Newsgroup sci.archaeology 47522

Directory

In article , petrich@netcom.com says...
>
>In article <52pj7d$6l8@shore.shore.net>,
>Steve Whittet  wrote:
>
>>Why would they less civilized area be likely to influence the 
>>development of language in the more civilized area?
>
>        Mr. Whittet would have to get off of his trade-route kick and 
>examine other factors, such as how nomadic hordes can overrun sedentary 
>populations.
If nomadic hordes overrun sedentary populations either the hordes:
1.)Continue to be nomads and leave... after which the survivors 
rebuild with no cultural influence from the nomads whatsoever
2.)Leave no survivors...in which case there is no cultural
influence whatsoever
3.)Cease to be nomads and take up farming and living in the city
they have conquored... in which case the cultural influence is on
their way of life and they have to learn words for all the new things
they experience in the city...
4.)Are co-opted by a taste of the pleasures of the city, but
not strong enough or well enough organized to go up against
it's defences so they end up living in hovels on the outskirts 
of town and eking out an existence on its scraps until they
learn its lanquage and customs well enough to pass as citizens.
>There have been numerous examples of that happening in 
>historical times, and the Kurgan hypothesis of Indo-European origins 
>proposes that the builders of those early kurgans were the first such 
>nomadic horde ever.
The builders of kurgans are associated with a life of pastoral
nomadism and hunting. Their numbers were neither great nor is
there any evidence that as a people they were organized as a 
nomadic horde to invade the south.
What Herodotus refered to as the wandering Scythians did inhabit 
a region to the north of the Black Sea in historic times. Their
ancestors have been associated with the domestication of the horse 
in the central Ukraine. The population in this region in the 4th
millenium BC was neither numerous, nor engaged in farming.
We find that as civilization emerges the horse spreads from 
the Caucasus Mountains south along the Zagros Mountains to the 
Hurrians, Mitanni and Kassites and along the copper mining regions 
to the south of the Black and Caspian seas.
All the action in the development of farming in the 3rd and 4th 
millenia BC is to the south of the Black and Caspian seas.
This premise that Latin pater and Sannskrit pitar resemble
each other is unconvincing. 
For one thing why isn't the Egyptian "Ptah" or "sky father" 
considered in this analysis?
This premise that Latin pater and Sannskrit pitar resemble
each other because of the spread of farming in Europe having
extended as far as India is even more unconvincing. 
The Indo European hypothesis has farming in the 3rd and 4th 
milleniums BC running north from Turkey across the Bosphorus 
to Thrace and Europe in a culture which already spoke Indo
European.
The European Culture at this time consists of Balkan painted and
Impressed ware cultures, Funnel rim pottery cultures, early painted
ware cultures and Urnfields. None of this culture is found to the
east of the Dniester except for the funnel rim pottery which appears
to be associated with trade up the Dnieper to the Vistula and the Baltic.
Here theory conflicts greatly with the archaeological record.
In theory this Indo European culture then splits off into 
Proto Indo Iranian which moves east north of the Black sea 
through the Scythians and Cimmerians who were noted for their 
horsemanship not their farming.
Splitting off south through the Kuban Valley between the 
Black Sea and the Caspian Sea, this theory has the spread
of farming continuing east and then heading south again 
into Iran to become the cultural basis for Indo Iranian.
At the same time it also continues east to become the Tocharian
culture. 
The problem is there is no evidence whatsoever for what any 
of these people spoke in the 4th millenium BC and the analysis 
of their movements is not based on any archaeological evidence.
There is no connection between the European pottery and the
horsemen of Central Asia.
>
>And although there is some rather shadowy evidence of 
>Indo-European speakers in the form of some Indo-Aryan names in vocabulary 
>in the Fertile Crescent around 1500 BCE, the only big Indo-European 
>presence in the region comes with the Persian Empire and the various 
>Greek settlers and mercenaries about a millennium later.
When we look at the evidence for the dispersion of languages 
the focus turns on the Hurrians with the Mitanni and Kassites 
who were their apparent cultural inheritors.
...snip...
>Loren Petrich 
steve

David Coyte (davec@sqit.qld.edu.au) wrote:
: G'day,
: I'm after some info on what life was like in biblical times in the
: Middle East, their culture etc.  Pictures would be good also.
Me thinks if you want some first hand account of life in biblical times you 
might want to read 'The Bible' (or 'The Holy Bible').
This works is in two parts (Testaments). The first one describes life BC right 
from the (mythical) act of creation. The second part plays mostly around 
the first few decades AD (apart from some letters) - unfortunately it was only 
recorded several decades later in writing, but everyday life will not have 
changed so badly to make it unsuitable.
This might look a bit like a piss-take, but if you read the bible in search for 
the everyday life at the time you'll probably be surprised how much you'll 
find. Unfortunately that book is usually only read for it's story line rather 
than from the historians view. Just bear in mind that a lot of the examples and 
parabolas used by Jesus are meant to be understood by Joe Public, so they would 
be covering everyday life as people knew it.
Good luck,
Ralf
: Regards
: Dave
: -- 
: =======================================================
: David C Coyte
: Support Officer
: Communications & Information Systems
: Southern Queensland Institute of TAFE - Warwick College
: 176-202 Dragon St
: Warwick, 4370
: Queensland
: Australia
: Phone   : +61 76 61 6242
: Fax     : +61 76 61 5255
: Mobile  : 015 623 776
: Email   : davec@sqit.qld.edu.au
: =======================================================
--

John Mackey wrote:
 Have only recently become aware of what is going on in
> Israel...  Can someone please fill me in on this... what are the
> international/religious ramifications... who is saying they have found
> the Ark of the Covenant? 
If the Ark of the Covenant has been found, it is news to the
professional archaeological community.  Anyone who watches the movies
knows that after Indiana Jones found it in Egypt it was lost forever in
a warehouse in Washington DC.
Seriously, it is quite likely the ark was destroyed in antiquity,
probably by the Babylonians in 586 BC, if not by the Egyptian Pharoah
Necho shortly after Solomon's death.
The Jerusalem tunnel is not so much archaeology as tourism.  There is
very little to see in there, but it does get you from one set of holy
places to another without walking through the souk.
Keep digging.  Wait.

In article <01bbaf34$4d8d80e0$41d15c90@preinstalledcom>, 
wbelcher@students.wisc.edu says...
>
>Steve:
>
>I would be interested in hearing about the radiocarbon dates on Monhegan
>Island - as far as I know the owner to the particular midden (as one pulls
>into the harbor it's off to the left of the main dock, the one under all
>the lobster traps) has not allowed archaeologists to re-examine the site
>since the early 1970s - but I have been out of Maine archaeology for a few
>years, so I may not be completely up on what is now going on - the site
>should date to five hundred or a thousand years earlier than the date you
>cite (3500) to be within the time range of the Late Archaic (we consider
>the Susquehanna Tradition to be somewhat different than the Late Archaic
>Moorehead Burial tradition materials or what Bourque calls the Moorehead
>Phase along the central Maine coast).
>
The Stanley site is the other side of Fish Beach from the main dock
between the Sullivan cottage and the Hudson sisters house on the point.
I haven't been on the island since the 70's but as I recall, there 
is nothing close to the main wharf. The backside of the island once
had sea caves with petroglyphs but after a couple of tourists got 
killed exploring them they were dynamited shut in the 50's.
The site may well be earlier, you can see where the rocks were scorched
by fires at a series of places leading down some thirty or forty feet
below the present low tide. The dates were obtained from close to the
top of an eroding bluff, much of which has been washed away by storms.
There was also some exploration done on the backside of the island
which included the location of an as yet unexplored mound and on 
Mannana island. Mananna has some petroglyphs. There is another site 
up the St George river with petroglyphs also.
steve

On 1 Oct 1996 03:06:06 GMT, gans@scholar.nyu.edu (Paul J. Gans) wrote:
>
>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,
if the above is but an offer to play straight man in what you may
conceive of as interesting comedy, i'd suggest that there are other
groups to which such a post might be appropriate...sci. archeology
should concern itself with science and with archeology...i've
difficulty seeing how your post addresses either...
as you've knowledge neither of what i may have read nor of where i may
have been, your "you folks" comment bears little more weight than the
flutterwings of your little fairies...hardly a reasoned comment...nor
evidence of scientific mind...
if you'd like to join a reasoned discussion of what evidence we have
on which to base our conclusions about the pyramids, i welcome you,
and will with all civility respond...but if you merely wish to rauk
about, provoking emnity, i'll not...
frank

Susan Brassfield wrote:
> 
> In article <844002332snz@bozzie.demon.co.uk>, pcd@bozzie.demon.co.uk wrote:
> > Von D's predictions do tend to make one wonder how much truth there
> might be in
> > the old maxim, "quem Deus perdere vult, dementat prius".
> 
> Could I get this in English? I don't speak Italian.
> 
> Susan
> 
> --
> Doubt cannot injure or even perturb the truth.
> The truth is a citadel about which the breezes of doubt play.
It is not Italian but Latin, meaning, I think, something like "whenever 
God becomes lost, confusion sets in".  My Latin is very rusty, so 
perhaps someone else can give a more accurate translation.

Peter wrote:
> 
> In article <52jkdn$pao@news1.io.org> yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
> >Peter van Rossum (pmv100@psu.edu) wrote:
> >: In article <52ee5c$bnd@news1.io.org> yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
> >: Have you seen any references where the author directly takes on the
> >: question of whether a natural dispersal is plausible or not and gives
> >: specific reasons for their acceptance, or rejection of it?  I spent 4
> >: hours in the library earlier this week looking in various sources.
> >: While some favored the human dispersal and some favored the natural
> >: dispersal, none gave specific reasons why they accepted, or rejected,
> >: the natural dispersal alternative - they all just took a position on
> >: the matter without explaining their logic.
> 
> >Peter, what you've been looking for certainly exists. I have given you
> >two good leads already, and here they are again:
> 
> No you haven't given me even one good lead.  You have not provided
> anything related to my question (see below).
> 
> >A wealth of material on this and other issues can be found in Riley, C.
> >L., et al, eds, MAN ACROSS THE SEA; PROBLEMS OF PRE-COLUMBIAN CONTACTS,
> >Univ. of Texas Press, Austin, 1971. I just got hold of this book, and it
> >contains a whole lot about the potato. And this from my previous post is
> >certainly relevant:
> 
> >[[[ A long list of references is given in a footnote at the bottom of the
> >page. ]]] (p. 356)
> 
> Yuri you are playing kind of fast and loose here.
> 
> 1. While Brand references a number of sources, he doesn't say that
>    any give explicit reasons for accepting or rejecting the natural
>    dispersal hypothesis.  That is what I'm looking for.  I'll check
>    the references out later this week but I doubt any will give
>    their reasoning.
> 
> 2. The final sentence of the article actually indicates that he would
>    like to see more exploration of the natural dispersal hypothesis.
>    "the suggestion by Yen (1960:373) and Bulmer (1965) as to the role
>    of birds should be given more attention." (Brand 1971:365).  This
>    contradicts your position that the natural dispersal hypothesis
>    is ludicrous.
> 
> and finally,
> 
> 3. BRAND REJECTS THE PRE-COLUMBIAN HUMAN DISPERSAL HYPOTHESIS.  He
>    hypothesizes that the sweet potato was brought to Portugal before
>    1500 A.D. and then spread westward, eventually arriving in
>    Polynesia to be discovered by European explorers on those islands
>    (Brand 1971:359).
> 
> While I don't agree with Brand's post-contact hypothesis (it would
> be refuted by the Hather & Kirch's finding), I find it interesting
> that you failed to mention these important facts.
> 
> >Further, I referred you to the work of Donald Lathrap. In 1977, Lathrap
> >published a seminal work, OUR FATHER THE CAYMAN, OUR MOTHER THE GOURD. It
> >is included in the important volume, ORIGINS OF AGRICULTURE, C. A. Reed,
> 
> Did I miss something or does this reference have absolutely nothing
> to do with the topic?  I asked if you've seen anything where the
> author directly addresses the theory of the natural dispersal of
> the sweet potato, not the bottle gourd.  I read through the article
> and could find nothing that dealt with the spread of the sweet potato.
> 
> >more important works about diffusion, including the article by George C.
> >Carter, A HYPOTHESIS SUGGESTING A SINGLE ORIGIN FOR AGRICULTURE. They
> >talk about potato, and it is more recent.
> 
> >Yuri.
> 
> Again, Carter never gives specific reasons for discounting the natural
> dispersal hypothesis.  He feels that contact can be demonstrated by
> other cultural factors, and therefore, human transport is simpler.
> While Carter may feel there are supporting lines of evidence I do not
> believe there is sufficient evidence to support the contact hypothesis.
> Again, all I need is *one* verifiable pre-columbian Polynesian artifact
> in a pre-columbian South American context which could not have arrived
> by natural means to believe that contact occurred.  I am not aware
> of any such artifact.
> 
You might have to define what you mean by "verifiable."  I remember
reading Heyerdahl's works where he claims that the round earplugs
used for ear extension in South America and Easter Island originated from
"Aryans" from the Indian subcontinent.  He claimed that there was no
evidence of these earplugs to the east of India, so these hypothetical
"Aryans" must have sailed around Africa and across the Atlantic.
The problem is, I can go to some tribal areas of the Philippines to this 
day and find people still wearing such earplugs.  In fact, one of 
Heyerdahl's own references discusses the presence of these items in 
Indonesia and Melanesia.  
Heyerdahl, Paul Shao and others have noted a number of possible artifacts
that may or may not be "verifiable."   I remember the presence of cotton
used to be another consideration.  But regarding the sweet potato are any 
other examples given of a cultigen being dispersed naturally?  Are these
"verifiable?"
Whether South American Natives (or North American) first sailed to
the Pacific, or vice a versa, probably after contact both would have 
joined in the voyages.  The gene flow was probably not that great, but 
the work of Rebecca Cann and other geneticists does, in my opinion, show 
that some gene flow occurred.
Paul Kekai Manansala
Austronesian Navigation 
http://www.he.net/~skyeagle/austro.htm

In article <52hpjn$muo@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>, Stella Nemeth
 writes
>The bride was beautiful.  The groom was nervous.  A great time was had
>by all.  Additional details available by e-mail.
>
>
>Stella Nemeth
>s.nemeth@ix.netcom.com
>
I, for one, am pleased to have you and your sane views back.  Glad it
all went well.
-- 
Kathy McIntosh

piotrm@umich.edu (Piotr Michalowski) wrote:
>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.  
>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.  
I was under the impression that there were some "administrative" texts
found in Boghazkoey as well, but I may be wrong (I've never seen the
Hurrian texts from Hatussas).  As to the famous "horse-treatise", it
is said to have been written by "Kikkuli, a Hurrian from the land of
Mitanni", which doesn't prove anything either way [is that "Janssen, a
Dutchman from the Netherlands" or "Carrasquer, a Spaniard from the
Netherlands"?].
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal                     ~ ~
Amsterdam                   _____________  ~ ~
mcv@pi.net                 |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig

Jiri wrote: 
>How about the Reefer Madness under the pyramids? 
Well believe it or not, there has just been an Equinox documentary 
on Channel 4 in the UK relating how traces of cannabis have been 
found in mummies.

Apologies for including the full text but I couldn't see a way of
editing it without losing the thread....
Baron Szabo  wrote:
>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.
I recall reading a book some years ago which stated that in Africa
these flood legends tell of survivors of a great disaster coming from
the West whilst the South/Central American legends told of survivors
of a great disaster coming from the East. These 'survivors' were said
to have brought skills and knowledge with them which were unknown to
the contemprary civilisations - may be crap but it was an interesting
aspect on the 'genesis' legend.
>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.
Hancock and other authors state that when Cortez arrived the Mayans
thought it was Quetzalcotl (sp) or Viracoha returning (as promised)
which is why they were caught unprepared and slaughtered - is this
established fact?
>> 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.
But, as far as I know, only the Meso Amercians and the Egyptians
actually built pyramids, neither the great Indian or Chinese
civilisations did (waiting to get shot down in flames here!) So why
only these two cultures? 
>> 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.
Could be copies of copies of copies, basically as this was a land mass
no longer present (due to ice coverage) or even known about by more
recent (AD) times then it is possible that accuracy was lost over the
millenium.
>> 
>> 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...
I'd like to know of what evidence there is that proves that there is
no common genesis because, if there is nothing concrete then I'm
amazed that there has been no serious research in that area..
>> 
>> 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.)
I don't know when the Antartica was ice free but would its freezing up
need to have been because of earth crust displacement.
>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)
Okay, see above.
However, did I not read somewhere just recently that scientists have
just discovered that the earth's mantle is acctually not solid as
previously thought but that there is in fact a liquid or molten layer
near the crust?
>> 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 guess it's pretty hard to actually research in any physical sense
ECT and I know that he has not returned to it in Keeper of Genesis so
I keep an open mind on it for now.
>> 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...?)
Two things occur to me, archeologists like other researchers feel they
have to produce results to be taken seriously (and to achieve 'fame)
and they also have to worry (as do scientists) about appearing
'respectable' to their peers - no one wants their theories laughed at
or scorned. Researchers, again like scientists, need funding in order
to continue to operate and so must feel pressure to 'toe the line',
who is going to fund a renegade or 'madman'? I also believe that many
researchers are brought up to believe that non conformists are somehow
missing the point or are charlatens at best, In the light of that it
is hardly surprising that so few are willing to go out on a limb and
espouse highly controversial theories. This is where people like
Bauval, Hancock, Gilbert and Wilson are so valuable. Because their
'out there' theories are what sells their books, they are not
constrained by conventional thinking or by peer pressure. Whilst this
is a position that can obviously be abused (Von Daniken and T. Lobsang
Rampa spring to mind) it does ensure that 'out there' theories do get
aired and perhaps that 'balance'between orthodox and non-orthodox
thinking is where we might one day find the truth.
Just Dave's pet theory :-)
Thanks for your response and apologies to all for the length of this
post.
Regards,
Dave

-A31755@DO2
Hi!
BS>How did they keep the perimeter measurements so exact? (IE: how did
BS>they accurately measure these long distances?)
BS> How did they grade the level of the steps so well? (wouldn't they
BS>have needed to see from corner to corner of a flat    plane and have a
BS>good levelling tool?)
The measurement of north/south is very simple. In fact, there are two ways to
get the precise north direction. One uses a schadow pole and the sun. When
the sun rises, the shadow it casts is long, it becomes shorter till noon,
then it becomes longer again. You must simply measure the length of the
shadow of the pole and mark its end when it is, let's say 2 meters long in
the morning. Then you have to wait until the shadow in the afternoon is again
exactly 2 meters long. Then you draw a line petween these two markers and
draw a perpendicular line to the base of the pole. This is exactly north +/-
1/2 deg. (because the sun is no point light source, but a visible disk).
The second method works with stars: You build an artificial horizont, maybe a
wall, roughly oriented in east/west direction. Then you place a fixed staff
with a sort of sight on it to the southern side and wait for stars to rise.
You measure the exact position of this star when it appears above the
artificial horizont (the Egyptians used a long, V-notched stick, the "Bay" as
sight) and the position of the same star when it vanishes some hours later.
You measure the distance, divide it by two (eg. by folding a measure line),
draw a line from this point to the Bay, and you have a perfect North.
With this method you can reach an accuracy of a few minutes, just as the one
found in the GP. This you can do on several positions of your preferred first
ground line.
To get the east/west direction you need only two poles and two ropes. One
pole to the north, one pole to the south. To each one you fix a long rope
(both ropes must be of exactly the same length) and then you draw a
semicircle around each pole. Where the semicircles of both ropes intersect,
you place two more poles and voila, you have an exact N/S/E/W-oriented cross.
From this you can finish your baselines or you can place one of these
measurement crosses to each side.
The measurement of the plane was not done optically, its much more easy with
water. You build a wall around the building ground, fill it with water and
remove anything above the water line. Then drop the level and so on. One sure
sign that they did it not optically: The rock core in the GP. The Egypts left
an about 7 m high part of rock in the pyramid and planed only the outer
perimeter. But not even all there, because the lower two meters on the NE and
SE side are not made from individual stones, but are hewn out of the bedrock.
Bye,
  FD

>: I'm after some info on what life was like in biblical times in the
>: Middle East, their culture etc.  Pictures would be good also.
>Me thinks if you want some first hand account of life in biblical times you 
>might want to read 'The Bible' (or 'The Holy Bible').
I don't think he wants fictional accounts.  Try the translated writings of 
Flavius Josephus the Romanized Jewish writer however.
New Mexico, it ain't New and it ain't Mexico
Also known as:  "The Land of Entrapment"
Capital City:    Santa Fake

On Sun, 29 Sep 1996 22:04:06 GMT, S.NEMETH@IX.NETCOM.COM (Stella
Nemeth) wrote:
>
>I did not beat on the original poster.  Nor would I have even if I had
>been around when most of this thread originated.
>
nor would i have expected you to...yours is a consistently civil voice
on this group...others here might pull gain by by growing towards such
attitude...
>However, I am willing to "openly defend the statement that 'the
>pyramids were built and used as tombs'".
of course...courage and civility walk well together in open discourse,
i'll try to match you in the both, of question and of answer...
>....I've got a few questions for you first, however.
>When you say "the pyramids" are you talking about the three at Giza,
>or about the pyramids that were built from the middle of the 3rd
>Dynasty right through the end of the Middle Kingdom?
in space let's limit ourselves to those along both sides of the nile
from elephantine to abu roash...and in time, to those of the old
kingdom...
>......................................................................Although the
>three at Giza no longer show evidence of burial (it would be very
>surprising if they did) they are in the middle of a cemetery where the
>families of the three kings involved were buried.  The little pyramids
>in front of the big ones were certainly tombs.  The mastabas around
>the pyramids were certainly tombs.  The occasional pit grave reburial
>were certainly intended as tombs.
>
>What kind of "defense" other than the paragraph above, would you like
>to receive?
>
perhaps sakkara would be the appropriate place to start...do you
believe that the pyramid of sekemkhet was built and used as a
tomb??...by tomb i mean an enclosure that houses the physical remains
of a human...the place where the body's buried...
frank

In article <3250B6D5.6D53@iceonline.com>, Baron Szabo
 writes
>I didn't think so.    ;^>
Absence of evidence must not be taken as evidence of absence ;-)
-- 
Alan M. Dunsmuir

On Mon, 30 Sep 96 10:08:41 GMT, solos@enterprise.net (Adrian Gilbert)
wrote:
>If the pyramids weren't tombs (and I admit that since they were robbed in 
>antiquity, there have been few traces of bone etc. to catagorically prove that 
>bodies were entombed in them) then we have to explain why they were invariably 
>built in grave-yards.
perhaps we might find the more opening conclusion to be: we don't
know...perhaps again, the clinging to preconceptions as to what they
"must have been" closes off our need to inquire further into just what
those ancient people were up to...
>........I have an open mind on the subject and believe they were 
>used for rituals but we also have to face up to the fact that they probably 
>were tombs as well. After all, kings always want to be buried in prestigous 
>places (often next to the high altar in Christian cathedrals).
excellent...how mind misleading it would be for archeologists of some
future culture to describe the great cathedrals as tombs...how little
such description would descibe...
frank

-- 
Frank Joseph Yurco                           fjyurco@midway.uchicago.edu

In article <52kohb$n5i@halley.pi.net>, mcv@pi.netÁ says...
>
>whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>
>>In article <52j6ra$n6t@halley.pi.net>, mcv@pi.net says...
>>>
>>>ayma@tip.nl wrote:
>>>
>>>>Of course, the Hatti and Hurri were not IndoEuropean, so the Kurds
>>>>have nothing to do with these. But the Mitanni were Indoarian, so
>>>>likely Steve means that the Kurds were a remnant of them. 
>>>>Could be, could be not, I wouldn't dare judge. 
>>>
>>>Mitanni Indo-Aryan was already a dead language by the time of the
>>>Hittites.  Definitely no relation to the Kurds.
>
>>The modern Kurds are spread from India through Iran, Iraq, Syria,
>>Turkey and Russia. Compare the territory of the Kassites, a people
>>with Hurrian names and the territory of the Hurrians, in the 16th
>>century BC. 
>
>I see.  That's why English and French are Celtic languages, I suppose.
What's the connection you wish to make? In the case of the Hurrian 
speaking peoples which include the Mittani and the Kasites living
in the bronze age in an area where today we have modern Kurds 
speaking the modern languages of India, Iran, Iraq, Syria,
Turkey and Russia with perhaps a few more added on besides.
Nobody is claiming that the modern romance languages are of
Celtic origin, that doesn't mean the English and the French
don't have a Celtic heritage. 
In this century the English and French do not deny their Celtic 
traditions and heritage, why should the Kurds deny theirs?
>
>>Akhenaten marries a Mitanni princess some time before the Hittites
>>fight with Ramesses at the battle of Kadesh but the Hittites establish
>>Hatusas their capital as much earlier than Akhenaten. To speak of
>>the Mitanni language as dead by the time of the Hittites seems a
>>bit odd.
>
>The language of the Mitanni kingdom was Hurrian.
The languages spoken and written by the Mittani people included Hurrian.
I am not aware that there was a state language and remain to be convinced
that there was a Mitanni state. So far as I can see the Mitanni were a
people who liked to make war and train horses. In many instances their 
kings seem to have been vassals of other more powerful states and to have
acted as govenors. They had no borders and few cities. For about 150 years
they were an unruly population occupying what Egypt reffered to as the Upper 
Retnu and considered a part of its territory. Likewise the Hittites also
claimed the same territory and fought a battle with the Egyptians to decide
the issue. The Battle of Kadesh appears to have been fought at Kadesh in
the mountains where the waters of the Orontes flow north from the same
point at which the waters of the Jordan flow south.
>
>
>==
>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal    
steve

In article <52ml95$g9s@trojan.neta.com>, blair@trojan.neta.com says...
...snip...
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.
Actually the Egyptians did use unit fractions to give
very accurate proportions.
At the time the pyramids were built the Egyptians
might well have expressed the ration of a circles
circumference to its diameter as 3 + 1/8 + 1/64 = 3.140625
using Horus eye fractions. This is an error of .000967654
22/7 = 3.142857143 which is off by .001264489...
Had they arrived at a method which gave a better result they
might have carried it out to 3 + 1/8 + 1/61 + 1/5013
which is off by .00000027 and had a value a bit more accurate 
but they would not have used 355/113 as it is not a unit fraction
>
>                                --Blair
>                                  "Speaking of holes."
steve

Susan-Brassfield@uoknor.edu (Susan Brassfield) wrote:
>In article <844002332snz@bozzie.demon.co.uk>, pcd@bozzie.demon.co.uk wrote:
>> Von D's predictions do tend to make one wonder how much truth there
>might be in 
>> the old maxim, "quem Deus perdere vult, dementat prius".
>
>Could I get this in English? I don't speak Italian.
Tain't Italian.  Tis Latin.  But I think it is not the original maxim,
which used the plural, so it would be something like 'quem dei perdere
(whatever the third person plural of the irregular verb 'vult' is),
demenant prius'.  "Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad".
>
>Susan
>
>-- 
>Doubt cannot injure or even perturb the truth.
>The truth is a citadel about which the breezes of doubt play.
---------------
Larry McKnight
(this space unintentionally left blank.....

whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>All the action in the development of farming in the 3rd and 4th 
>millenia BC is to the south of the Black and Caspian seas.
All the action?  What about Sherratt's "Secondary Products Revolution"
in Europe?
>This premise that Latin pater and Sannskrit pitar resemble
>each other is unconvincing. 
Not if you add several hundred additional and systematic resemblances
to the list.
>For one thing why isn't the Egyptian "Ptah" or "sky father" 
>considered in this analysis?
Precisely because it's a single isolated example.  What "other"
Egyptian kinship terms end in "-tah"?
>The European Culture at this time consists of Balkan painted and
>Impressed ware cultures, Funnel rim pottery cultures, early painted
>ware cultures and Urnfields. 
Urnfields?  The Central European Urnfield culture is dated c. 1400 BC
(1100 bc).
>None of this culture is found to the
>east of the Dniester except for the funnel rim pottery which appears
>to be associated with trade up the Dnieper to the Vistula and the Baltic.
>Here theory conflicts greatly with the archaeological record.
J.P. Mallory, in his book "In Search of the Indo-Europeans", talks at
large of the connections between the IE homeland theory and the
archaeological record.  For the Southern Ukraine, the relevant
archaeological cultures are the Bug-Dniestr, Dniepr-Donets, Tripolye,
Sredny Stog and Yamnaya.  For the Caspian area, the Seroglazovo,
Samara and Khvalynsk.  For Central Asia, the Afanasievo and Andronovo
cultures.  Whatever you think of the Kurgan theory of IE origins (and
I happen to disagree with it), one must take these cultures into
account and deal with the issues raised by Mallory.  There may be some
excuse for ignoring and twisting linguistic facts on a forum called
sci.archaeology, there can be none for ignoring archaeological facts.
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal                     ~ ~
Amsterdam                   _____________  ~ ~
mcv@pi.net                 |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig

In <01bbaf51$e6f5c9a0$72b75c90@preinstalledcom> "William Belcher"
 writes: 
>
>Yum - I love gorgonzola!!!!
Of course a good wheel of brie is always appreciated too.  :)

Baron Szabo  wrote:
>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:
 How about "morgue" ... that is entirely different from "burial
chambers"..
It seems that a quite logical theory would be that the pyramids were
part of a burial ceremony/ritual... could the bodies have been
"prepared" for their "ordeal" in the lower chambers before their
ascent - onwards and upwards - acting out a mysterious ritual taking
in the Queen and Kings Chambers, with the shafts playing their parts
in the symbolism, after which, even tho the body may have be
symbolically placed in the sarcoph, it was removed from the pyramid
to be buried elsewhere....?
>			/\
>		       /  \
>		      /    \
>                     /      \
>	    	     \       \
>	 __________/\ \       \________
>                  /  \ \       \
>		  ```_\ \_``````       
>                     |____|  <--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.
Again, "morgue" - if, in 3,000 years time someone was to dig up a
hospital morgue they would, if they held your view, believe to have
stumbled across a burial chamber... they would be wrong...
>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/

David Coyte  wrote:
>G'day,
>I'm after some info on what life was like in biblical times in the
>Middle East, their culture etc.  Pictures would be good also.
An excellent scholarly book to read (although there are no pictures
I'm afraid) is "Ancient Israel, its life and institutions", by Roland
de Vaux. It is a little out of date, especially with regard to its
dependence on the Documentary Hypothesis, but IMO there is still
nothing to beat it. It is of course, centred on old testament times
rather than new testament.
Gareth
>Regards
>Dave
>-- 
>=======================================================
>David C Coyte
>Support Officer
>Communications & Information Systems
>Southern Queensland Institute of TAFE - Warwick College
>176-202 Dragon St
>Warwick, 4370
>Queensland
>Australia
>Phone   : +61 76 61 6242
>Fax     : +61 76 61 5255
>Mobile  : 015 623 776
>Email   : davec@sqit.qld.edu.au
>=======================================================

In <3250937B.119@ix.netcom.com> August Matthusen
 writes: 
>
>wd&aeMiller; wrote:
>> 
>> In <52pq6v$fmq@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> August Matthusen
>>  writes:
>> >
>> >In article <52mnef$mf6@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>,
>> >       millerwd@ix.netcom.com(wd&aeMiller;) wrote:
>> >
>Hoagland has his own site at http://www.enterprisemission.com/
>The same man who gave us the monuments of Cydonia, faces and pyramids 
>on Mars, soon to give us anti-gravity, and has NASA hiding buildings 
>on the moon has somehow gotten involved with the opening of the Great 
>Pyramid chamber????  
>
>Say it ain't so, Zawi.
>
>Regards,
>August Matthusen
Wow.  No wonder I had never heard of him.  Odd that Hawass wants to
kill Hancock and Bauval, yet supposedly allows this Hoagland guy to
participate in the excavation.  Hurm.  By the way, it is supposed to be
the chamber under the Sphinx, not the Pyramid door.  That's a whole
different thing.  In the interview I heard Hoagland mention some bull
about pyramids on the moon, but I dismissed it as my own imagination. 
Guess I was wrong.  If I were Hawass, I'd rather have Hancock there
than this Hoagland guy.  At least Hancock tries to make some sense.
Amanda Miller

In <52qa83$oji@cobweb.aracnet.com> "Dr. Richard X. Frager"
 writes: 
>
>>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
>
>
What was that supposed to mean?  More mission control alien encounter
crap?  I just don't get these jumps in reasoning sometimes.  Call me
stupid, but whatever happened to logical reasoning?

Mark Brodsky wrote:
> Jiri Mruzek (jirimruzek@lynx.bc.ca) wrote:
>         Human beings, of ANY race, are a resourseful bunch, capable of much
> more than the limited imaginations of people like Von D and Jiri can
> contemplate.
You make a perfectly idiotic argument. Have you got nothing better
to do? How pathetic. Since you obviously don't include me in the
human race - you must be one of those slimy Nazis, whatever color 
you are (dirty white, dirty xy, etc).
> "I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not
> sure  you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."
I have long known of the lack of connection betwixt your brain, and
your vocal chords.
Jiri

Mark Brodsky wrote:
> 
> Jiri Mruzek (jirimruzek@lynx.bc.ca) wrote:
> : > 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.
> 
> OK, then why doesn't Von D investigate some of those European
> Cathedrals. Built during the Middle ages by a bunch of illiterate, plague
> infested pesants living in thatched huts. Obiviosly they could never have
> compleated these structures without extra-terrestrial help! Oh wait, I
> forgot, they were white. Only those poor Native Americans need ETs to build
> anything, not Von D's Aryan brothers!
>         Human beings, of ANY race, are a resourseful bunch, capable of much
> more than the limited imaginations of people like Von D and Jiri can
> contemplate.
I'm fed up with racist Nazis like you, who insist on denying 
the ancient people the science, which I bring practical examples
of. Then to top it off, they turn around and accuse people like 
me, who defend the Ancients - of doing what they do.
These are people with minds like those who stoked the fires of 
Auschwitz, these are the rabid dogs of regress and intolerance.
You deny the academic excellence of the Magdalenians showing in
their Science-Art. You are a racist idiot.. You hate the Human race.
I'm forwarding your e-mail address to Simon Wiesenthal.
namon
You can always skit to Argentina..

twitch wrote:
> Jiri Mruzek  wrote in article
> > Benjamin H. Diebold wrote:

> > >  Tiwanaku is over
> > > 10,000 years old and built by space aliens. That probably constitutes
> > > over 99% of that same public will ever hear of Tiwanaku.
> > Can you prove otherwise?
> The mark of an irrational mind is..
The mark of an irrational mind is opening a debate with an insult..
namon
Can you prove otherwise?

In article <52rh2t$714@news.csus.edu> Paul Kekai Manansala  writes:
>Peter van Rossum (pmv100@psu.edu) wrote:
>> While Carter may feel there are supporting lines of evidence I do not
>> believe there is sufficient evidence to support the contact hypothesis.
>> Again, all I need is *one* verifiable pre-columbian Polynesian artifact
>> in a pre-columbian South American context which could not have arrived
>> by natural means to believe that contact occurred.  I am not aware
>> of any such artifact.
>> Peter van Rossum
>
>You might have to define what you mean by "verifiable."  I remember
>reading Heyerdahl's works where he claims that the round earplugs
>used for ear extension in South America and Easter Island originated from
>"Aryans" from the Indian subcontinent.  He claimed that there was no
>evidence of these earplugs to the east of India, so these hypothetical
>"Aryans" must have sailed around Africa and across the Atlantic.
>
>The problem is, I can go to some tribal areas of the Philippines to this 
>day and find people still wearing such earplugs.  In fact, one of 
>Heyerdahl's own references discusses the presence of these items in 
>Indonesia and Melanesia.  
Paul, I agree with you completely about the difficulty of defining what 
is a "verifiable artifact."  In some cases this would be a relatively 
simple matter.  For example stone artifacts can be directly sourced, so 
the demonstration of lithic from a Polynesian source would be a "verifiable
artifact."  In the case of something like a ceramic vessel probably the
best technique would be if the vessel was done in a South American style
(of course there can be some subjectivity in this) but found in a
Polynesian context.  
Other objects, like the earplug example you mention become very tricky 
since I don't think it takes too much imagination to think that more 
than one culture might independantly invent the same type of artifact.  
Here we would need to see things like a clear similarity in non-functional 
attributes, the same purpose for the object, if possible a linguistic 
similarity, and no antecedants in the recipient culture.  Ideally, we
would want a whole suite of traits with no previous history of use to
show up at the same time in the same culture.  This is obviously an area
where two people could look at the same evidence and conclude different
things.  This is why there is usually a diversity of opinion when it
comes to demonstration migration/diffusion vs. independant invention
questions, IMO.
>Heyerdahl, Paul Shao and others have noted a number of possible artifacts
>that may or may not be "verifiable."   I remember the presence of cotton
>used to be another consideration.  But regarding the sweet potato are any 
>other examples given of a cultigen being dispersed naturally?  Are these
>"verifiable?"
Cotton doesn't really seem to be a good candidate any more.  In the 
past it was noticed that some New World Tetraploid cottons were formed 
from a union of an Old World and a New World diploid species.  Recent 
genetic analysis suggests, however, that this incident occurred 1-2 
million years ago.  If this dating is even close to being correct it 
tends to invalidate the human contact hypothesis, a natural contact is 
preferrable (Wendel 1989, Percy & Wendel 1990).
>Whether South American Natives (or North American) first sailed to
>the Pacific, or vice a versa, probably after contact both would have 
>joined in the voyages.  The gene flow was probably not that great, but 
>the work of Rebecca Cann and other geneticists does, in my opinion, show 
>that some gene flow occurred.
>
>Paul Kekai Manansala
While genetic studies are a promising area for sorting out the history
of human evolution and migration I think you are being a bit overly 
optimistic that the "true" answer has been found.  While Cann has 
hypothesized that her genetic analyses are more consistent with a direct
Polynesia/South American contact hypothesis, this is not a firm conclusion
yet.  In response to criticisms Cann&Lum; (1996) state, "we think it wiser 
to admit that the hypothesis of direct contact [between Polynesia and 
South America] has not been adequately tested."  If even they are only 
tentative in their conclusions I think it best if we reserve judgement.
Peter van Rossum
PMV100@PSU.EDU
Cann, R.L. & J.K. Lum
  1996 "Mitochondrial Myopia: Reply to Bonatto et al." American Journal
       of Human Genetics vol 59, no. 1.
Percy, R.G. & J.F. Wendel
  1990 "Allozyme Evidence for the Origin and Diversification of Gossypium
       Barbadense L." Theoretical and Applied Genetics, vol. 79, no. 4.
Wendel, J.F.
  1989 "New World Tetraploid Cottons Contain Old World Cytoplasm" Proceedings
       of the National Academy of Science, USA vol. 86, no. 11.

In article <32514843.5018@PioneerPlanet.infi.net>, Saida
 wrote:
+> > the old maxim, "quem Deus perdere vult, dementat prius".
+> 
+> Could I get this in English? I don't speak Italian.
+It is not Italian but Latin, meaning, I think, something like "whenever 
+God becomes lost, confusion sets in".  My Latin is very rusty, so 
+perhaps someone else can give a more accurate translation.
I *hope* that's a troll.  Anyway, it renders as "Whom God wishes
to destroy, He first makes mad."
-- 
Michael L. Siemon                             mls@panix.com        
        "sempiternal, though sodden towards sundown."

Michael L. Siemon (mls@panix.com) wrote:
: In article <32514843.5018@PioneerPlanet.infi.net>, Saida
:  wrote:
: 
: +> > the old maxim, "quem Deus perdere vult, dementat prius".
: +> 
: +> Could I get this in English? I don't speak Italian.
: 
: +It is not Italian but Latin, meaning, I think, something like "whenever 
: +God becomes lost, confusion sets in".  My Latin is very rusty, so 
: +perhaps someone else can give a more accurate translation.
: 
: I *hope* that's a troll.  Anyway, it renders as "Whom God wishes
: to destroy, He first makes mad."
I think they're doing a Life of Brian routine: "These people called
romans, they go to the house?"
Matt Kriebel      *  This .sig is no longer small or easily digestible!    
gothic@netaxs.com *  No, I'm not a goth. I just have an architecture fetish.
***************************************************************************
Not so much a shotgun approach, more like a double-loaded grapeshot approach.

In article <52kei4$kk2@halley.pi.net>, mcv@pi.netÁ says...
>
>Baron Szabo  wrote:
>
>>Marc Cooper wrote:
>>> 
>>> If there were any connection between "leg" and "lugal" we should expect
>>> Sumerian words related to kingship to appear in the form of l.vowel.g.
>>> The writing, however, is GAL+LU, which does not suggest even the
>>> possibility of a borrowing from I.E. leg.
>
>>CAUTION:  presumptious amateur opinion ahead:
>
>"El que avisa no es traidor"
>
>>I think the borrowing would have gone from Sumerian (or proto-Sumerian?)
>>to IE, not the other way around.  And a diffusion occurred before the
>>time of writing.
>
>>What is the current theory?  That IE was independantly developed?  Or
>>branched VERY early on?
>
>Branched from where?
The theories I have seen begin with the fact that words in the
languages of Europe and India have similar forms and cognates
and then assume that it must have taken a very long time for 
such a wide diffusion of language to occur.
In fact the earliest known written forms of Indo European are 
2nd millenium texts, Linear B from Mycenean Greece and Luwian
from Anatolia. Scattered references in other texts to Hurrians, 
Mitanni and Kassites evidence use of Indo European names as
far to the south east as Dilmun with its connections to the 
Indus (about which Piotr and I argue ceaslessly).
>What do you consider VERY early (50,000 BC,
>10,000 BC?) 
I consider 1595 BC very early, possibly the Phaistoes Disk
as a precursor of Linear A and B c 1700 BC as well as the Luwian
pictographs uses an Indo European language. Though I agree
that the use of similar scripts does not necessaily imply
similar languages, it may well imply similar language families.
The recent similarities noted in Sumerian and the related Akkadian
may give one pause to think.
If 1595 BC is very early and 1350 BC is a bit late, then the
Mittani and their texts on horse trainning are center stage.
Since they are connected to the Hurrians and Kassites we need
to draw them into the picture as well.
The Hittites really arrive on the scene late as do the Egyptians,
but not late enough to be totally out of the picture. When Tuthmosis
first reaches the Euphrates and encouters the Hurrians, Kassites,
Mittani and Hittites, he has entered Upper Retnu.
Upper Retnu is a region which after the battle of Kadesh becomes 
Syria and Lebanon. Lebanon was then known as Phoenicia and was the 
home of a people who seem to have given the Greeks their script if 
not their language. After c 1200 BC he Phoenicians colonized
virtually every port and every river touching on the Mediterranean
as far upstream as they could row their boats. 
It thus makes some sense to look at the trade routes and cultural
interactions at this point of intersection of cultures and what
comes out of it c 2500 BC is a link to India through Dilmun, Makkan 
and Meluhha down the Euphrates to the Persian Gulf and Down the
Gulf to the Indus.
>The current theory is that IE has no known relatives.
What is Illyrian?
What is Baltic Germanic?
What is Proto Indo Iranian?
What is Indo Iranian?
What is Tocharian?
What is Indo Aryan?
What is Finno Ugarian or Uralic?
Should we buy into a theory which says IE has no relation to these?
What about Dravidian?
"Lanquage Dispersals: Indo Europeans and Semites"
The earliest urban communities, those of the Sumerians 
(third millenium BC; see page 54) were non semitic but 
their neighbors and second millenium sucessors the Akkadians 
and Assyrians represent the north east Semitic branch." 
"The Atlas of World History" Hammond, p60
Their north west neighbors on the Levantine coast were the 
urbanized cannanites, including the Arameans Phoenicians and 
Hebrews; while to the south west lay the major Hamitic speaking 
Egyptian civilization." Ibid
So Sumerian is strangely similar to Indo European or at the 
very least, non Semitic, while the culturally closely relate
Akkadian represents the north east Semitic branch of what is
apparently the language of a nomadic people caught between 
evolving urban centers, while the Egyptians are Hamitic.
When the Phoenicians colonise Utica, Scicily and Carthage
do they happen to stop by anywhere in Italy do you suppose?
How about Venice and Marseilles? What about Gades or Cadiz?
Do the Phoenicians starting c 1200 BC provide a link between 
the Egyptians, Hittites, Assyrians, Kassites, Mittani Hapiru 
and Ammuru fighting at the Battle of Kadesh less than a century 
earlier, and the Indo European speakers living in their 
Mediteranean and Aegean colonies a few centuries later?
>In no way does this mean that IE was "independently developed"
>(whatever that may mean).  It means that IE is related to other
>languages that are extinct and undocumented _and_ that IE is remotely
>related to other, extant, language families, but that the connection
>is difficult to prove against the background noise of chance
>resemblances.  It's a pretty safe bet, though not entirely provable
>for now, that IE is related to its closest neighbors: Uralic (Finnish
>and Hungarian), Etruscan and Kartvelian (Georgian).  Personally, I
>would add Sumerian, but I guess Piotr will disagree.
Yes, I am sure he will...I am quite suprised to find that 
I agree with you.
>
>
>==
>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal  
steve

Dr. Richard X. Frager  wrote in article
<52qa83$oji@cobweb.aracnet.com>...
> >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.
Still pissed that you can't get an article on sci.archeaology.moderated,
Doctor Dick?  As I recall, you voted against the setting up of that
newsgroup since they were going to require that people who posted had some
idea of what they were talking about.  I've noticed that none of your
idiotic articles are on that newsgroup!
> Time is almost up Doug, maybe not within the next few years,
> but within our lifetimes.  
I highly doubt that you'll live that long!  And, remember, I think you're a
teenager who uses his mother's computer!
>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.
> 
Is this one of your articles you're talking about here, Doctor Dick?
> 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.  
They do respect them.  That is why they ignore your articles.
>Either you are
> a complete fool Doug, or you are doing what you feel it is
> your Patriotic Duty to do.   
As above, Doctor Dick, calls someone names but gives no evidence.  Could it
be that each time he posts 'frager-evidence' it is so totally incorrect? 
Is $245 billion still between $366 billion and $1.1 trillion in your math? 
And, Doctor Dick then calls someone else a fool!
>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. 
> 
You are still pissed about not being let on sci.archaeology.moderated!  If,
instead of hitting others, you would post some real evidence, they'd let
you post articles there.  But that would require that you post an original
article or to do some original research, and that disqualifies you.
> 
> 
> >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
> 
> 
> 

In article , piotrm@umich.edu says...
>
>In article <52pbhc$kgm@halley.pi.net> mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal) 
writes:
>
>>No, but kapih. is certainly the Sanskrit word (usually connected to
>>Skrt. kapila- "brownish < smoke-colored", cf. Grk. kapnos "smoke",
>>Lat. vapor (*kwapos: another missing "k-" (see below)!) "vapor").  It
>>is considered by many (e.g. Boisacq "Dict. Etym. de la Langue
>>Grecque") the source of the Hebrew [qo^p "singe"] and Egyptian [kephi
>>"le singe du pays de Punt"] words, and via the Near East, of Greek
>>"ke^pos, ke^bos" (see below).  But I wonder how Sumerian ties in with
>>this...
>
>This is nice!  I have always wondered about this but was too lazy to 
>investigate it.  The interesting thing about the word in Near Eastern 
contexts 
>is the way in which consonants switch around.  Akkadian pagu^ (long 
contracted 
>u) does not seem to be borrowed from Sumerian ugubi, as offhand I do not 
know 
>of any loan from Sumerian with metathesis.  If it came into Akkadian through 
>Sumerian it would be *ukupu^.  The writing of the word for monkey with 
glosses 
>ugu.DUL-bi suggests that it is old, but it is not, to my knowledge attested 
>before the Old Babylonian period, although since it occurs in the Curse of 
>Agade, which we know was written much earlier, it probably is a much older 
>word.  
>
We earlier discussed the word for eat was "gu", sometimes "ku"
does "pa gu^" as a word for monkey suggest monkeys were considered
good to eat? Is the sense of the word "u gu bi" similar? What about
"u ku pu"? u gu? Could the variations in the form of the word refer
to different recipes for monkey?...Just askin...
steve

On 30 Sep 1996 20:54:24 -0700, blair@trojan.neta.com (Blair P Houghton)
wrote:
>>So the people who think it was done by aliens are the skeptics. 
>Skepticism is defined as questioning *accepted* beliefs.
Skepticism is requiring evidence and not accepting any (faith-based) belief.
Therefore, people who believe in the alien theory are not the skeptics.
>The Titanic was a slightly-altered copy of the Olympic;
>neither of them was merely scaled up from a smaller
>ship.
The engineering model was scaled up from smaller design.  The engineering
model that lets you build a one-story house won't let you build a
sky-scraper; different rules apply.
>>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.
>
>How is this example of altered manufacture an example of
>the failure of scaling?
Because on a small ship, it works perfectly well.  A small ship is much more
rigid than a large one if the same manufacturing techniques are used; that's
why you can use the same techniques.  And it isn't necessarily true that
what works for the larger scale is a superset of the smaller one, or is a
general case that can be used for any size.
--
#include 
 _
Kevin D Quitt  USA 91351-4454           96.37% of all statistics are made up
Per the FCA, this email address may not be added to any commercial mail list

In article <52s68m$8vd@shore.shore.net> whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) writes:
>In article , piotrm@umich.edu says...
>>of any loan from Sumerian with metathesis.  If it came into Akkadian through 
>>Sumerian it would be *ukupu^.  The writing of the word for monkey with 
>glosses 
>>ugu.DUL-bi suggests that it is old, but it is not, to my knowledge attested 
>>before the Old Babylonian period, although since it occurs in the Curse of 
>>Agade, which we know was written much earlier, it probably is a much older 
>>word.  
>We earlier discussed the word for eat was "gu", sometimes "ku"
>does "pa gu^" as a word for monkey suggest monkeys were considered
>good to eat? Is the sense of the word "u gu bi" similar? What about
>"u ku pu"? u gu? Could the variations in the form of the word refer
>to different recipes for monkey?...Just askin...
The word  normally means 'skull'.  In the word for 'administrator' 
, it probably means something like 'high head'.  But there seems to be 
some confusion in signs here, as I do not see a  reading for the DUL sign, 
but DUL3 can be read .  The DUL sign normally means 'to cover'.  If we 
hypothesized that  is short for , which means 'to wrinkle up' or 'to 
sniff one's nose', then we could arrive at an etymology 'wrinkled skull or 
face'.  To prove this though, one would have to find evidence of the final 
, and it doesn't sound like there are many texts available.
Regards,
John Halloran

In article <52q0d2$7f9@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>, wd&aeMiller;
 writes
>In  Jon 
>writes: 
>>
>>In article <52mnqp$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 
>Well, I rolled five six's, but I got a one on my wild die.  After that
>folly, I did better my rolling six pounds of quality cherry flavored
>tobacco in a rather large rolling paper.  Now that I've got my six-pack
>of Murphy's Irish Stout rolling about in the trunk of the car, I will
>proceed to boot the slaves in the head to make them work faster.  
>
>Hurm...we need a schematic.  You'll have to draw one up so that we know
>where exactly to direct the enslaved nazi's as they dig our
>subterranean tunnel to Atlantis for us.
>
>Amanda
You rolled 5 sixes - GASP - now I know how you can afford to be a
student in Las Vegas!  OK a schematic - well, there's a new list
server sending computational archaeology down the line -
to subscribe send email to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU
 and get loads of free software, which addded to the load of 
geophysical stuff I have one my machine already, plus the stuff
available from NASA, should be directly programmable into my two
electrode mind control system (Yeah yeah yeah - Bill Gates will you pipe
down when I'm talking) - I have a bug - and should show the best way to
dig the tunnel - start by going UMMMMhhmm West and erhrr AH YES! Down!
-- 
Jon 

rg10003@cus.cam.ac.uk (R. Gaenssmantel) wrote:
>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.
Ralf, I certainly hope that you did not major in math.  While you managed 
to convert .01 inch to mm correctly, you went badly astray on converting 
75 inches to cm.  The proper way to do this is to multiply 75 by 2.54 = 
190.5, not 85.
>[...]
>: 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'. 
"Whoever wrote this"??? Try Flinders Petrie -- merely the Father of Modern 
Archaeology (although needless to say, he cannot hold a candle to the 
geniuses on this board)
>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
You lost me somewhere.  Again, the point is that Petrie, one of the most 
famous archaeologists of all time -- not to mention a major skeptic of 
Pyramidology -- could not explain how the Pyramid builders put the casing 
stones together.  If you want more food for thought, try this statement 
from Petrie's "Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh":  "...the lathe appears to 
have been as familiar an instrument in the fourth dynasty, as it is in 
modern workshops."  There's more, and when I have Petrie's chapter on "The 
Mechanical Methods of the Pyramid Builders" scanned in to the computer, 
I'll post it.

Alan M. Dunsmuir wrote:
> 
> Absence of evidence must not be taken as evidence of absence ;-)
Good man, you're learning!!  (or joking, anyway)   :~p
-- 
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/