Subject: Re: Mystery Hill, NH
From: rejohnsn@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 17:07:03 -0500
On 22 Sep 1996, KKMalCdeP wrote:
> However, as I recall, Mystery Hill is adjacent to the property where the
> founder of Mormonism received the tablets from Moroni. Interesting
> coincidence. And aren't there astronomical alignments verified at the
> site?
No, that Mormon dude was an upstate New Yorker -- I know the 'tablets'
'came' from a hill in New York, and I think the hill is the Hill
Cumorah. I keep meaning to call up for a free copy of the BoM off those
TV ads, but I'm afraid of it being delivered by a pack of Mormons.
As far as astronomical alignments, I don't know of any involving the New
York hill.
Cheers,
Rebecca Lynn Johnson
Ph.D. cand., Dept. of Anthropology, U Iowa
Subject: Re: Sitchin, Hancock and Bauval on Art Bell tonight (9/27/96)
From: "Dr. Richard X. Frager"
Date: 1 Oct 1996 05:29:39 GMT
>More than stretching, I'd say. And it would be easy to lose sight
>of the point that I was simply saying that Sitchin's grasp of Sumerian
>and other languages is loose to say the least, despite his claims,
>and he seems pretty close-minded, not allowing the possibility that
>he might be wrong.
Sounds like you Dougie-boy. To dismiss his 5 or so books
with that glib statement goes to show how DESPERATE the
State-Funded scientists are in protecting their interests.
Time is almost up Doug, maybe not within the next few years,
but within our lifetimes. You fought the good fight and in
some ways I wish we could live with the old paradigm. But it
is based on a pack of lies, myths and outright distortions.
What the future holds no one really knows, but until the
Controllers will respect real findings, data and artifacts,
then our time will be limited by ignorance. Either you are
a complete fool Doug, or you are doing what you feel it is
your Patriotic Duty to do. Either way you are getting in
the WAY. Why not make at least ONE contribution to manking
with the time you have left and try to discover the REAL
facts dealing with archaeology, anthrolpology and
paleontology.
>And Miguel Vidal has helpfully pointed out where the name Toledo
>actually comes from (relying on oral similarities usually leads one
>to strange associations!)
>--
>Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
>Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
Subject: Re: Stop trashing Henry Lincoln!
From: Baron Szabo
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 1996 00:00:19 -0700
Hi Dave. After reading Fingerprints of the Gods myself I came onto this
newsgroup looking for answers to these same questions. I can (very
briefly) give you an idea of what the common skeptical answers are. No
doubt someone will wish to add too or clarify what I say here:
[parts of post snipped]
> The key questions in my opinion are:-
>
> 1) What explanation is there for the similarity between origin legends
> in Central America and Egypt - blue eyed 'gods' coming from the sea
> bringing civilisation - law, agriculture, construction skills etc?
Do you mean flood myths? I'm not sure that the Egyptians HAD a myth
about a colossal flood, although it would stand to reason that they
would, it being flood-country and all. Anyway, one decent explanation
for common flood myths is that in the wake of the last ice age there was
a lot of rain and moisture, and obviously some flooding. The peoples
lived largely in low lying river valleys, and therefore would have been
quite disastrously struck. The surviving peoples would have carried on
the oral tradition afterwards.
Regarding the blue-eyed god story. I'm not sure, but I remember someone
saying that this story was of a more recent sort, probably
post-Columbus. I remember that the poster was accusing Hancock of
blatant racism and fiction-telling... You can try to get this one
answered, although I don't know of many New World archaeologists that
contribute regularily here. Try "sci.mesoamerican" or whatever it is.
> 2) Both the great civilisations of Central America and Egypt raised
> majestic pyramids, mere concidence?
The explanation goes that the pyramid is a very functional and logical
shape. You build a single story, then another slightly smaller one, and
so on. Another point is that they were used for very different purposes
and at very different time periods.
> 3) Ancient maps, themselves supposedly based on copies of even earlier
> maps show what appears to be part of the Antartic land mass free of
> ice. If this is so, when were the original maps made and by whom?
This is still contraversial IMO. A fellow named Paul Heinrich will
happy email or post his detailed (and skeptical) analysis of them.
However I have seen people convincingly explain the maps accurate
placement of a number of certain locations.
One thing is for sure though. When Hancock says, "The Piri Reis map
show an unglaciated Antarctica with an accuracy that we can only acheive
today," (I'm heavily paraphrasing here) you can be sure he is
exaggerating and sensationalizing a bit. The map's depiction is far
from being totally accurate.
>
> 4) Is it so unreasonable that a, at present undiscovered, civilisation
> was the genesis of both the great Central American and Egyption
> cultures considering how many similarities there appears to be between
> each?
Perhaps not, but try getting a scientist to consider it seriously...
>
> 5) Is it so unreasonable that, if maps were made of the Antartic at a
> time when it was free of ice, that that continent could have been the
> source of this civilisation?
Oh yeah, earth crust shifting is basically impossible. Or at the least
extremely unlikely. The best proof I have seen is in the Hawaiian, and
other, hot-spots around the world. They would, theoretically, be
beheaded if the crusts outer layer shifted without the mantle.
(I had a theory that the harder outer crust might be conducive to
quickly creating another hot-spot in the same place.)
There are other reasons that seem to disprove earthcrust shifts.
Paleomagnetic data (I forget where from) shows that magnetic north has
been the same for longer than the 12,000 years of Hapgood's theory.
Ice-core samples seem to show that ice has been on Antarctica for a
long, long time. (exact figures being somewhat lacking)
> Hancock, Bauval, Wilson and Gilbert (to name but some) are no Von
> Danikens, they do investigate, the do research and they do present
> theories that fit the evidence and, in my opinion, in a convincing
> fashion. Whether they are right or wrong is too soon to say but they
> raise very interesting questions and if that stimulates the
> imagination of readers then I believe that can only be a good thing.
I think you'll find that the extent of Hancock's "investigation" is
limited to what he wants to look for. He seems to have been awfully
remiss in researching the plausability of crustshift theory in light of
modern science and data. The truth is he just rehashed Hapgood's older
claim, and that if Hapgood were still alive (or Einstein) they would
have recognized the more recent discoveries science has made.
> I am no wide eyed space cadet who see alien conspiracies every where I
> look nor am I a New Age neophyte who is waitiing for the Age of
> Aquarius, I am just a layman with a great curiosity about our origins
> but wants any theories presented to be backed up with a decent level
> of evidence and research. I must say the above authors have so far
> given me no reason to disregard their theories even though I accept it
> would be unreasonable to expect them to be 100% correct.
I'm with you on this. The problem is getting REAL scientists to address
these questions. These journalists and amateurs are happy to make the
big bucks. So would I be! We need some wealthy, interested, smart
people to spend time researching the mounds of data out there because
Universities and corporations do not provide funding for this type of
speculation. (I wonder if S.W. qualifies...?)
--
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: Chariots of da Gods?!!
From: Troy Sagrillo
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 02:25:54 GMT
twitch wrote:
>
> Jiri Mruzek wrote in article
> <324F2105.7BF8@lynx.bc.ca>...
> > Benjamin H. Diebold wrote:
> >
> > > 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?
> >
> The mark of an irrational mind is I claim that it is true, prove to me
> otherwise. The burden is on the believer of a particular claim to prove
> his claim.
>
> Can you prove (sic) that Tiwanaku is over 10,000 years old and build by
> space aliens? A good starting point might be to demonstrate that space
> aliens have visited us, since this hasn't be demonstrated yet.
Hell, just start with their existance, let alone if they have
*visited*...
Subject: Re: Pyramids and Aliens
From: gans@scholar.nyu.edu (Paul J. Gans)
Date: 1 Oct 1996 03:06:06 GMT
frank murray (fmurray@pobox.com) wrote:
: On Thu, 19 Sep 1996 08:47:02 +0100, "Ann McMeekin"
: wrote:
:
:
: >
: >> If you would like to present some evidence for your idea,
: >> maybe some people would engage you in conversation.
: >> Others won't
: >
: >This is really starting to become rather boring. I'm not sure how many
: >times I have to make this point, but I DID NOT SAY THAT ALIENS BUILT THE
: >PYRAMIDS! Got that? Good. Then maybe I can get on with what I came here
: >for in the first place, which was to find out the most up to date facts
: >information that I could.
: >
:
: ann,
:
: there are some on this group who support their egos by
: encouraging others to switch from asking a question into
: defending an improbable answer to that question (as in the
: attempt you quote)... then they attack...this reassures them
: that they are important to egyptology, whatever that might
: mean...further, it implies, at least to themselves, that
: they hold some deep understandings of ancient egypt...
:
: but there are magic words that can be used against such
: nuisance...for example: you can ask them if they believe and
: are willing to openly defend the statement that "the
: pyramids were built and used as tombs"...silence usually
: follows...watch...
Yo, Mr. Murray. I doubt that this has sunk in to your
head yet, but perhaps, just perhaps, it was the reference
to *aliens* that raised hackles?
This is NOT the proper newsgroup for questions about
"aliens". Scientists do not believe in "aliens". This
is a sci group. Simple, huh?
I note your remark about pyramids. I'm glad that you
folks are so badly read that you don't know about the
*other* sites of the same or older age. You'd probably
argue that they were built by the fairies that live at
the foot of my garden.
-------- Paul J. Gans [gans@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
Subject: Re: Sitchin, Hancock and Bauval on Art Bell tonight (9/27/96)
From: Doug Weller
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 1996 08:31:11 +0100
In article <52qa83$oji@cobweb.aracnet.com>
"Dr. Richard X. Frager" wrote:
> >More than stretching, I'd say. And it would be easy to lose sight
> >of the point that I was simply saying that Sitchin's grasp of Sumerian
> >and other languages is loose to say the least, despite his claims,
> >and he seems pretty close-minded, not allowing the possibility that
> >he might be wrong.
>
> Sounds like you Dougie-boy. To dismiss his 5 or so books
> with that glib statement goes to show how DESPERATE the
> State-Funded scientists are in protecting their interests.
You can hardly make any claims about state-funded scientists
based on any statements I made. Sitchin has written more than 5 books,
but quantity hardly proves quality. His self-claimed qualifications
of expertise in Sumerian are bogus (rather like the 'Doctor' you
put in front of your name -- you don't have that qualification
although you claim it for some reason). He bases his books
on his translations of Sumerian, which are ludicrous. Maybe you
think the Temple mound is an alien control base, but then some
people are easily fooled.
>
> What the future holds no one really knows, but until the
> Controllers will respect real findings, data and artifacts,
> then our time will be limited by ignorance. Either you are
> a complete fool Doug, or you are doing what you feel it is
> your Patriotic Duty to do. Either way you are getting in
> the WAY.
You left out a possibility -- Sitchin's talking nonsense.
--
Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
Subject: Re: Linguistic stabs-in-the-dark???
From: Baron Szabo
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 1996 01:07:52 -0700
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:
>
> Saida wrote:
>
> >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 ]"
This is what Herodotus says of the Pelasgoi:
... His inquiries pointed out to him two states as pre-eminent above the
rest. These were the Lacedaemonians and the Athenians, the former of
Doric, the latter of Ionic blood. And indeed these two nations had held
from very, early times the most distinguished place in Greece, the [one]
being a Pelasgic, the other a Hellenic people, and the one having never
quitted its original seats, while the other had been excessively
migratory; for during the reign of Deucalion, Phthiotis was the country
in which the Hellenes dwelt, but under Dorus, the son of Hellen, they
moved to the tract at the base of Ossa and Olympus, which is called
Histiaeotis; forced to retire from that region by the Cadmeians, they
settled, under the name of Macedni, in the chain of Pindus. Hence they
once more removed and came to Dryopis; and from Dryopis having entered
the Peloponnese in this way, they became known as Dorians.
What the language of the Pelasgi was I cannot say with any certainty.
If, however, we may form a conjecture from the tongue spoken by the
Pelasgi of the present day- those, for instance, who live at Creston
above the Tyrrhenians, who formerly dwelt in the district named
Thessaliotis, and were neighbours of the people now called the Dorians-
or those again who founded Placia and Scylace upon the Hellespont, who
had previously dwelt for some time with the Athenians- or those, in
short, of any other of the cities which have dropped the name but are in
fact Pelasgian; if, I say, we are to form a conjecture from any of
these, we must pronounce that the Pelasgi spoke a barbarous language. If
this were really so, and the entire Pelasgic race spoke the same tongue,
the Athenians, who were certainly Pelasgi, must have changed their
language at the same time that they passed into the Hellenic body; for
it is a certain fact that the people of Creston speak a language unlike
any of their neighbours, and the same is true of the Placianians, while
the language spoken by these two people is the same; which shows that
they both retain the idiom which they brought with them into the
countries where they are now settled.
The Hellenic race has never, since its first origin, changed its speech.
This at least seems evident to me. It was a branch of the Pelasgic,
which separated from the main body, and at first was scanty in numbers
and of little power; but it gradually spread and increased to a
multitude of nations, chiefly by the voluntary entrance into its ranks
of numerous tribes of barbarians. The Pelasgi, on the other hand, were,
as I think, a barbarian race which never greatly multiplied.
End quote.
http://the-tech.mit.edu/Classics/Herodotus/history.i.html
--
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: The Egyptian concept of Ma'at in the Platonic Dialoges: was Re: Egyptian Tree Words
From: Baron Szabo
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 1996 01:41:21 -0700
Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> 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.
An important distinction between Greek gods and their, IMO, forebears is
the Greek's readiness to change and adapt their gods to fit local areas,
customs, and cults. The Egyptians and Near Easterners were careful to
preserve as closely as possible the faithful transmission of their gods
stories. (subject to political change, of course)
One might go so far as to say that the Greeks believed less in the
actual existance of their gods than the Egyptians and Near Easterners.
But then, the later Egyptian gods became, more and more, symbols of
natural forces, more than actual humanlike dudes walking around.
Meanwhile the Near Easterners fervently held onto the oldest traditions
of their god(s).
--
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: Sweet Potatos and Silver Bullets
From: gblack@midland.co.nz (George Black)
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 96 01:13:48 GMT
snip, snip.
>Keep blowing hot air, Peter, and see if it will help your case...
I must say that that is a well reasoned argument.:-((
garments of maguey fibre { -feather cloaks dog skin cloaks - available
in the Pacific} pounded bark cloth cotton and weaving
This is a quickly looked up list of the major food vegetables throughout Meso
America.
refs: The Ancient Civilizations of Peru. (Penguin A395) J. Alden Mason
The Aztecs of Mexico (Pelican A200) G. C. Vaillant
The Conquest of the Incas (Penguin ISBN 01400.4960 6) John Hemming
The Mendoza Codex
==========================================================================
squash chai camotes red and green peppers alligator pears tomatoes
potatoes chocolate vinilla pineapples tobacco (smoked in hollow reeds)
copal gum incense rubber from the guayule plant cochineal cacoa bean
manioc casava sunflower ragweed peru white potato cattail roots sedge
and rush roots. achira corn and beans peanuts plaintains warty squash
avacado pumpkin granadilla chirimoya guanabana tumbo papaya pacai
lucuma jiquima yacon achira pepino quinoa oca mashua lupin ulluco
canahua. tomato
-sweet potato coconut gourds - (These are the only plants common in both
Meso America and the Pacific. All capable of floatation.. The current was
demonstrated by Thor Heyerdahl’s little adventure)
If we look at other evidence there is another group of problems.
The lack of syphilis in the Pacific areas.
The lack of Meso American legend and story. (in the Pacific)
The lack of Polynesian legend and story (in Meso America)
And, I understand, there is something about blood types but I cannot find the
reference at the moment.
The lack of Sinodont molar amid the Sundadonts. The three rooted first molar
and related shovelling seperates very definitely, the Polynesian from the
Meso American.
ref: Scientific American Feb. 1989 Teeth and Prehistory in Asia Christy G
Turner ll Page 76
These early Austronesians seemed to have all carried a few important domestic
animals to almost everywhere they went: the dog, the rat, pottery, pig and
chicken.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, again, the pig , rice, maize, pottery and the chicken did not arrive
in New Zealand. This would indicate that the Polynesian migrations were later,
migrated from a non pottery area, had NO contact with South America and were
part of the migration that settled Easter Island.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a very good reason why there is no history of pottery throughout the
sweep of Polynesia.
Western Samoa is the last outcrop of sialtic rock. Western Samoan areas are
the most easterly limit of the potter's craft.
From there on until New Zealand the islands are of magmatic rock.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The problem with diffusion theory is that there are many, many other far more
desirable fruits, vegetables and meat animal available in the Americas that
didn't get into the Pacific.
Some people can stay longer in an hour than others can in a week
gblack@midland.co.nz
Subject: Re: 200 ton Blocks
From: Jiri Mruzek
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 22:56:31 -0700
Stella Nemeth wrote:
>
> Jiri Mruzek wrote:
> There are two small problems with this objection to the Egyptians
> building the pyramids.
Sheesh, Stella it's not an 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.
Ahem, Stella, it's reactionary to think that Egyptians enjoyed
such senseless labor. I am appalled that some around here are this
much politically incorrect!
However, were the kingdom's subjects imbued with some spirit, such
as dwells in the Pyramid, and only if their own children would have
some benefit from all this labor - they would pull the hempen ropes
with some heart.
The sense of purpose is all over the Pyramid. It is so obvious.
It precludes the possibility of being a tomb quite clearly.
a: The way to the King's Chamber was sealed by the granite plugs.
b: There was no body, nor any kind of a lid for the granite coffer
furnishing the chamber. This heart of the pyramid serves a different
purpose. It is still alive.
> very easy to tell when the economy was in trouble in Egypt. The tombs
> got smaller.
I don't think so, because temples got bigger.
> 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.
Yet, they were invaded from all over, not long after. Again, there were
horses, ships, and armies, which could travel long distances. The
deserts
were somewhat smaller, had more oases, and the Nubians could be hostile
at times, too. In short, the point is still moot.
> 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.
The Great Pyramid is a singularity. No pharaohs, nor other rulers had
ever burdened their subjects with a task so stupyfyingly impossible at
the first glance. The whole nation remains almost constantly mobilised,
never gets a break from drudgery, it must HATE-LOVE the Pyramid, yet
it does such great motivated job.. Hmm
Jiri Mruzek
http://ourworld/compuserve.com/homepages/jiri_mruzek/
Subject: Re: 200 ton Blocks
From: Jiri Mruzek
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 1996 00:51:04 -0700
Doug or Kathy Lowry wrote:
> Stella Nemeth wrote:
> > x288files@aol.com (X288FILES) wrote:
> > >tell you what bothers me!
> > >where can i get that cement that they used in the pyramid. boy after 4000
> > >years the arabs heated the stones and poored cool vinager on the stones
> > >to crack them.
Those were Al Mamun's days 36-hundred years after the Pyramid. Those
were
his men breaking into the pyramid through the hard limestone mantle
blocks,
in search of ancient maps of incredible accuracy, weapons that don't
rust,
and glass that bends without breaking. They had this intelligence from
the streets of Cairo, it was folklore-intelligence.
> > >because they could not break the cement.
That's Piazzi Smyth a thousand years later, describing the finely ground
mortar between the casing blocks discovered by him at the platform
level.
Pure cement only a 1/50 inch thick would be easy to break..
> > >wall and would like to have that cement and oh i forgot it was spread up
> > >and down in between those 200 ton blocks at a 1/50th of an inch width
> > >ammazing heh
Those casing blocks were 5 feet high, 12 feet long and 8 feet deep, and
weighed in eccess of 15 tons.
> > They used cement between the blocks? I thought it was dry wall
> > construction.
> According to Lucas (Materials & Industries), there was a thin layer of
> gypsum between the blocks. Probably to help them slide and as
> gap filler.
The core stones were held together by mortar made of sand, lime, and
crushed red pottery, endowing the mortar with a pinkish color.
If you meant the mantle stones - the presence of fine film of mortar
at the joints between blocks makes the extreme accuracy of their
placement much harder - not easier.
Jiri Mruzek
Subject: Re: 200 ton Blocks
From: Jiri Mruzek
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 1996 01:24:27 -0700
Joseph H Allen wrote:
> 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.
Gee, that's funny. The mantle blocks found by Davison measured 5 x 8 x
12
feet. That's 480 cubic feet, 74,400 lbs at 155 lbs/ft^3, or 33.82 ton!
If we adjusst this for the shape by taking 3/7 away we still get just
about 20 tons - heavier than reported.
> 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). 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.
You have to sail all the way to Lebanon to get the famous Lebanes
cedars.
Moving those logs more or less whole would be quite a task.
> Lets say
> the crane is at a 60 degree angle and is carrying a 30-ton block at the end
> of the line. 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'll have to get a strengths of materials book and check
> this out more accurately. 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. 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).
You have to anchor the cranes so they don't topple. That's a problem, as
you have space limitations working on the steep slopes.
> 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.
You can lasso the top, but to mount a crane? Besides, good arguments
were made in favor of mantle blocks being placed prior to the core.
> 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?
Hemp fibres make strong rope. Hmm, papyrus and hemp. Could be rolled
into a cylinder.. Pharaoh junkies? How about the Reefer Madness under
the pyramids? :)
Jiri Mruzek
Subject: Re: HELP--Found a bunch of Indian artifacts in GA
From: mbwillia@ix.netcom.com(Mary Beth Williams)
Date: 1 Oct 1996 11:42:21 GMT
In
sjohns19@ix.netcom.com (Steve Johnson) writes:
>
>In article ,
>marcus@avana.net wrote:
>
>> A friend of mine has found a site with literally hundreds of Indian
artifacts
>> in a creek in Georgia (near Atlanta). He was looking for arrowheads
in a
>> creek and happened upon them. They consist of tools (hammers,
grinders, a
>> flat stone plate, etc, made completely of rock). He says there are
hundreds
>> still there. Can someone email me and tell me whose they might have
>been. He
>> also said there was a two inch groove chiseled out in the rock
surface under
>> the creek.
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>> Marcus Valdes
>> marcus@avana.net
>> 770-599-0706
>
>Contact Georgia State Univ.'s anthropology department. They're
interested
>in such finds. I believe that West Georgia College over in Carollton
also
>has some archaeologists/anthropologists who investigated the Etowah
Indian
>mounds and might be interested.
First and foremost, you might want to contact the Georgia State
Archaeologist's office, to find out the laws regarding disturbing
archaeological sites on private or public lands. Many states have laws
against disturbing any archaeological sites, whereas others allow for
surface collection (although you haven't made it clear whether there
was some subterranean collection by your friend.) There may be stiff
penalties for improper collection or excavation.
On a professional note, it sounds as if a very significant site may be
in danger of losing its integrity for the sake of *arrowhead
collection*. Any artifact that is removed from its context without
proper documentation becomes merely a piece of stone or clay, no longer
an artifact, and no longer able to assist researchers in interpreting
the archaeological record.
MB Williams
Dept. of Anthro., UMass-Amherst
Subject: Re: Advanced Machining in Ancient Egypt?
From: rg10003@cus.cam.ac.uk (R. Gaenssmantel)
Date: 1 Oct 1996 12:22:00 GMT
Rodney Small (rsmall@erols.com) wrote:
[...]
: .01 inch on a length of 75 inches up the face, an amount of accuracy
: equal to most modern opticians' straight-edges of such a length. These
Well, I'd say .25mm out on rough 85cm length is a lot worse than you'd expect
on any standard milling machine. That's something I couldn't do my work with,
let alone anyone working on optics.
[...]
: as close as 1/500 inch, or, in fact, into contact, and the mean opening
: of the joint was but 1/50 inch, yet the builders managed to fill the
: joint with cement, despite the great area of it, and the weight of the
: stone to be moved -- some 16 tons. To merely place such stones in exact
: contact at the sides would be careful work; but to do so with cement in
: the joints seems almost impossible."
Well, it is impossible whoever wrote this should possibly do some homework on
'Cement - what it is made of' or 'The grain size of sand'.
Those numbers given look very impressive, but!! Let's have a closer look.
1/500" is 0.05mm=50micrometres. This is a lot smaler then sandgrains, an
important componenet of most cements. 1/50" = 0.5mm, that's slightly more
acceptable, however, considering the material these stones were made off the
grainsize inside the stone would be in that sort of range (more likely larger)
and hence when cutting it you'd expect a surface roughness in that sort of
range. And once you're talking spacing in the range of the surface roughness I
think putting any number to it is optimistic (unless you grant an error bar of
5 to ten times the actual value - which makes it meaningless).
By the way, getting such a stone reasonably flat is not such a big business. If
you get a reasonably flat surface (say a flat area of rock) if you drag large
stones over that the surface and stone will grind eatch other flat. The
resulting sand will help the grinding. I've seen stones on the Saqqara site
being flattened just like that for recunstruction of the entrance area. Other
possiblities would include wooden boards and put sant on them and drag the
stones accross (the same technology - sand and soft(!) wood - was used for
drilling holes in all sorts of stones in the stone ages).
Ralf
Subject: For Sale: Archaeology books
From: Steven Cieluch
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 1996 08:19:20 -0700
1. ARCHEOLOGY OF EASTERN UNITED STATES, James B. Griffin
2. THE MOUND BUILDERS [juvenile], William E. Scheele
3. MOUND BUILDERS OF ANCIENT AMERICA:
THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF A MYTH, Robert Silverberg
1. ARCHEOLOGY OF EASTERN UNITED STATES,
by: James B. Griffin
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1952, First edition,
x + 392 pp text + 205 figures, lg 4to, green cloth boards with decorative
gilt device on front board.
Interior VG with bookplate on ffep. Boards are G to VG with rubbed
corners, short cloth tears at head & tail of spine, lower edge of boards
rubbed, gilt spine lettering faded. I suspect some type of Ex-Lib as there is
evidence of rear pocket removal and spine number removal. $30.00
2. THE MOUND BUILDERS [juvenile]
written & Illustrated by: William E. Scheele
World Pub., Cleveland, 1960, stated First edition, 61 pp, 8vo,
illustrated cloth boards, illustrated by Scheele in b/w throughout.
A Fine copy in a VG, price-clipped, rubbed dust jacket. $8.00
3. MOUND BUILDERS OF ANCIENT AMERICA:
THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF A MYTH
by: Robert Silverberg
New York Graphic Society, Greenwich, CT, nd (cpyrt 1968),
probable First edition, viii + 369 pp, tall 8vo, gilt decorated cloth boards,
illustrated, maps.
A VG copy with pencil gift inscription on ffep and
some looseness in the spine. $10.00
**** or take all three for $40.00 post paid within continental U.S. ****
E-mail will hold the book(s) for 10 days: scieluch@clariion.com
15 day returnable any reason, CWO (U.S. funds please)
SHIPPING: $2.00 first book, $0.50 each additional book [within the U.S.]
add $1.00 per book for shipments [outside the U.S.]
Books will be shipped upon receipt of check, U.S.P.S. 4th class book rate.
Will ship & bill to institutions and those known to me, net due in 30 days.
Title does not transfer until account is paid in full.
Steven Cieluch E-mail: scieluch@clariion.com
15 Walbridge St., Suite #10 (617) 734-7778 [ 6 pm to 9 pm EST]
Allston, MA 02134-3808 [or leave a message on the machine]
Subject: Re: Chariots of da Gods?!!
From: "William Belcher"
Date: 1 Oct 1996 13:18:58 GMT
The problem is that we must be able to evaluate claims. Skepticism is an
important part of science, but so is wonder - that is the combination that
we have to balance - to be completely skeptical is to be incredulous and
believe nothing; yet, to only have wonder about the universe means that we
beliefve and accept everything.
von Daniken and the other members of the Ancient Astronaut Society have not
offered a single evidence of proof. For instance, some speculations from
Gold of the Gods (1972, Bantam Books):
"These admittedly poor copies of very early flying machines have been
promptly and without exception declared 'ritual attributes' on all sites
and in all museums....
The space traveler on the tombstone at Palenque was an Indian in a ritual
pose."
In the recent film, von Daniken, at least has decided that this space
traveler was a Mayan king, who just rode in a space ship - yet, if one
looks at the iconography of the Maya, we know that it is a depiction of
Pacal the Great poised between life and death - what he is grasping is note
a control panel, but the tree of life and the flames and such are really
the maw of the Underworld (those are flames, they are sylized teeth). We
know all of this in detail because the Maya writing system has been
deciphered since the 1980s. There is no mention of spaceships or
extraterrestrial beings (or anything that could be interpreted as such) -
what there is represents a much more fascinating story of politics, empire
building and great leaders. This is a much more fascinating story.
von Daniken speculates and goes by the assumption that his speculations are
just as good as someone who is trained to work with this material. I don't
believe so - why is it that people feel that we don't have to be trained as
archaeologists or anthropologists...they don't feel that way with doctors
or lawyers...but I guess archaeology and anthropology are "safe"...but
perhaps the stealing of someone's heritage is extremely dangerous - the
Maya now have a sense of history with names and dates behind all the great
portraits - to suggest that their civilization was created only because of
extraterrestrial intervention is sad and telling of the colonialism that
still exists throughout the world.
If von Daniken is serious about his claims, there is an epistomology of
knowing - the scientific method - he has not followed it and has only
ripped seemingly strange artifacts out of their cultural context and
applied his own 20th century interpretation on them - to let the voice that
we have for the Maya not speak and ignore the iconography is not science
and not even good speculation.
Subject: Re: Chariots of da Gods?!!
From: "William Belcher"
Date: 1 Oct 1996 13:44:20 GMT
Well, Mr. Schmidt, let's look at this claim (there was no evidence in
Chariots of the Gods, the Mysteries Continue - only an appeal to "some
scholars believe....") of Tiwanaku being over 10,000 years ago. According
to the "published" record of "some scholars" and NBC's Mysterious Origins
of Mankind, this is based on the supposed alignments of the Gateway to the
Sun - the solstice alignments don't line up unless we think that the
Gateway was built 10,000 years ago....well, that's all nice and good and
makes sense, but the thing that people forget is that the Gateway was
reconstructed after it was excavated (you don't think that all that stuff
was just sitting out there, not buried, do you?) - the crack that is in the
upper surface actually separates the Gateway into two pieces. It is a
spectacular sculpture - but the pieces were put together again and I'm
almost positive (I wasn't there) - the crew (modern Bolivians) that put it
back up were not concerned with making sure that it was back in its proper
alignment (the edict, close enough was probably working). If you don't
believe me, take a look at the photo on page 374 of Images of the Past,
T.D. Price and G.M. Feinman (Mayfield Press, 1993). So if Ihad an open mind
- I would believe that this site was 10,000 years old - but being a
skeptic, I know that the proof of this is based on a reconstructed and
probably faulty alignment - what of all the radiocarbon dates that we have
for the site and the stratigraphic sequences...well, I guess that just
doesn't matter.
Subject: Re: Egyptian Tree Words
From: piotrm@umich.edu (Piotr Michalowski)
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 10:53:23
In article <52k07t$9n2@halley.pi.net> mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal) writes:
>Hmm, I already feared I wasn't being very clear. The administrative
>language of the Mitanni kingdom was Hurrian. The ruling class may
>have used an Indo-Iranian language[*], judging by their names and
>their gods' and some technical terms to do with chariots and horses.
>I suspect the situation was parallel to that of the Visigothic Kingdom
>of Spain. Despite the king being called Wamba, to quote the funniest
>one, Gothic was very soon a dead language in Spain.
>[*] there's a persistent myth, to which I succumbed above, that the
>language was in fact specifically Indo-Aryan, this based on very
>flimsy linguistic evidence and, mainly, lack of knowledge on
>pre-Zoroastrian Iranian religion.
Miguel, I would be a little careful here. It is true that we have two letters
in Hurrian from Mitanni to the Egyptian court, we really do not know what the
administrative language of the kingdom was. There is not a single
administrative text from this "kingdom" or, as some would have it, union of
tribal or political units. Even the name is uncertain, as the Hittite, Syrian
and Nuzi (east) sources use the terms Mitanni and Hurri, while in Assyrian
texts the term seems to be Hanigalbat. In one text there seems to be a
distinction made between Mitanni and Hurri, but generally today most scholars
think that these names all refer to the same complex historical political
phenomenon. Contrary to what is spread about, the Hurrians did not coem from
the Zargos, but, according to most, from the trans-Caucasian region, and this
might be reflected in the proposals of Diakonoff to link Hurrian/Urartean with
one of the Caucasian language families. I know that it makes little sense to
post bibiliographical information here, but since some people still read, I
might suggest the exhaustive and excellent study of Amir Harrak, Assyria and
Hanigalbat, Georg Olms Verlag, Hildesheim 1987, and the most recent survey of
current knowledge about the Hurrians by Gernot Wilhelm, in Amurru 1 (1996).
Subject: Re: The Egyptian concept of Ma'at in the Platonic Dialoges: was Re: Egyptian Tree Words
From: Saida
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 1996 09:52:37 -0500
Loren Petrich wrote:
> Given your imagination at doing Egyptian-English comparisons,
> maybe it's not all that surprising :-)
>
> Why not read some serious textbook on comparative linguistics
> before continuing further? You might actually learn something.
While I cannot deny that my lively imagination has served me well, on
the whole, throughout my life, I see that you do not regard it as a
plus. Perhaps it does take some imagination to make these word
connections as the commonalities between terms isn't always readily
apparent at first glance. Words taken from the same root sometimes have
very different appearances even among languages that are known to be
closely tied such as German and English. Take their "kuche" and
"kitchen" for example.
Loren, I think some of your problem with my observations is your lack of
an acquaintance with the Egyptian language. I am no expert in it,
certainly, but I do spend a lot of time looking at it. Well, we all
have a lot to learn and I do think I have learned "something" in my
time. I am teachable and have absorbed a great deal from these
linguistic discussions here, not the least of which came from yourself.
While languages have always come easily to me, I know I am not learned
in linguistics compared with you, Piotyr, Steve and the others, but I
know one thing: If I were to read a hundred books such as you might
wish me to read, I can tell you with all certainty that I would not
change my mind about what I believe is going on between Egyptian and
English. I don't think I have made any extraordinary claims. Some of
my assertions are backed up by our dictionaries already and, if I have
found some additional words, should that be so surprising? Where does
the overabundance of imagination that you always allude to enter into
it? We KNOW Egyptian words survived into English. Period. If, at
times, we can't quite figure out the route, so what? Added to that,
those things which I have learned from our threads have only served to
make me even more convinced that my impression was right in the first
place and that the influence of ancient Egypt, that place which holds so
much fascination for so many of us, is still felt in many subtle ways of
which we are not fully aware.
Subject: Re: Australian discovery
From: dbarnes@liv.ac.uk (Dan Barnes)
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 14:49:27 GMT
In article <527ihp$4rq@news.nyu.edu>, gans@scholar.nyu.edu says...
>
>Richard Ottolini (stgprao@sugarland.unocal.COM) wrote:
>: Ditto. Especially if it pushes back the use of "art"
>: from 30,000 years to at least 75,000 years ago.
>: Physical anthopologists said art and seafaring are
>: evidence of advanced language ability, and used to
>: time that at 50-60,000 years ago.
>
>Let us not jump to conclusions. We've none of us seen
>the actual report. According to the New York Times, the
>"art" consisted of many many circles incised in rock. The
>circles were almost of identical diameter and the depth of
>the incision was also almost uniform.
>
>The above may be wrong, but until we get definitive information,
>let us not invoke "art".
>
The actual report (from the Sydney Morning Herald) is at:
http://www.smh.com.au/daily/content/rocks/index.html#sep28
Dan
Subject: Re: Origins of Europeans..
From: dbarnes@liv.ac.uk (Dan Barnes)
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 15:12:16 GMT
In article <52g0v1$gih@news2.h1.usa.pipeline.com>, grifcon@usa.pipeline.co
says...
>
>On Sep 26, 1996 21:07:07 in article ,
>'grooveyou@aol.com (GROOVE YOU)' wrote:
>
>>With that in mind , then how come these white Egyptians
>>didnt build thier civilization at home in the caucus mountains, or in the
>>eurasian steppes?...why go to a land of people that you hate to build your
>>civilization?
>
>While I am *not* commenting on white "Europeans", there has been some
>intriguing information coming from Asia that now seems to cast doubt on
>Africa as the base of man's origins. In an article published last week in
>the news here, archaeological finds in areas of China indicate that the
>remnants of man there predate the African remains by about 20,000-50,000
>years.
>
snip
>
>Has anyone else a comment on this article (looking for AP/UPI report to
>post here)?
>
Do you have any further info e.g. name of site, technique used, journal article? It
would be an interesting development unfortuantely there are few AMH sites in
China and the oldest dates (227-101 ka and >67 ka) at Liujiang are almost
definitely wrong.
Dan
Subject: Re: The Egyptian concept of Ma'at in the Platonic Dialoges: was Re: Egyptian Tree Words
From: piotrm@umich.edu (Piotr Michalowski)
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 12:16:15
In article <32513035.6C71@PioneerPlanet.infi.net> Saida writes:
>While languages have always come easily to me, I know I am not learned
>in linguistics compared with you, Piotyr, Steve and the others, but I
>know one thing: If I were to read a hundred books such as you might
>wish me to read, I can tell you with all certainty that I would not
>change my mind about what I believe is going on between Egyptian and
>English. I don't think I have made any extraordinary claims.
Please, do not put us all in the same basket! I do think, however, that it is
hardly a good way to approach knowledge to prejudge everything and deny that
one can learn from reading what others have written on a given subject. If
you have already made up your mind about all these matters, why bother to
debate? This is not religion, where faith is everything, but a matter for
rational discourse and debate.