Subject: Egyptian Trade Words
From: Saida
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 1996 10:32:31 -0500
People have asserted in this group that commerce may have been an activity necessitating
cultures borrow terminology from one another. Measuring and weighing would have been an
essential part of trade. While I suspect that Egyptian words having to do with weights
and measures are numerous, here are a few I find strikingly familiar:
The Egyptian word for scales is "ma'akhet", the determinative of which is a picture of a
scales. "M'shit" is another scales word. "Merkh-et" is a measurer of time, perhaps a
water clock. "Metchat" is a measure of capacity, a "metch" being 78.78 litres.
Now I know the Latin for measure is "metiri", but the Egyptian here is very suggestive,
too, of words such as "mark", "market", (mark, such as in time, where one looks for the
mark that indicates the hour) and "measure".
A "mark" is an old European unit of weight for gold and silver equal to about 8 ounces.
It is said to come from the Latin "marca", but "ma'akhet" may have something to do with
this as well. "M'kai" means "to measure" in Egyptian.
The word "weigh" is described as follows: L. "vehere", AS. "wegan", Ger. "wiegan (or
"wagen" with an umlaut), the IE base being "wegh".
The Egyptian for "weigh" is "wadja'a" or "udja'a". The first glyph, the chick, is
unclear as to pronunciation, representing both "w" and "u". The determinative here is
an arm balancing something.
A "peg" or "pek" is a measure in a bowl or 0,7106 grammes.
When I was a child, we had at home an old battered measuring device from Europe that my
mother, not then being familiar with English units, used in baking. I still recall that
it had the word "Messbecher" written on it. Later, I discovered that was German for
"measuring-beaker".
The word "beaker" comes from, it is said, the Latin "bicarium" or "wine cup",
corresponding to the Greek "bikos" or "wine jar". A beaker is also, however, used by
chemists and druggists. However, in Egyptian, there is also a vessel called a
"betchar". Its use is not clear--the determinative is merely a pot. However, if one
puts this word together with the term for "measure", one gets "metchbetchar", which
sounds a lot like the thing my mother once used.
Speaking of chemists--the ancient ones used a mortar and pestle to grind up their
ingredients for mixture. The Egyptian for "mixture" is "mekta" and a "pesset" is a
granule or pill. This last word undoubtedly comes from "pesesh", to separate or
distribute. Perhaps, ultimately, this is where we get "pestle". "Megru" is "to grind"
and the "megerg" is the item that corresponds to the "mortar". BTW, in old England,
people with colds used to drink something called a "posset", a word of unclear origin
that consisted of milk curdled with ale, wine, etc., usually spiced. It is not
impossible that "posset" is somehow related to "pesset", in that "pesset" perhaps came
to be regarded as more than just a term for a pill or pellet and also had the meaning of
"the cure".
Subject: Re: The Egyptian concept of Ma'at in the Platonic Dialoges: was Re: Egyptian Tree Words
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 2 Oct 1996 16:57:42 GMT
In article <52s3bs$bfa@halley.pi.net>, mcv@pi.netÁ says...
>
>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?
"One scholar, Andrew Sherratt has looked beyond the initial stage of
domestication to ask whether there was not a second and later
stage""Archaeology", Renfrew, Bahn, p 287
Essentially the idea is that in the 4th millenium BC people
began to use animals for milk and cheese instead of just meat
and hides, and they began to use their muscle power for
transportation and to plow fields...the obvious inference
was that these secondary materials provided one impetus for trade.
The evidence comes from south of the Black and Caspian seas.
"His evidence consists to some extent of tools but largely of
artistic depictions - in Sumerian pictograms from Uruk,
Mesopotamian cylinder seals in murals and models." Ibid
"Antiquity Vol: 67:492--3", see also
THE FIRST PALACES IN THE AEGEAN
This document is one section of a course on Aegean prehistory
put together by Jeremy Rutter of Dartmouth College.
The rest of the materials, including...
http://rome.classics.lsa.umich.edu/11.FirstPalaces.0393.html
- size 25K - 11 Feb 94
It mentions the Secondary Products Revolution in the broader
sense of trade.
The real issue is whether or not the emergence of the Indo
European Linear B in the Aegean is the result of influence from
the north (farming by land folk) or the south (trade with sea people)
"Renfrew in 1972 was the first to propose a theoretical model
for the indigenous development of "civilization" in the Aegean.
More recently, alternative models have been suggested by Gamble
and Halstead. By far the most prolific, as well as most provocative,
authority on the subject within the past decade has been Cherry, who
deserves much of the credit for making the question of what he terms
"the emergence of the state"
Sherratt, van Andel, and Runnels and the Secondary Products
Revolution (1981, 1983, 1988)
Van Andel and Runnels reject the notion that Halstead's model
of "social storage", conceived as a strategy to avoid risk in
a marginal environment, can have resulted in the palatial
economies of the Aegean for two reasons: first, since no society
could hope to accumulate a surplus at the expense of its immediate
neighbors for the simple reason that whatever surplus it did
generate could theoretically be called upon by those neighbors
in an emergency, there was no particular incentive for the creation of
truly significant surpluses; and second, the palatial economies which
eventually arose on Crete were located in comparatively fertile and
climatically less risky areas, that is, not in regions where the
principles of "social storage" might have been best appreciated
and most readily adopted.
========================================================================
Van Andel and Runnels prefer to return to an alternative explanatory
hypothesis championed by Renfrew in 1972, one focussing attention
on trade (whether commercial or based upon gift-exchange of prestige
items), craft specialization, and the resulting accumulation of
wealth by an elite.
====================================================================
In their view, a modest network of trans-Aegean trade routes had
gradually come into existence between late Mesolithic and Final
Neolithic times.
=================================================================
Late in the 4th millennium B.C., the introduction
of animals exploited for traction in tandem with the ard
(a primitive plough) and the use of animal fertilizer opened
up extensive areas of previously unused land to rain-fed agriculture.
In addition, increased emphasis on the secondary products generated
by animal husbandry (e.g. milk, cheese, wool/hair, hides) raised
the demand for grazing land.
====================================================================
Thirdly, improved shipbuilding technology as evidenced by the advent
of the longboat (at least by the time of the Keros-Syros culture of
EC IIA, if not earlier) and the sail (certainly by the EM III period)
made possible bulk transport of goods on a scale and across distances
not previously practicable.
==================================================================
The result of these changes was the colonization and exploitation
of the Aegean islands and of previously neglected areas of the
Peloponnese, a process which still further promoted trade and
possibly at the same time increased the variety of the items exchanged.
[to the south of the Baltic and Caspian seas]
==================================================================
The broadly contemporary development of lead, copper, gold, silver,
and bronze technology and what one imagines was a brisk exchange of
both metallic raw materials and finished goods further enhanced the
development of trade networks.
===================================================================
These would have been punctuated by exchange centers (emporia) at
fairly regular intervals, centers where wealth may have accumulated
quite rapidly in the hands of emerging elites. The seats of
these elites eventually became the foci of the first Aegean states.
======================================================================
The model proposed by van Andel and Runnels is not without its own
problems. They are very casual about chronology and lump together
in fairly tight cause-and-effect fashion a series of developments
which spanned more than a millennium.
=====================================================================
Their emphasis on the prominent role of Sherratt's "secondary
products revolution" may be misplaced in that weaving
(of wool, one imagines) was clearly already a major industry
at Knossos well back in the Neolithic and thus hardly a novel
development of the 3rd millennium.
==============================================================
Moreover, if trade played such an important role in the emergence
of elites, why did obvious middlemen like the Cycladic islanders,
who furthermore had the readiest access to such regionally
restricted raw materials as obsidian (Melos), emery (Naxos),
marble (several islands), silver and lead (Siphnos and eastern Attica),
and perhaps copper and gold as well, not become the architects of the
Aegean's first palatial polities?
[possibly because this was the role of the sea people]
=========================================================
If van Andel and Runnels are right, it is far from clear
why Minoan Crete should have been the home of the Aegean's first
civilization, although Aegina's importance at the same early stage
of the Middle Bronze Age is very well accounted for by their model.
Bibliography
K. Branigan, "Craft Specialization in Minoan Crete," in O. Krzyszkowska and
L. Nixon (eds.), Minoan
Society (Bristol 1983) 23-32.
K. Branigan, "Some Observations on State Formation in Crete," in E. B. French
and K. A. Wardle
(eds.), Problems in Aegean Prehistory (Bristol 1988) 63-71.
K. Branigan, "Social Security and the State in Middle Bronze Age Crete,"
Aegaeum 2 (Lige 1988)
11-16.
G. Cadogan, "The Rise of the Minoan Palaces," BICS 28(1981) 164-165.
J. F. Cherry, "Evolution, Revolution, and the Origins of Complex Society in
Minoan Crete," in O.
Krzyszkowska and L. Nixon (eds.), Minoan Society (Bristol 1983) 33-45.
J. F. Cherry, "The Emergence of the State in the Prehistoric Aegean,"
Proceedings of the Cambridge
Philological Society 30(1984) 18-48.
J. F. Cherry, "Polities and Palaces: Some Problems in Minoan State
Formation," in C. Renfrew and J.
F. Cherry (eds.), Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change
(Cambridge 1986) 19-45.
R. C. Dunnell, "Evolutionary Theory and Archaeology," Advances in
Archaeological Method and Theory
3(1980) 35-99.
T. W. Gallant, Risk and Survival in Ancient Greece: Reconstructing the Rural
Domestic Economy
(Stanford 1991).
C. Gamble, "Surplus and Self-Sufficiency in the Cycladic Subsistence
Economy," in J. L. Davis and J.
F. Cherry (eds.), Papers in Cycladic Prehistory (Los Angeles 1979) 122-134.
C. Gamble, "Social Control and the Economy," in A. Sheridan and G. Bailey
(eds.), Economic
Archaeology (Oxford 1981) 215-229.
A. Gilman, "The Development of Social Stratification in Bronze Age Europe,"
Current Anthropology
22(1981) 1-8.
P. Halstead, "From Determinism to Uncertainty: Social Storage and the Rise of
the Minoan Palace," in
A. Sheridan and G. Bailey (eds.), Economic Archaeology (Oxford 1981) 187-213.
P. L. J. Halstead, "Counting Sheep in Neolithic and Bronze Age Greece," in I.
Hodder, G. Isaac, and N.
Hammond (eds.), Pattern of the Past. Studies in Honour of David Clarke
(Cambridge 1981) 307-339.
P. Halstead, "On Redistribution and the Origin of Minoan-Mycenaean Palatial
Economies," in E. B.
French and K. A. Wardle (eds.), Problems in Aegean Prehistory (Bristol 1988)
519-530.
P. L. J. Halstead and J. O'Shea, "A Friend in Need is a Friend Indeed: Social
Storage and the Origins of
Scoial Ranking," in C. Renfrew and S. Shennan (eds.), Ranking, Resource and
Exchange (Cambridge
1982) 92-99.
J. M. Hansen, "Paleoethnobotany in Greece: Past, Present, and Future," in N.
C. Wilkie and W. D. E.
Coulson (eds.), Contributions to Aegean Archaeology: Studies in Honor of
William A. McDonald
(Minneapolis 1985) 171-181.
J. M. Hansen, "Agriculture in the Prehistoric Aegean: Data versus
Speculation," AJA 92(1988) 39-52.
G. E. M. Jones, K. Wardle, P. Halstead, and D. Wardle, "Crop Storage at
Assiros," Scientific American
254:3 (1986) 96-103.
J. Lewthwaite, "Why Did Civilization Not Emerge More Often? A Comparative
Approach to the
Development of Minoan Crete," in O. Krzyszkowska and L. Nixon (eds.), Minoan
Society (Bristol 1983)
171-183.
R. A. McNeal, "The Legacy of Arthur Evans," California Studies in Classical
Antiquity 6(1974) 205-220.
J. O'Shea, "Coping with Scarcity: Exchange and Social Storage," in A.
Sheridan and G. Bailey (eds.),
Economic Archaeology (Oxford 1981) 167-183.
C. Renfrew, "Polity and Power: Interaction, Intensification and
Exploitation," in C. Renfrew and M.
Wagstaff (eds.), An Island Polity: the Archaeology of Exploitation in Melos
(Cambridge 1982) 264-290.
C. N. Runnels and J. Hansen, "The Olive in the Prehistoric Aegean: The
Evidence for Domestication in
the Early Bronze Age," OJA 5(1986) 299-308.
R. Sallares, The Ecology of the Ancient Greek World (Ithaca 1991).
A. Sherratt, "Plough and Pastoralism: Aspects of the Secondary Products
Revolution," in I. Hodder, G.
Isaac, and N. Hammond (eds.), Pattern of the Past: Studies in Honour of David
Clarke (Cambridge
1981) 261-306.
A. G. Sherratt, "The Secondary Exploitation of Animals in the Old World,"
World Archaeology 15(1983)
90-104.
T. H. Van Andel and C. N. Runnels, "An Essay on the 'Emergence of
Civilization' in the Aegean World,"
Antiquity 62(1988) 234-247.
P. M. Warren, "The Genesis of the Minoan Palace," in R. Hgg and N. Marinatos
(eds.), The Function
of the Minoan Palaces (Stockholm 1987) 47-56.
L. V. Watrous, "The Role of the Near East in the Rise of the Cretan Palaces,"
in R. Hgg and N.
Marinatos (eds.), The Function of the Minoan Palaces (Stockholm 1987) 65-70.
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
>>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"?
"Ptah" probably has the literal sense of "the place that things
come forth from", hence the slang sense of the word "peter"
Why do you presume that the cognate is "father" used in the
sense of kinship as oposed to "father" used in the Biblical
sense of "creator"?
Why is the suffix of more interest than the root of the word?
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
>>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).
Yes. The period of discussion is the development of language.
The development of language might go back before the development
of farming but could be safely termed undeveloped prior to about
the 7th millenium BC when farming began in Europe.
It was also a part of the discussion that a major impetus
to the spread of the Indo European language came after
the period of about 150 years when the Hurrians, Mittani
and Kassites were in contact with The Hittites, Egyptians,
Nomadic Semites and very likely the cultures of India.
The Phoenicians c 1200 BC, were mentioned as one of the possible
mechanisms involved in the spread of language so it makes some sense
to look at the civilizations of Europe all the way down through the
Urnfields.
To briefly touch on the chronology involved.
"Agriculture first reached the Balkans in the 7th millenium BC,
probably spreading from Anatolia." TAA p 86
"Farming villages first appeared in southern Italy and Scicily
c 6200 BC spreading from the Balkans" Ibid
"In Central Europe farming began c 5400 BC as evidenced by the
linear incised pottery called Bandcekeramic."Ibid
"In the lower Danube cattle bones suggest their use as plough
animals c 4500 BC," [this is the sort of secondary products
revolution refered to by Andrew Sherratt.]Ibid p 114
"The period c 4500BC -2500 BC is typified by the building
of megaliths in Europe and the widespread use of copper."Ibid
"In Central Europe following c 2000 BC there is an increased
emphasis on the use of hillforts, society was becoming increasingly
militaristic, by c 1250 BC new types of weaponry had been adopted
throughout Europe including bronze slashing swords" [such as were
carried on the Anatolian wreck mentioned in an earlier thread.]Ibid
"Sheet bronze metal work was a feature of the Urnfield period
in Central Europe c 1,100 BC" Ibid
>>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.
All of these cultures to the east of the Dniester are characterized
by funnel rim pottery as described above are they not?
> For the Caspian area, the Seroglazovo, Samara and Khvalynsk.
> For Central Asia, the Afanasievo and Andronovo cultures.
None of these cultures are characterised by funnel rim pottery
do you disagree?
>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.
So are we are agreed, there is no ceramic connection between the
cultures to the east and west and there is a change in lifestyle
from agrarian to pastoral nomadism as well between these regions.
>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.
There is a difference between linguistic speculation and
archaeological fact, I agree.
>
>
>==
>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
steve
Subject: Re: Sumerian etymology of the word Lugal
From: mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal)
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 1996 22:59:13 GMT
whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>>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.
And it may well not.
>The recent similarities noted in Sumerian and the related Akkadian
>may give one pause to think.
Are you saying that Akkadian is related to Sumerian?
>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.
You misspelt "but".
>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?
I don't know, we have no Illyrian texts. If the Messapian language,
spoken in S. Italy, is Illyrian, as the ancients thought, then
Illyrian is an Indo-European language.
>What is Baltic Germanic?
Yes, what is Baltic Germanic?
>What is Proto Indo Iranian?
A hypothetical Indo-European language.
>What is Indo Iranian?
A language family, consisting of the Iranian languages and the
Indo-Aryan languages.
>What is Tocharian?
Two Indo-European languages.
>What is Indo Aryan?
An IE language family, whose oldest known representative is Vedic
Sanskrit.
>What is Finno Ugarian or Uralic?
Finno-Ugric is a language family consisting of the Finnic languages
(Saami-Baltic Finnic, Volga Finnic and Permian Finnic) and the Ugric
languages (Hungarian, Khanty and Mansi).
Uralic is a language family embracing Finno-Ugric and the Samoyedic
languages.
>Should we buy into a theory which says IE has no relation to these?
Most Indo-Europeanists and most Uralicists accept that there might be
a relation between IE and Uralic.
>What about Dravidian?
Elamo-Dravidian has been connected to Nostratic, but not even all
Nostraticists are convinced.
>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.
You may put it like this, yes. Note that Semitic and Egyptian *are*
related (Afro-Asiatic, fka Hamito-Semitic).
>When the Phoenicians colonise Utica, Scicily and Carthage
>do they happen to stop by anywhere in Italy do you suppose?
There is a bilingual Etruscan-Phoenician inscription from Pyrgi.
>How about Venice and Marseilles?
Don't think so.
>What about Gades or Cadiz?
Sure.
>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?
As there were Indo-Europeans in Europe several _millennia_ before 1200
BC, the answer is an emphatic "no."
>>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.
Agreement, like disagreement, is not always transitive.
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal ~ ~
Amsterdam _____________ ~ ~
mcv@pi.net |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig
Subject: To Dave Parry! Sorry, I lost the thread...
From: Baron Szabo
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 1996 16:09:19 -0700
Dave Parry wrote:
>
> Apologies for including the full text but I couldn't see a way of
> editing it without losing the thread....
Erasing the quoted text shouldn't interfere with the thread.
I could be wrong...
> 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.
There is much interesting myth out there. Don't worry about what's crap
and what's not too much, yet. And don't worry if one of our skeptics
tell you a myth is crap either. They firmly believe that you can't look
at myth as evidence of real history. I disagree.
> 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?
Established fact usually doesn't venture into what wasn't recorded in
writing. However you can feel assured that that is indeed what
happened.
But who says that they're religion believed in a blue-eyed god?
(beside Hancock?)
> 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?
Arguably, the Chinese had some pyramidic earth mounds in their earliest
history. But scientists are loathe to call these "pyramids". Also, the
Near Easterners had "ziggurats" that looked similar to the Mayan
pyramids in that they were also "step pyramids".
Remember, I'm only trying to fill you in on what explanations to expect
from scientists, skeptics, and generally knowledgable people. I'm not
going to go to any length to debate this stuff.
(this time comes from my studying time...)
> [re: Piri Reis map]
> 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.
Yes. That is Hapgood's explanation, that Piri Reis attributed the map to
a melding of many other source maps.
> 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..
The scientific thing is that the burden of proof is on the bearer of the
newly proposed theory.
As far as the "common genesis" theory: In order to even call it a
theory, someone has to do the footwork and amalgamate the different
origin myths from world-wide cultures and archaeology. This is not what
Hancock has done. He has only shown *common* myths, not the uncommon
ones. Makes it much easier, huh?
> I don't know when the Antartica was ice free but would its freezing up
> need to have been because of earth crust displacement.
No. Good question though... I wonder what caused the ancient freezing
of Antarctica.
> 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?
The harder outer crust lies on a much thicker "mantle" layer. This
mantle is semi-liquid, consisting of a violent mix of molten rock and
superhot steam thrashing about. And this isn't something that they just
discovered, although it is possible that they recently confirmed it.
> 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.
There is good reason why he hasn't returned to it...
But, yeah, I sorta keep an open mind to it still.
I should say, that I disagree that ECT is difficult to research in a
physical sense. All the refuting evidence, ice-cores, paleomagnetic
data, hot spots, etc. are very physical aspects that (I hate too say)
Graham Hancock failed to check on. (or at least address)
If you want to look more into the arguements that question the ice-core
data, and other related stuff, you can try the SIS (Society for
Interdisciplinary Studioe). Find the URL at my link list page -
zoomQuake, see bottom of post. When there, choose "archaeoastronomy
theories" from the zoomMenu, (or text-search "interdisciplinary"), and
you should find it. If you email Ian Tresman from there he can provide
you with this info, although it is pretty technical stuff.
Feel free to briefly tell me of anything cool that you read in KOG, as I
am not able to read it for quite a while.
> 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.
Damn rights!
Talk ot you later.
--
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: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 2 Oct 1996 19:50:12 GMT
In article <52u74v$84m@halley.pi.net>, mcv@pi.netÁ says...
>
>whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>
>>In article , piotrm@umich.edu says...
>>>
>>>In article <52ooka$1ct@halley.pi.net> mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal)
>>writes:
>>>>
>>>>Depends on what the area is, and on your choice of "Urheimat" for PIE.
>>>>The currently most popular thesis puts PIE to the north of the Black
>>>>Sea,
>
>>This is precisely the point of the objection. All of the archaeological
>>evidence shows that people were developing civilizations to the south
>>of the Black Sea and that while perhaps there was some trade across it
>>and up the rivers which feed into it at a later date, civilization in
>>the fourth millenium BC was still a southern phenomenon..
>
>>Why would they less civilized area be likely to influence the
>>development of language in the more civilized area?
>
>Why would Germanic tribes overrun the Western Roman Empire [OK, little
>linguistic impact there],
There was some Germanic influnce on parts of the western Roman Empire
the British Isles and Germany in particular, but the reason were that
the Germans were a settled civilzed people who had cities and practiced
agriculture. They were not nomadic hordes in the sense that the Visigoths,
or Huns or Mongols were.
>why would Arabs from the desert have any influence over the
>Aramaic Near East
That is a good question. There is some evidence to suggest that
Semitic peoples moved into the peripheries of cities as Amurru
and gradually over some period of time became less nomadic and
more settled. In the case of the Semitic Habiru they built cities.
It was the cities which had influence, not the nomadic hordes.
> (and Aramaic itself came from less civilized
>places to replace civilized Akkadian),
I would beg to disagree. Aramaic is a Semitic language related
to Hebrew documented since the 7th century BC. It was the most
widely spoken vernacular of West Asia until replaced by Arabic
in the 7th century AD. By the time it got around to replacing
Akkadian, Damascus and Jerusalem were at least as advanced as
Babylon. Allowing it may have existed as early as the time of
Solomon, it certainly had highly civilized roots.
> why would Central Asian Turks have any influence over
>Hellenistic Greek spoken in Anatolia?
I don't think they did. I think the influence was carried
by sea not land. Hellenistic Greek was subject to the same
influences as were the Central Asian Turks rather than the
one influencing the other.
These things happen.
>
>>>>and the Egyptians have to wait until the second millennium to
>>>>meet the Hittites and some shadowy IE elements in the Kassites and
>>>>Mitanni.
>
>>Actually that is not at the case. The Egyptians are in contact with
>>Mesopotamia from at least the 3rd millenium BC and possibly back
>>into the predynastic Naquada II period in the 4th millenium.
>
>So?
So there is no wait involved, but rather a long and very well
interconnected relationship.
>
>>The Kassites and Mitanni have in common Hurrian names. The sphere of
>>influence for people with such Hurrian names includes the same territory
>>inhabited by the Kurds today, parts of India, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Russia
>>and Turkey were inhabited by a single people with much more in common
>>than just their names.
>
>But Hurrian is not an Indo-European language!
Follow the logic here. The Mitanni have some association with IE
and with the Hurrians and Kassites. The Kassites come to control
what was once the ancient kingdom of Dilmun which was linked through
Makkan to the Indus Valley Civilization and Meluhha.
The link thus runs from Syria and Anatolia, following the Caucasus
and Zagros mountains into central Asia and the Tigris and Euphrates
from the Persian Gulf to the Black Sea. The Black Sea connects to
the Danube running through Europe and the Persian Gulf Connects to
the Indus at the headwaters of which we have Dehli and the Ganges
running downstream to Calcutta.
>
>>>>Central Asia,
>
>>This includes the Zagros mountains.
>
>I don't think so.
Think of it as the realm once known as Persia. Persia which
included the Zagros Mountains was bordered on the east by
India, Tibet and Sinkiang (the Tais Makan Desert) on the north
by a line from the Caspian sea across the Aral sea to lake Balkhash,
on the south by the Persian Gulf and Arabia and on the west by Syria.
>>>Miguel, may I just add as a footnote that the shadowy IE
>>>elements among the Kassites are apparently only that.
>>>We still know very little about the Kassites and their language,
>
>>"36 Kasite kings ruled Babylonia for 576 years and 9 months
>>according to the Babylonian king list. Akkadian texts occasionaly
>>use Kassite words
>
>What are they? I'd be very interested in samples of the Kassite
>language.
Examples of the Kassite language include "a Kassite Babylonian
vocabulary list of 48 words, a list of 19 Kassite names with
their Babylonian equivalents, some proper names and occassional
Kassite words in Akkadian texts particularly technical terms
to do with horses." Michael Roaf CAM p 140
>>in reference to the training of horses which is
>>another link to the Mittani. The first Kassite king, Kara-indash,
>>(c1415 BC) corresponded with the Egyptian pharoah as did his sucessors
>>Kadashman-Enlil I (1374-1360 BC) and Burna-Buriash II (1359-1333 BC)"
>>Michael Roaf CAM p 141-142
>
>>"The Kassites were responsible for the standardising of Akkadian
>>and Sumerian texts." Ibid.
>
>>Late Old Babylonian - Early Kassite is dated to c 1595 BC and
>>the destruction of Babylon by the Hurrians.
>
>>"By the end of the Ur III period the Arabian Gulf was apparently
>>so completely the Dilmunite Gulf that they could safely put up
>>trading stations on Faikala right on the border of Mesopotamia."
>>"City II and City III at Qal'at Al-Bahrain" F Hojlund BTTA p 224
>
>>The Kassite period at Failaka runs from levels 3B through 4B
>>c 1600-1300 BC and includes Mittani seals.
>
>So what does this tell us about the Kassite's language? The presence
>of Mitanni seals proves nothing. Of course there were contacts
>between the Kassites and the Hurrians/Mitanni. Contacts do not imply
>that the languages were similar, though.
The Kassites are well placed to have served as a link connecting
the Indus, (eyestones, agate, carnelian, seals, metals, woods, lapis)
to the Mittani (large numbers of seals) and for that matter to Egypt
from the Hyksos through the XVIIIth Dynasty.
>
>
>==
>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
steve
Subject: Re: The Egyptian concept of Ma'at in the Platonic Dialoges: was Re: Egyptian Tree Words
From: mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal)
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 1996 00:12:10 GMT
whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>In article <52u74v$84m@halley.pi.net>, mcv@pi.netÁ says...
>>
>>whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>>
>>>Why would they less civilized area be likely to influence the
>>>development of language in the more civilized area?
>>
>>Why would Germanic tribes overrun the Western Roman Empire [OK, little
>>linguistic impact there],
>There was some Germanic influnce on parts of the western Roman Empire
>the British Isles and Germany
"Germany" was hardly part of the Roman Empire. (Neither was Ireland.)
> in particular, but the reason were that
>the Germans were a settled civilzed people who had cities and practiced
>agriculture. They were not nomadic hordes in the sense that the Visigoths,
>or Huns or Mongols were.
Excuse me. The Visigoths were Germanic too. The Germanic peoples
certainly practiced agriculture, but they had villages rather than
"towns" in the Roman sense. The Goths went through a period of
nomadic pastoralism, when they moved into the S. Russian steppe, which
is not to say they abandoned agriculture completely.
>>why would Arabs from the desert have any influence over the
>>Aramaic Near East
>That is a good question. There is some evidence to suggest that
>Semitic peoples moved into the peripheries of cities as Amurru
>and gradually over some period of time became less nomadic and
>more settled. In the case of the Semitic Habiru they built cities.
>It was the cities which had influence, not the nomadic hordes.
I was referring to the Arab Khalifate. Yes, the Arabs had cities and
practiced agriculture, but many of them were at least semi-nomadic.
As to Aramaic, it may have spread into Palestine and Mesopotamia from
the Arabian and Syrian deserts, or it may not have. It doesn't
matter. The main thing is that civilized areas are often conquered by
less civilized peoples moving in from the periphery. Sometimes the
invadors are simply assimilated and absorbed, and nothing (except
maybe a few words) remains of their languages. Other times, the
invadors impose their language on the vanquished (although some/many
autochtonous culture words remain). I agree with you in rejecting the
silly myth of "Indo-European nomad pastoralists" overrunning
everything in sight. The first thing nomads do when they conquer a
settled agricultural area is that they stop being nomads. But
inverting the myth is equally silly. If it's the language of the
"civilized" peoples that spreads and spreads among the "barbarians",
then we would all be speaking Sumerian. Or Egyptian. Oh yeah, I
forgot. We do :-)
>> why would Central Asian Turks have any influence over
>>Hellenistic Greek spoken in Anatolia?
>I don't think they did.
You don't think Turkish is spoken in Anatolia now, or you don't think
Greek was spoken in Anatolia before Manzikert?
>>>>>and the Egyptians have to wait until the second millennium to
>>>>>meet the Hittites and some shadowy IE elements in the Kassites and
>>>>>Mitanni.
>>
>>>Actually that is not at the case. The Egyptians are in contact with
>>>Mesopotamia from at least the 3rd millenium BC and possibly back
>>>into the predynastic Naquada II period in the 4th millenium.
>>
>>So?
>So there is no wait involved, but rather a long and very well
>interconnected relationship.
Between Egyptians and IE speakers?
>>>The Kassites and Mitanni have in common Hurrian names. The sphere of
>>>influence for people with such Hurrian names includes the same territory
>>>inhabited by the Kurds today, parts of India, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Russia
>>>and Turkey were inhabited by a single people with much more in common
>>>than just their names.
>>
>>But Hurrian is not an Indo-European language!
>Follow the logic here.
I'll try.
> The Mitanni have some association with IE
>and with the Hurrians and Kassites. The Kassites come to control
>what was once the ancient kingdom of Dilmun which was linked through
>Makkan to the Indus Valley Civilization and Meluhha.
>The link thus runs from Syria and Anatolia, following the Caucasus
>and Zagros mountains into central Asia and the Tigris and Euphrates
>from the Persian Gulf to the Black Sea. The Black Sea connects to
>the Danube running through Europe and the Persian Gulf Connects to
>the Indus at the headwaters of which we have Dehli and the Ganges
>running downstream to Calcutta.
You've lost me there. The logic is that language is water-soluble and
travels upstream?
>>>>>Central Asia,
>>
>>>This includes the Zagros mountains.
>>
>>I don't think so.
>Think of it as the realm once known as Persia.
I'll do no such thing. Think of Central Asia roughly as the modern
republics of Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan,
Kirghizia, and the Chinese province of Sinkiang-Uyghur.
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal ~ ~
Amsterdam _____________ ~ ~
mcv@pi.net |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig