
> Egyptian word for rolled up bundle of cloth.
> --
> Greg Reeder
Hi, Greg, I've done a little work on this, also, and this is what I came
up with. My source is "Papyrus" by Richard Parkinson and Stephen
Quirke:
"The origin of the word "papyrus" itself is not knowm, but it may derive
from a late Egyptian phrase "pa-en-pera'a", "material of Pharaoh",
perhaps because trade in the writing material was under royal control in
the third century B.C. However, no Egyptian text ever uses the phrase."
This book also says that the plant was either called "mehyt" (a general
term for marsh plants) or, more specifically, "chufy"--"djoof" in
Coptic.
It also occurred to me that the word papyrus could also have come from
"Pa-Per-em-hru" or "The Book of the Dead", which certainly accounted for
a goodly number of papyri. I suppose I like "material of Pharaoh" best.
Having discussed "mirror" and "comb", I said yesterday that I'd try to
find out the word for "lipstick" (or the equivalent) in Egyptian. This
is what I discovered:
Ancient Egyptians basically had two kinds of stuff that they put on
their lips to redden them. One was called "marsh" --red ochre. The
other I have heard about but was unable to find in my Egyptian
dictionary. This was a compund made up of crushed insects (perhaps
beetles). At a later date it was known as "carmine" and this is what my
English dictionary says about it: noun (Fr. carmin; ML carminus
Arabic: qirmiz--crimson; form influenced
by L. minium--cinnabar red. A red or purplish-red pigment obtained
mainly from cochineal.
This "cochineal" is "a red dye made from the dried bodies of female
insects. Perhaps someone else can locate more information about these
pulverized insects that made women's lips more seductive (I only use
lanolin or sheep fat-based products on my own). The Sanskrit addition
to all this is "krmi", meaning worm or insect (Miguel, the Old Spanish
is cremesin) so I know the Egyptian is there somewhere, if elusive, and
probably alludies to an insect, too.
Subject: Re: Linguistic stabs-in-the-dark???
From: Saida
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 18:28:33 -0500
>
> >>>Baboon: from Greek bebon from late Egyptian /b3b3/ from Middle/Old
> Egyptian /b3by/. The Egyptian and the Greek refer to a baboon-headed
> god named "Baba"/"Babi" and not the animal itself. The OED says
> English
> gets it from Latin, but the origin is unknown. Looks good to me.
>
> **I rather liked it too; unfortunately my dictionary says 'baboon'
> came from French 'babouin', "that is related to French
> 'babine'='lip""...So that would make it "the babbling animal' or
> something like it, I suppose - not a bad description for monkeys (and
> for 'babies"! btw). For the record: I like your deriviation better :)
> - it would only be required to find a Latin or Greek intermediary. For
> i do not think the 'bebon' you name is ANCIENT Greek, or is it??
>
> >Also, there is an Egyptian word for monkey "gf" or "gfu", which might
> >have been pronounced "gafu", hence the German "Affe" and the English
> >"ape".
>
> **Could be, i suppose - but because of the origional 'p' in Germanic
> it would have been borrowed via the Phoenicians or some other Semitic
> form with a 'p' rather than via the Egyptians with their 'f'.
> Does someone has a very good Ancient Greek dictionary, to see whether
> there was a Greek intermediairy, like 'kepos' or the like??
>
> I do not think the loss of the first 'k' would be too problematic:
> compair Germanic 'ebur' and Latin 'aper' next to Greek 'kapros' ,
> all words for the 'wild boar' and definitely related (in whatever
> way]. So Saida could have a point - be it not an Egyptian one....
>
> Btw: there was another Egyptian word for monkey apart from
> 'gwf' [that's what my dictionaries say is the proper form, Saida; so:
> 'guf' which is very close to hebrew 'koph'!]: 'kjw' = kiu, kejewe
My dictionary says the same about "baboon" (I have a much better dictionary now), but it
also says "ME babywyne". I don't know what "ME" is, not Middle Egyptian, I'm sure.
Middle English?
Aayko, what happened with "Abracadabra"? Please post it, because I am very much
interested in this item.
I have a couple of questions for you linguists out there:
What language were the Gauls speaking before the Romans arrived?
This is from one of my favorite books "The Bible As History" by Werner Keller:
"At the end of the 13th Century B.C. a great new wave of foreign peoples surged down
from the northern Aegean. By land and water these "Sea Peoples" flowed over Asia Minor.
They were the fringes of a great movement of population to which the Dorian migration
to Greece also belonged. The impetus of these foreigners--they were Indo-Germanic--was
directed to Canaan and Egypt."
I am not familiar with the term Indo-Germanic. What does it mean?
Here's something else that's intriguing:
"Among the "Sea Peoples", as the Egyptians called the foreign conquerors, one racial
group assumed a special importance, the Peleste or PRST. These are the Philistines of
the OT...The tall slim figures are about a head taller than the Egyptians (in the
reliefs)..."
If these are the Philistines of the Bible, why should they be so much taller than the
Egyptians? Weren't the Philistines supposed to be just another Levantine people? If
so, what would account for this tallness? Even the Greeks are, on average, not a very
tall people (although probably gaining in height like everybody else). Is there a
possibility these Peleste could have been a more northern race?
Subject: Re: The Egyptian concept of Ma'at in the Platonic Dialoges: was Re: Egyptian Tree Words
From: Saida
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 18:37:39 -0500
Stella Nemeth wrote:
> >Of all the languages that IE came into contact with, Egyptian could
> >not have been very important.
>
> This is the statement that gives me pause. It might be true of IE as
> a whole, but it certainly can't be true of Greek or even of Roman, or
> of the other languages that influenced Greek and Roman. It might be
> great linguistic theory, but it is lousy history. Egypt was a major
> force in the Mediterranean area for thousands of years, and the Greeks
> and later the Romans were involved with the Egyptians for a good part
> of those thousands of years. I'm sure they borrowed a few words
> during that time.
> Thank you, Stella, you have said it beautifully. The Greeks said "All
wisdom comes from Egypt" and were captivated with this land. Perhaps
the Romans were as well. If these peoples didn't borrow terminology
from Egypt, it would be very odd indeed.
Subject: Re: Edgar Casey--The theory of civilization not yet known to man--undiscovered
From: Jon
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 00:21:29 +0100
In article <52mnqp$st9@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>, wd&aeMiller;
writes
>>Jon
>Hey! I thought you British types drank your beer warm. :)
>Or was that stout? hurm
>Say hi to Tony for me....I haven't seen him in ages.
>
>Amanda
Only quality British types drink warm beer - in pubs. At home we drink
warm home made beer, or chill the commercial stuff long enough to make
it drinkable - I do both or all three depending on how you want to look
at it! I can't say Hi to Tony, I've recieved the upgrade and his signal
has broken up 'Bill Gates are you receiving - Over'. Anyway, now we
have the manpower to dig the tunnel west from Cairo, and the slaves to
do it are you ready to begin - you have to roll a six!
--
Jon
Subject: Re: Linguistic stabs-in-the-dark???
From: mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal)
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 00:45:52 GMT
Saida wrote:
>My dictionary says the same about "baboon" (I have a much better dictionary now), but it
>also says "ME babywyne". I don't know what "ME" is, not Middle Egyptian, I'm sure.
>Middle English?
Yes.
>What language were the Gauls speaking before the Romans arrived?
Gaulish, a not very well known dialect of Celtic.
>This is from one of my favorite books "The Bible As History" by Werner Keller:
>"At the end of the 13th Century B.C. a great new wave of foreign peoples surged down
>from the northern Aegean. By land and water these "Sea Peoples" flowed over Asia Minor.
> They were the fringes of a great movement of population to which the Dorian migration
>to Greece also belonged. The impetus of these foreigners--they were Indo-Germanic--was
>directed to Canaan and Egypt."
>I am not familiar with the term Indo-Germanic. What does it mean?
It's a translation error for Indo-European. Germans (and Werner
Keller sounds like one) prefer "indogermanisch" to IE. (And, in
fairness, they coined their term first).
>Here's something else that's intriguing:
>"Among the "Sea Peoples", as the Egyptians called the foreign conquerors, one racial
>group assumed a special importance, the Peleste or PRST. These are the Philistines of
>the OT...The tall slim figures are about a head taller than the Egyptians (in the
>reliefs)..."
>If these are the Philistines of the Bible, why should they be so much taller than the
>Egyptians? Weren't the Philistines supposed to be just another Levantine people? If
>so, what would account for this tallness? Even the Greeks are, on average, not a very
>tall people (although probably gaining in height like everybody else). Is there a
>possibility these Peleste could have been a more northern race?
The obvious connection is with "Pelasgoi", the Greek term for the
non-Greek inhabitants of Greece. They may have been a tiny bit taller
on average than the average Egyptian. I assume the reliefs are
Egyptian made, so it's probably a case of "these strange people landed
on our shores the other day and they were at least a head taller than
we were, Mr. Pharao, look here at this relief, [ but still we beat
them off | that's why they kind of defeated us a bit ]"
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal ~ ~
Amsterdam _____________ ~ ~
mcv@pi.net |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig
Subject: Re: Linguistic stabs-in-the-dark???
From: mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal)
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 00:45:54 GMT
Saida wrote:
>Having discussed "mirror" and "comb", I said yesterday that I'd try to
>find out the word for "lipstick" (or the equivalent) in Egyptian. This
>is what I discovered:
>Ancient Egyptians basically had two kinds of stuff that they put on
>their lips to redden them. One was called "marsh" --red ochre. The
>other I have heard about but was unable to find in my Egyptian
>dictionary. This was a compund made up of crushed insects (perhaps
>beetles). At a later date it was known as "carmine" and this is what my
>English dictionary says about it: noun (Fr. carmin; ML carminus
> Arabic: qirmiz--crimson; form influenced
>by L. minium--cinnabar red. A red or purplish-red pigment obtained
>mainly from cochineal.
>This "cochineal" is "a red dye made from the dried bodies of female
>insects. Perhaps someone else can locate more information about these
>pulverized insects that made women's lips more seductive (I only use
>lanolin or sheep fat-based products on my own). The Sanskrit addition
>to all this is "krmi", meaning worm or insect (Miguel, the Old Spanish
>is cremesin) so I know the Egyptian is there somewhere, if elusive, and
>probably alludies to an insect, too.
I don't know the word , but Modern Spanish has
and for the dye, and for the worm, all through
Arabic from Sanskrit "worm-made", "worm".
From the same root *kw(e)rmi- we have OSlav. "red" and
(from a variant form *kwrwi- ?) Russ. "worm", Pol.
"red", etc. Besides *kwerm-, IE also had *werm-, the source of E.
and Lat. , which gives Catalan "red" (Spanish
"vermillion").
The cochineal insect also happens to have a Spanish connection:
(lit. "piglet"), "cochineal insect, woodlouse".
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal ~ ~
Amsterdam _____________ ~ ~
mcv@pi.net |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig
Subject: Re: The Egyptian concept of Ma'at in the Platonic Dialoges: was Re: Egyptian Tree Words
From: piotrm@umich.edu (Piotr Michalowski)
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 21:53:18
In article piotrm@umich.edu (Piotr Michalowski) writes:
>From: piotrm@umich.edu (Piotr Michalowski)
>Subject: Re: The Egyptian concept of Ma'at in the Platonic Dialoges: was Re:
>Egyptian Tree Words
>Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 21:49:40
>In article <52mroo$e6s@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> S.NEMETH@IX.NETCOM.COM (Stella
>Nemeth) writes:
>>Just how early is proto-IE supposed to be that it is older than
>>Egyptian?
>It is generally assumed that IE is some 6000 years old and Afroasiatic about
>8000. If you are serious about such matters, may I suggest that you consult
>Johanna Nichols, Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time, Chicago U Press,
>1992. This is, to me, a brilliant book by a fantastic historical linguist.
>
>>>Of all the languages that IE came into contact with, Egyptian could
>>>not have been very important.
>>This is the statement that gives me pause. It might be true of IE as
>>a whole, but it certainly can't be true of Greek or even of Roman, or
>>of the other languages that influenced Greek and Roman. It might be
>>great linguistic theory, but it is lousy history. Egypt was a major
>>force in the Mediterranean area for thousands of years, and the Greeks
>>and later the Romans were involved with the Egyptians for a good part
>>of those thousands of years. I'm sure they borrowed a few words
>>during that time.
>I see your point here, but one would have to ask which level of which
>language. I would seriously doubt that Latin speakers came into much contact
>with Middle Egyptian we we know it from writtten documents. People, in
>cultures with restricted literacy, usually borrow words through extensive
>contact of speakers, so at most one would expect, except for the odd word here
>and there, that the time to look for such contact would involved very late
>forms of Egyptian and perhaps Koine Greek.
Subject: Re: Sphinx chamber
From: jcpaul@cris.com (JC)
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 21:19:28 -0400
In article <324ECAB7.3A55@ix.netcom.com>,
matthuse@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> JC wrote:
> > THREE -- There is additional seismographic evidence that several
cavities lie
> > buried underneath the Sphinx. One rectangular cavity was noticed during the
> > making of the film, "The Mystery of the Sphinx" in 1992-1993 by author and
> > ameteur Egyptologist, John Anthony West; geologist/geophysicist, Robert M.
> > Schoch; and geophysicist/seismologist, Thomas Dobecki. Dobecki took seismic
> > readings of a known underground chamber behind the rump of the Sphinx
> > (posterior) to establish a reading for a known underground chamber,
then took
> > seismic soundings of the area beneath the front (anterior) of the
Sphinx where
> > a cavity was indicated by seismic readings similar to the posterior cavity.
> > This anterior (front) cavity was rectangular in shape and measured
nine meters
> > by 12 meters and is about five meters below the surface.
>
> Judith, Thanks for the clarification but there are still some minor
> discrepancies with the description of "chamber THREE." Dobecki ran
> his geophysical surveys in 1991. He and Schoch published their
> findings in 1992 (Dobecki and Schoch, 1992; Seismic Investigation
> in the vicinity of the Great Sphinx of Giza, Egypt, _Geoarchaeology_,
> Vol 7, No 6, pp 527-544).
>
> They did not "discover" this anomaly, they confirmed it. Dobecki and
> Schoch note that the anomaly was already known from the prior resistivity
> work that Lambert Dolphin did at SRI and the ground penetrating radar
> work that the Japanese team from Waseda Univerity did. ("Both teams'
> [SRI and the Japanese] results showed best agreement in the detection
> of a possible rubble-filled void in the area of the Sphinx's paws as well
> as indications of of potential cavities or tunnels extending under the
> Sphinx as detected along its flanks." Dobecki and Schoch, 1992, p. 528)
August, thank you for the clarification. I had known about the Japanese
team from Waseda but was under the impression that their work had been
done after West's, Schoch's, and Dobecki's. I was not familiar with the
SRI work of Lambert Dolphin. Is a review of his work with SRI on the www
anywhere or published? I would like to read it. Thanks, JC
* alt.future.millennium usenet newsgroup
* The MILLENNIUM Matters... http://www.m-m.org/jz/
* CYBERbabble... http://www.cris.com/~jcpaul/
* The Millennium Matters... newsletter: email to: jcpaul@cris.com
Subject: Re: Chariots of da Gods?!!
From: mcknighl@ix.netcom.com (Lawrence E. McKnight)
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 01:25:16 GMT
wolf wrote:
>William R. Belcher wrote:
>>
>> I guess you don't see the connection, Gary...if someone has committed
>> fraud, that says a lot about their character, don't you think? I'm sure
>snip snip
>There was a man in Canada who claimed he would build an antenna and then
>he would speak into something he was going to call a microphone and then
>he would have a little box in England (or somewhere on the continent)
>and his voice would be heard through that box. He would call the box a
>radio ....
>
>His friends had him committed to a psychiatric ward. His name: Marconi!
Interesting piece of fiction. So Marconi was doing voice transmissions.
Interesting. (Actually, some people think the original demonstration of
_Morse Code_ transmission of a single letter was, at best, wishful
thinking.
>
>Keep an open mind friends
>Wolf
>=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
>If your life includes MIGRAINE-ARTHRITIS-STRESS pain - try:
>http://www.jens.com/business/wolfgang/ - Create a great day !
>Without awareness, there is not life but only activity
> --The Way of the Wizard --
---------------
Larry McKnight
(this space unintentionally left blank.....
Subject: Re: Symbolism in the palaeolithic
From: piotrm@umich.edu (Piotr Michalowski)
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 22:35:03
>Anja Roth Niemi wrote:
>>
>> I�m currently writing an essay on the subject of the use of symbolism as
>> social communication in the Upper Palaeolithic, i.e. the development of
>> art; cave art and mobilary art. Does anybody have any refrences to
>> relevant litterature or URLs, or any comments on that subject?
You probably already know of the works of Marshack and Gimbutas, which I, for
one find fascinating but wrong. There are some other interestng things out
there. On unorthodox approach is that of Emily Lyle, Archaic Cosmos. Polygon
Books. For a critique of Marshack you might want to look at Haldaway and
Johnson, "Upper paleolithic notation systems in prehistoric Europe,"
Expedition 31 (1989) 3-11. Another fascinating writer on the subject has been
Andre Leroi-Gourhan, the eminent French prehistorian. Years ago he published
a general book on prehistory that included a fascinating interpretation of
gender symbols in cave paintings (in French). In the sixties he published a
two volume work the first of which was called, I believe, Le geste e le
parole. Of course, he has written many articles and other books. I assume
that some of his work is available in English, but I have not checked.
Subject: Re: ARK OF COVENANT FOUND IN ISRAEL !! (???)
From: grifcon@usa.pipeline.com(Katherine Griffis)
Date: 30 Sep 1996 03:01:59 GMT
On Sep 29, 1996 18:12:35 in article , 'fmurray@pobox.com (frank murray)' wrote:
(Re: my question to original poster that IF the Israelis found the Ark,
would it mean that the Palestinians "give a flip" about the finding of that
*archaeological find*....)
>it would most certainly "make a flip to the palestinians" and
>intensify internal strife between different israeli factions as
>well...
frank, frank....you misunderstand: we're saying the *same thing* here. My
comment was meant to the original poster who implied that the Palestinians
would **have to** *cave in* IF the Ark was discovered. Of course, they
would not, as I feel that the Israelis would surely direct their efforts in
the manner in which you suggest. And so, it goes on....the Mosque, IMHO is
just as a "holy place" as the temple before it (isn't it interesting that
*holy places* seem to be recognized *over and over* as such no matter what
age or culture?? -- but I digress....;) )
Of course, folks, this conflict over the tunnel and the *presumed Ark*
location will just set back any hope of peace in the Middle East with the
State of Israel, if Netanyahu and the Likud pursue it in the manner they
are now, without any consideration of the Jerusalem Muslims...sometimes I
wonder *why* one uses religion/its artifacts as a hammer over another's
head -- but that's another discussion.
Katherine
Subject: Re: Conjectures...And The Red Paint People...
From: "Paul Pettennude"
Date: 30 Sep 1996 04:57:00 GMT
Stella,
The New World was not hermetically sealed. There was a land bridge opened
across the Bering Straits for thousands of years. All most of us are
saying is that some campers from prehistoric cruise ships did not land in
Acapulco or along the Pacific coast.
As for your assertions that Norse objects were rejected. This is not
true. Many objects were found by curiosity seekers and passed around.
Often such looters are reluctant to say where they found the object. Any
object devoid of a site is just an object. Put that same object in a site
and you have technology and history.
One of the things I haven't brought up during all of these contact
arguments deals with the enigmatic "Red Paint" people of the Northeast and
maritime Canadian coasts.
It seems there was an American Indian culture which developed deep water
sailing technology about the end of the last ice age. Their homeland
appears to be centered in Labrador, but they migrated down into New
England and probably sailed to Northern Europe.
I had heard stories of graves in New England which "bled" red ochre and
actually found one in Maine in the mid-1980s which I proceeded to excavate
with the local archaeology group in Penobscott. The soil here is very
acidic and no organics remained, but we found very elaborate stone
implements including diagnostic harpoon heads of flint.
Many of the designs found in Red Paint graves can be found in graves
excavated in the Scandinavian countries (coastal areas). I was told by
several Canadian archaeologists working on this subject that it may be
proven some day that American Indians taught the early Norse how to build
sailing craft. The above mentioned graves were dated later than those
found in the Red Paint homeland. Can you just imagine an American Indian
culture from 8000 BC which was extraordinarily advanced?
Paul
--
***********************************************
Paul E. Pettennude, Ph.D.
Maya Underwater Research Center
Miami, Florida
(305) 554-1557/Fax - (305) 554-1616
***********************************************
Stella Nemeth wrote in article
<52mrok$e6s@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>...
> pmv100@psu.edu (Peter van Rossum) wrote:
>
> >The default hypothesis of no contact occurred is easily falisifiable.
> >All you need to find is one authenticated Polynesian object, of
pre-16th
> >century date, which could not have arrived by natural means, at a
> >pre-16th century New World site. If an object satisfying these
criteria
> >was, or is, recovered then I (and any honest scientist) will be
convinced
> >that contact occurred - of course we would then need to look into the
> >scale and impact of that contact.
>
> There is one very important problem with using the hermetically sealed
> New World as the default hypothesis. (I don't claim that you,
> personally, believe in such a tightly sealed New World.) If that one,
> isolated object is located it is very easy to insist that the object
> was a hoax, or that it was improperly excavated, or ... I think you
> get the picture. In fact, in the Northeast of North America that is
> exactly what occurred with not just one object, but scores of objects
> which were Norse in culture. Until, of course, an entire settlement
> of Norse of the proper period was discovered on the same coast. Now
> all of these objects are explained away as the result of hand to hand
> trading and not as possible examples of contact.
>
> I neither believe, nor disbelieve in extensive contact either in North
> or South America, but I'm beginning to believe with Yuri that the
> default ought to be that contact was possible, but not currently
> proved.
>
> Island hopping in North America via the northern routes both in the
> Atlantic and the Pacific are not only possible, but obviously already
> proven. There is still some question of how often it happened and
> when it happened and how long contact lasted each time it happened.
> Contact itself is no longer in question.
>
> As for South America, there are ways that contact either by the
> peoples of the South Pacific, or the peoples of Africa could have
> happened, or by the peoples of South America to either the South
> Pacific or Africa for that matter. We know it is possible. That much
> has been proven through tests of low-tech sailing ships and navigation
> methods. What hasn't been found is either a settlement site or major
> artifact collection.
>
>
> Stella Nemeth
> s.nemeth@ix.netcom.com
>
>
Subject: Re: 200 ton Blocks
From: Kevin@Quitt.net (Kevin D. Quitt)
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 21:20:38 GMT
On 26 Sep 1996 23:40:00 -0700, blair@trojan.neta.com (Blair P Houghton)
wrote:
>People who doubt that human beings and
>their domesticated animals built all of the pyramids are
>the ones being skeptical.
So the people who think it was done by aliens are the skeptics. This must
be a new definition of skeptic that nobody's every heard before. Lo-tech
methods have been described that can be used to build pyramids. If somebody
wants to cough up the cost of building one, I'd be happy to draw up the
plans and supervise the construction.
>The Titanic was killed because exactly the wrong kind of
>iceberg hit in exactly the wrong way and cut through
>exactly five watertight compartments.
No, that's merely the proximate cause. The Titanic was scaled-up from the
design of a smaller ship, and she was, proportionally, much weaker than the
smaller ships. Any number of problems would have broken her up. Also, new
construction techniques were used: deck plates were welded instead of
riveted. This means that when a crack forms, it propogates along the entire
deck instead of stopping at the edge of a deck plate.
--
#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: Re: The Egyptian concept of Ma'at in the Platonic Dialoges: was Re: Egyptian Tree Words
From: petrich@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 08:33:42 GMT
In article <324F0843.388E@pioneerplanet.infi.net>,
Saida wrote:
>Stella Nemeth wrote:
... Egypt was a major
>> force in the Mediterranean area for thousands of years, and the Greeks
>> and later the Romans were involved with the Egyptians for a good part
>> of those thousands of years. I'm sure they borrowed a few words
>> during that time.
>> Thank you, Stella, you have said it beautifully. The Greeks said "All
>wisdom comes from Egypt"
Which ones? :-)
I think that they may have been impressed by Egypt having a
clearly longer recorded history than their native land. However, Egyptian
and Greek mythologies are *very* different -- the Gods are differently
named, have different attributes, and have different stories told about
them, despite some effort to identify Egyptian and Greek ones. In
particular, Amon-Ra is not depicted as some sort of lecher who produced
over 100 illegitimate children.
Furthermore, Greek mathematics had numerous innovations that have
no known Egyptian prototype. Although unit-fraction decompositions are
certainly interesting, I'm not aware of Egyptian anticipations of such
discoveries as:
* There are 5 regular solids
* The square root of 2 is an irrational number
* There seems to be no way to deduce the Parallel Postulate from other
geometrical concepts
* Euclid's Algorithm for finding the Lowest Common Denominator of two numbers
* An explicit idea of mathematical proof
I'd be happy to be proved wrong about any of these, but I'd like
to be *proved* wrong with an appropriate counterexample -- some Egyptian
New Kingdom or earlier document explaining why (say) the square root of 2
is an irrational number.
and were captivated with this land. Perhaps
>the Romans were as well. If these peoples didn't borrow terminology
>from Egypt, it would be very odd indeed.
But the $10,000 question is: what terms *did* get borrowed? In
actuality, not a whole lot. Just check out a lot of the technical terms
that we get from Latin and Greek -- many of them have impeccable
Indo-European pedigrees, as determined from numerous cognates in various
IE languages.
--
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: Chariots of da Gods?!!
From: Jiri Mruzek
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 18:23:17 -0700
Benjamin H. Diebold wrote:
> I watched it last night. Another set of lies, half-truths and fantasies
> foisted on the TV-viewing public.
What about the spectacular shots? Were those fake?
> Pretty disgraceful. You know, for all
> the whining by these fantastic, "alternative" archaeologists that they are
> being suppressed by the establishment, they sure get a lot of big-time
> network air-time.
There are several channels liike the Learning channel, which broadcast
archaeological features all the time. So why don't you stop whining.
Take it from me. I am a truly supressed alternate archaeologist,
as you know.
> At least twice in the past year the claim has been made
> in front of a national TV audience that, for example, Tiwanaku is over
> 10,000 years old and built by space aliens. That probably constitutes all
> over 99% of that same public will ever hear of Tiwanaku.
Can you prove otherwise?
Jiri Mruzek
Subject: Re: ABC & racist pseudoscience
From: Jiri Mruzek
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 18:13:16 -0700
John Rice Cole wrote:
> Sept 26th, ABC-TV in the US broadcast a "new" show, "Chariots of the Gods?"
> featuring the totally debunked claims of Erik von Daniken which were published
> and broadcast in the 70's!
But can the Nasca Plain, or the Carnac stones be completely debunked?
They still look the same to me!
I liked the great mountain, which was debunked so badly - it blew its
top off. What a huge, horizontal slice - debunking on the level!
> Von D's claims were not presented with any
> competent archaeological analysis or comment--they would have been blown out
> of the water, of course.
You are putting up a brave front, of course. Why don't you give it
a try? As a matter of fact, why don't you try debunking some of
the diagrams on my web-site?
> Von D's premise that the Mayans, Incas, etc. could
> not have done nifty things without help from outer space is flat-out racist.
Trumped up accusations are worthy of a true Nazi.
> These people are/were thoroughly modern humans as capable as you or I. To
> imply otherwise is pseudoscientific racism.
I can read your mind ( in my crystal ball), and I see that you think
that Uganda cannot build and launch a space-shuttle before 1999. Yet,
Ugandans are/were thoroughly modern humans as capable as you or I. To
imply otherwise is pseudoscientific racism.
> Why is ABC *doing* this--to keep up with NBC and its notorious "Mysterious
> Origins of Man" or CBS's "Noah's Ark" hoax promulgation? ("Not our news
> division," they will reply to justify promoting garbage!)
They're doing it to keep up with CNN..
> --John R. Cole
> I'm an archaeologist, but I don't play one on TV.
Why don't you do a rehearsal for us.
Jiri Mruzek
Subject: Re: Origins of Europeans..
From: Jiri Mruzek
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 18:27:13 -0700
GROOVE YOU wrote:
> Where are the Ancient european civilizations? ...Where did they
> originate? That is a question that european scientists should research
> and answer, Of course it is well known that they are not a ancient people,
> but , when did they come on the scene?...
What about the Magdalenians, whose portraits we can see in
the La Marche engravings? They were mostly Caucasian looking Cromagnons,
but other types seem present as well.
Tell you frankly, I'd rather live with them then than most places now.
However, I have a sneaking suspicion that this Magdalenian culture must
have had some echoes in North Africa and elsewhere, like at Nasca.
It was European in Europe.
Regards from the Nasca Monkey - Americas' Golden Mean champ,
Jiri Mruzek
Jiri Mruzek