Subject: Re: Advanced Machining in Ancient Egypt?
From: "Chris Anderson"
Date: 6 Oct 1996 06:48:35 GMT
Although I absolutely agree with your statements, I disagree that ET's
would necessarily give primitives more advanced technology. That shows a
very western viewpoint of the world. The egyptians had a stable culture
that lasted thousands of years (given some minor breaks, here and there).
That's a feat that is unequaled in human history. Why not give primitives
the tools to have a stable culture?
Chris
Steve Collins wrote in article
<533593$17ji@news.missouri.edu>...
> I have been following the threads on this group for the past five or
> six months, and one of the things I've noticed is that many people find
> it impossible to credit many ancient achievements to ancient peoples.
>
> I think any discussion of extraterrestrial origins for things such as
> the pyramids of Egypt or the monumental works of the New World are
> patently ridiculous, especially in this group, which is, supposedly, a
> scientific group.
>
> One problem I have with the extraterrestrial origin is this: If ET's
> did indeed visit Earth in ancient times, why didn't they teach our
> ancestors useful skills, or leave useable technology (such as the
> wheel-and-axle or the pulley in the new world). If I, for instance,
> was going to direct a primitive people in the construction of sculpture
> or buildings, I would teach them mathematics and help them develop a
> written language. I would not teach them how to develop the quipu, or
> knotted string, as a method of passing on complex information.
>
> The Egyptian civilization was unbroken for thousands of years, far into
> historic times. They have always been a conservative and
> tradition-bound culture. If they had knowledge and technology far
> beyond that of modern civilizations ( or even then contemporary
> cultures), it is highly unlikely that such knowledge would be lost, and
> less likely that other cultures (e.g., the greeks, who actively sought
> knowledge, or the Romans, who were excellant engineers) would not have
> discovered this knowledge after centuries of trade and cultural
> exchange.
>
> Humans are extremely versatile, intelligent and flexible. Geniuses
> arise among every generation, and every culture, in any time and any
> place on Earth has left some incredible legacy, wrought by human hands
> and conceived of by human minds that even now is incomprehensible to
> us, but is still human in origin.
>
> Perhaps we should spend our energy in discovering how humans could do
> what has been done, instead of wasting time speculating about aliens,
> or mythical kingdoms (Atlantis and Mu).
>
> To refuse to give humans credit for human achievements is to deny the
> power of the human mind and belittle all our creative impulses.
>
> Steve Collins (eyeguy@digmo.org)
>
>
>
Subject: Re: Sumerian, Ur, Excavation Graves of Kings
From: amann@mail.usyd.edu.au (Angus Mann)
Date: 06 Oct 96 13:17:19 +1000
On 05-Oct-96 05:19:15 Piotr Michalowski wrote:
>>My name is Yvonne and I'm new in this News-Group.
>>I look for some Web-Sites with Information about the Excavations
>>(1927-1929 in Ur) of the Graves of the King of Ur (A-bargi, Schub-ad).
>>Do some one know something about this Ecavations?
>>Excuse me, if I made some errors in the NewsGroup-nettikette.
>Welcome to the madhouse, Yvonne. I suspect that you might do better going to
> the library of the nearest university, if that is at all possible. Much has
> been written on Wooley's Ur excavations in the last few decades, and there
>has been quite a bit of rethinking of the finds. The chronology,
>arrangement and distribution of graves as well as many other matters have
>been written about time and time again (for example, we now read Pu-abi,
>rather than Shub-ad). What modern languages do you read---most of the
>important work has been done in English and German. I could post some
>bibliography for you. I, for one, know nothing of what might be on the net.
I did a quick search of the 'net last semester for a Near Eastern assignment,
for which I was considering using Ur as an example. Came up with nothing for Ur
on the 'net, although Uni's library has quite a large collection of texts on
the excavations.
Of course, with any subject in archaeology, the level of detail any 'net
resource goes in to will be incredibly shallow in comparison to almost all
texts in your University library...
--
Angus Mann, Sydney Australia
eMail amann@mail.usyd.edu.au
WWW http://www.usyd.edu.au/~amann/
2D 35 17 4A 78 78 89 05 97 F0 FB 54 1F 26 CF EE (Key on WWW page)
--
Subject: Re: Pyramids and Aliens
From: Martin Stower
Date: 5 Oct 1996 22:55:16 GMT
fmurray@pobox,com (frank murray) wrote:
[Sekhemkhet]
>ok...that's one sealed sarcophagus with no body in it, but with
>treasure left laying about...that sarcophagus was found in the middle
>of a necropolis surrounded by the tombs of lesser officals...
That's one sarcophagus in an unfinished pyramid, which seems itself to have
been entered and resealed (this from the masonry blocking the passage).
The treasure was hardly `left laying around'.
Was this unfinished pyramid really surrounded by tombs?
>>[. . .] An empty calcite
>>sarcophagus of Queen Hetepheres found at the bottom of a shaft ( in 1925
>>at Giza) was also sealed and empty. All of her funeral goods were heaped
>>on top of and around it. ( see KMT Spring 1995 ).
>
>ok...that's two sealed sarcophagi without bodies in them, both with
>tresure left laying about...both found in the middle of necropoles
>surrounded by the tombs of lesser officials....
We're talking about pyramids, right? The tomb of Hetepheres - call it
something else if you insist - was not a pyramid. It seems we have a
problem with Egyptian tombs in general, not just pyramids.
The body was absent from the sarcophagus, but the canopic chest was present,
complete with contents. That does tend to suggest a tomb.
It's a very unusual tomb, certainly for its time; we'd expect Hetepheres
to have her own mastaba, at least. There are indications it was prepared
in a hurry; the theory that it was an emergency reburial is exactly to the
point, IMO. The richly adorned body would have been a tempting target for
tomb robbers. I doubt anyone was inclined to tell Khufu that his mother's
body was missing.
>>What is the structure in the King's Chamber of the Khufu's Pyramid if not
>>a sarcophagus? Though the lid is missing there is evidence that it had
>>one. In fact the damage to its south-east corner was probably made by
>>robbers trying to get into this (at the time) sealed sarcophagus whose
>>lid probably weighed two tons. It is in the middle of a necropolis
>>surounded by the the tombs of lesser officials.
>
>ok..a third sarcophagus, but this one not found sealed, nor any
>treasure left laying about...i fail to see how its being found in an
>unsealed condition is evidence that it must have had a body in it when
>it was sealed...could you please state your evidence that this one did
>previously contain a body??...
What kind of evidence would you expect to find?
The following recycled for the second time:
. . . When Professor Smyth went to the Pyramid in 1865 he was
astonished to find that there is actually a ledge or groove cut
into the sides at the top, into which to slide a lid, and also
dowel-holes into which pins could be slipped in order to fix
it--all after the manner of many of the Egyptian sarcophagi.
The so-called ``Coffer'' is in fact a Sarcophagus, whether
actually intended to contain the body of a King or otherwise.
It is very similar in construction to the Sarcophagus in the
Second Pyramid, more particularly in the matter of the groove
and dowel-holes for the lid.
This from William Kingsland, who actually DISPUTED the `tomb theory'.
It's certainly worth quoting Petrie's detailed comments on the
sarcophagi of Khufu and Khafre:
The coffer in the King's Chamber is of the usual form of the earliest
Egyptian sarcophagi, a approximately flat-sided box of red granite.
It has the usual under-cut groove to hold the edge of a lid along
the inside of the N., E., and S. sides; the W. side being cut away
as low as the groove for the lid to slide over it; and having three
pin-holes cut in it for the pins to fall into out of similar holes
in the lid, when the lid was put on. It is not finely wrought,
and cannot in this respect rival the coffer in the Second Pyramid. . . .
[The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh, 1885 (1990 reprint), p. 29]
The coffer cannot have been put into the Pyramid after the King's
Chamber was finished, as it is nearly an inch wider than the
beginning of the ascending passage. [The Pyramids and Temples of
Gizeh, 1885 (1990 reprint), p. 88]
Regarding Khafre's sarcophagus:
The coffer is well polished, not only inside but all over the outside;
even though it was nearly all bedded into the floor, with blocks
plastered against it. The bottom is left rough, and shows that it
was sawn and afterwards dressed down to the intended height; but in
sawing it the saw was run too deep and then backed out; it was,
therefore, not dressed down all over the bottom, the worst part of
the sawing being cut .20 [inches] deeper than the dressed part. This
is the only error of workmanship in the whole of it; it is polished
all over the sides in and out, and is not left with the saw lines
visible on it like the Great Pyramid coffer. The finish is about the
same as on the walls of the King's Chamber, and the horizontal
polishing lines can be seen inside the N. end.
The lid is lying on the floor of the chamber, unbroken; it was slid
on to the coffer, and held by a projection on its base, which fitted
into the undercut grooves. When finally slid into place, two pins
(probably of bronze) dropped down out of holes in the lid, into
corresponding holes in the W. side of the coffer.
The lid is lying on the floor of the chamber, unbroken; it was slid
on to the coffer, and held by a projection on its base, which fitted
into the undercut grooves. When finally slid into place, two pins
(probably of bronze) dropped down out of holes in the lid, into
corresponding holes in the W. side of the coffer.
The designers were evidently afraid, however, of the coffer being
turned over, so as to let the pins drop back into the lid; they
therefore sunk the coffer into the floor. To make it still safer
they put resin in the pin-holes, where it may still be seen; then
the pins, being ready heated, were put into the holes in the lid,
which was quickly closed; thus the pins sank 1/2 inch to 1 inch,
melting their way into the resin, and probably forcing it up their
sides. This process made sure that there could be no way of
getting the lid off without breaking it, and the design answered
perfectly; the lid never was drawn off. On one side of the groove
in the coffer may be seen a little scrap of cement. This shows
that the lid was cemented on in grooves and that it was never slid
back, or it must have rubbed of such a fragile scrap. The
cementing on of the lid was also of use to prevent any shake; so
that the labour of wrenching it off, and bruising the undercutting
to pieces by wriggling and jogging it up and down, must have been
enormous. This seems, however, to have been the way of forcing
it, as the undercutting is much broken, and the cement in the
groove, and the melted-in pins, make it impossible to suppose any
other mode of removing the lid. . . .
The coffer being 42.0 inches wide, can never have been taken through
the passages, as the upper passage is only 41.3 wide, and the lower
is 41.2 and 41.6. Hence it must have been put into the chamber
before the roofing was laid over it, and so before the Pyramid was
built upon that. [The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh, 1885 (1990
reprint), pp. 35-36]
Both sarcophagi were both built into their respective pyramids; evidently
the builders considered them essential to the function of each pyramid.
They both have what could be called a one-shot, one-way locking mechanism:
close once and never open again. Perhaps something other than a
sarcophagus would have such a lock, but I can't think what, and you
certainly haven't offered an alternative suggestion.
The way Khafre's sarcophagus is let into the floor is another indication
that it wasn't intended to be opened again. It's far from unique in
this respect: a similar arrangement is found in other tombs, including
one of the satellite pyramids of Menkaure's pyramid.
Khafre's tomb chamber also has a small pit in the floor, resembling
the canopic pit or chest found in other pyramids and tombs. Belzoni
included it in his drawing of the chamber, long before its function
was recognised. The resemblance is striking when the floor plans of
Khafre's tomb chamber and later pyramid tomb chambers are set side by
side - a comparision presented in Aidan Dodson's book on royal canopics.
The Khufu and Khafre sarcophagi are the right SIZE for sarchophagi;
the surviving sarcophagi in the satellite pyramids, attributed to the
Queens of the Pharaohs, are slightly smaller, consistent with greater
male stature.
The sarcophagi are uninscribed, but this is hardly indicative: Egyptian
sarcophagi underwent a definite stylistic development, from plain,
uninscribed boxes to the elaborate, inscribed, anthropoid sarcophagi
of later times. Even Unas, the first Pharaoh to have the Pyramid Texts
inscribed on the walls of his tomb chamber, had an uninscribed sarcophagus,
similar in design to Khufu's.
The sarcophagi are in pyramids in the middle of Old Kingdom cemeteries.
Stylistically, they're Old Kingdom sarcophagi; built into their respective
pyramids, they anchor them firmly to that context.
The design, material and placement of the sarcophagi suggest that they
were the last line of defence for some important content, consistent with
the other security arrangements found in these pyramids. I wonder what
that content might have been?
Martin Stower
Subject: Re: A State of Denial, or finding it hard to accept the facts: was Re: Linguistic diffusion: was Re: Egyptian Tree Words
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 6 Oct 1996 12:12:17 GMT
In article <536g6b$aqn@halley.pi.net>, mcv@pi.netÁ says...
>
>Saida wrote:
>
>>I challenge anyone
>>in this group to say that, as far as they know, NO Egyptian terms are
>>found in the English language. Since that will not happen because their
>>dictionaries will tell them otherwise, no one is able to deny that this
>>was possible and in fact occurred.
>
>Who is denying this? There *are* words of Egyptian extraction in
>English (ebony, gum, bark (=ship), etc.) But they did not go from
>Ancient Egyptian directly into English.
We agree. The interesting part is the detective story. What route
did they take. Latin and Greek may appear to be the immediately
obvious solution, but before we jump to that conclusion, lets look
at what is going on with the spread of trade across the Black and
Caspian seas and up the rivers of Europe in the 3rd millenium BC.
We have no problem understanding that the Nile, Euphrates, Tigris
Indus, Ganges, Mekong and Yellow Rivers were key factors in the
growth of civilization and influenced its course. Lets look at
what is going on along the Danube, Rhine, Rhone, Dneister, Dneiper,
Don, Po, Tagus, Loire, Taima, Arak, Oxus, Orontes, Jordan, and
yes even the Aras, in the 3rd millenium BC.
Look at the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea as wide broad rivers,
Take the same approach to the Black Sea and the Caspian.
Move forward to the 2nd millenium BC
Why shouldn't Egypt which treates Palestine and Syria as vassals
as late as the XVIIIth Dynasty, have some impact on the languages
spoken along its northern border the Euphrates?
Northern Anatolia shares the Danubian tradition and the Euphrates
leads straight to it.
> They entered English (and Spanish [ebano, goma, barco/barca],
>and other European languages) by way of Latin and Greek.
There may have been more than one route. The activities of
Phoenicia in Iberia and the Cassites are not entirely ruled out
I am really going to step out on a limb here and say that they entered
English by way of the trade coming up the Danube from the Black Sea.
Lets just repeat, what we are talking about is a linguistic influence,
some borrowed words, not an entire language
>
>>I said that, after the Norman conquest of Britain, Norman French
>>influenced whatever language was being then spoken in England, which I
>>assume was Anglo-Saxon. This seems to be accepted by everyone. Well,
>>here is a list for those who need such things:
>
>>Earth Terre
>>Water Eau
>>Sky ciel
>>Star etoile
>>Moon lune
>>Man homme
>>Woman femme
>>Child enfant
>>Fire feu
>>Wind vent
>
>>I know some of you are going to knock yourselves out to show how ALL of
>>these English-French terms are related with Nostratic or whatever, but,
>>at first sight, few of them seem very similar or would sound the same.
>
>No need for Nostratic, Indo-European will do: only wind/vent and (in a
>way) star/etoile are related, a mere 20%. And that for two languages
>that we know are relatively closely connected.
>
>Actually, I wouldn't knock Nostratic if I were you: most Nostraticists
>would agree that Egyptian and English *are* related (but they'd put it
>as: Afro-Asiatic and Indo-European are related).
The problem with this terminology is the chronological implication.
Suppose this influx of language happens later. Urban Centers say
things one way, pastoral nomads say them another. Semitic languages
get caught in the middle between Mesopotamia and Egypt. All three
influences then get picked up multiculturally by Syro Anatolia
which then turns around and sends the remix off on separate tracks.
Why is the diffusion of language presumed to be something which
happened slowly a long time ago rather than rapidly fairly recently?
The English/French words listed for example...
>
>Out of curiosity, what would the Eg. list be? All I have is
>"sky" "land" "water" and "star" [pity, Semitic at
>least has *'athtar "Venus", and Basque has "star": you asked
>for Nostratic, now there's Nostratic for you].
>
>In conclusion: Latin and especially Greek did borrow from Egyptian.
Ok, If Latin and Greek did what about other European languages?
>Some Egyptian etymologies might still be waiting to be discovered
>among the considerable number of Greek words of "unknown origin".
>Some of these words were borrowed from Latin and Greek into most
>European languages. But if an English word, especially "basic
>vocabulary" (earth, water, sky...), looks suspiciously like an
>Egyptian word, there's a good chance the coincidence is just that, a
>coincidence.
Does that mean there is also the possibility it is not a coincidence?
> There's an Australian language where the word for "dingo" is
>(and upon investigation it was found not to have been
>borrowed from English).
> Coincidences do occur, especially if the word is short.
I am always nervous with coincidence as a scientific explanation.
That's why in cases like that, we linguist types demand
>lists, and regular sound correspondences, or at least a likely source
>and path for the borrowing... The more you have of those, the less
>likely it becomes that the similarities are nothing but freak
>resemblances.
Saida has been doing a pretty good job of this.
>
>
>==
>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
steve
Subject: Re: A State of Denial, or finding it hard to accept the facts: was Re: Linguistic diffusion: was Re: Egyptian Tree Words
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 6 Oct 1996 12:12:17 GMT
In article <536g6b$aqn@halley.pi.net>, mcv@pi.netÁ says...
>
>Saida wrote:
>
>>I challenge anyone
>>in this group to say that, as far as they know, NO Egyptian terms are
>>found in the English language. Since that will not happen because their
>>dictionaries will tell them otherwise, no one is able to deny that this
>>was possible and in fact occurred.
>
>Who is denying this? There *are* words of Egyptian extraction in
>English (ebony, gum, bark (=ship), etc.) But they did not go from
>Ancient Egyptian directly into English.
We agree. The interesting part is the detective story. What route
did they take. Latin and Greek may appear to be the immediately
obvious solution, but before we jump to that conclusion, lets look
at what is going on with the spread of trade across the Black and
Caspian seas and up the rivers of Europe in the 3rd millenium BC.
We have no problem understanding that the Nile, Euphrates, Tigris
Indus, Ganges, Mekong and Yellow Rivers were key factors in the
growth of civilization and influenced its course. Lets look at
what is going on along the Danube, Rhine, Rhone, Dneister, Dneiper,
Don, Po, Tagus, Loire, Taima, Arak, Oxus, Orontes, Jordan, and
yes even the Aras, in the 3rd millenium BC.
Look at the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea as wide broad rivers,
Take the same approach to the Black Sea and the Caspian.
Move forward to the 2nd millenium BC
Why shouldn't Egypt which treates Palestine and Syria as vassals
as late as the XVIIIth Dynasty, have some impact on the languages
spoken along its northern border the Euphrates?
Northern Anatolia shares the Danubian tradition and the Euphrates
leads straight to it.
> They entered English (and Spanish [ebano, goma, barco/barca],
>and other European languages) by way of Latin and Greek.
There may have been more than one route. The activities of
Phoenicia in Iberia and the Cassites are not entirely ruled out
I am really going to step out on a limb here and say that they entered
English by way of the trade coming up the Danube from the Black Sea.
Lets just repeat, what we are talking about is a linguistic influence,
some borrowed words, not an entire language
>
>>I said that, after the Norman conquest of Britain, Norman French
>>influenced whatever language was being then spoken in England, which I
>>assume was Anglo-Saxon. This seems to be accepted by everyone. Well,
>>here is a list for those who need such things:
>
>>Earth Terre
>>Water Eau
>>Sky ciel
>>Star etoile
>>Moon lune
>>Man homme
>>Woman femme
>>Child enfant
>>Fire feu
>>Wind vent
>
>>I know some of you are going to knock yourselves out to show how ALL of
>>these English-French terms are related with Nostratic or whatever, but,
>>at first sight, few of them seem very similar or would sound the same.
>
>No need for Nostratic, Indo-European will do: only wind/vent and (in a
>way) star/etoile are related, a mere 20%. And that for two languages
>that we know are relatively closely connected.
>
>Actually, I wouldn't knock Nostratic if I were you: most Nostraticists
>would agree that Egyptian and English *are* related (but they'd put it
>as: Afro-Asiatic and Indo-European are related).
The problem with this terminology is the chronological implication.
Suppose this influx of language happens later. Urban Centers say
things one way, pastoral nomads say them another. Semitic languages
get caught in the middle between Mesopotamia and Egypt. All three
influences then get picked up multiculturally by Syro Anatolia
which then turns around and sends the remix off on separate tracks.
Why is the diffusion of language presumed to be something which
happened slowly a long time ago rather than rapidly fairly recently?
The English/French words listed for example...
>
>Out of curiosity, what would the Eg. list be? All I have is
>"sky" "land" "water" and "star" [pity, Semitic at
>least has *'athtar "Venus", and Basque has "star": you asked
>for Nostratic, now there's Nostratic for you].
>
>In conclusion: Latin and especially Greek did borrow from Egyptian.
Ok, If Latin and Greek did what about other European languages?
>Some Egyptian etymologies might still be waiting to be discovered
>among the considerable number of Greek words of "unknown origin".
>Some of these words were borrowed from Latin and Greek into most
>European languages. But if an English word, especially "basic
>vocabulary" (earth, water, sky...), looks suspiciously like an
>Egyptian word, there's a good chance the coincidence is just that, a
>coincidence.
Does that mean there is also the possibility it is not a coincidence?
> There's an Australian language where the word for "dingo" is
>(and upon investigation it was found not to have been
>borrowed from English).
> Coincidences do occur, especially if the word is short.
I am always nervous with coincidence as a scientific explanation.
That's why in cases like that, we linguist types demand
>lists, and regular sound correspondences, or at least a likely source
>and path for the borrowing... The more you have of those, the less
>likely it becomes that the similarities are nothing but freak
>resemblances.
Saida has been doing a pretty good job of this.
>
>
>==
>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
steve
Subject: Re: Sumerian vocabulary analysis (was: Re: More monkey business)
From: piotrm@umich.edu (Piotr Michalowski)
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 1996 09:21:15
In article seagoat@primenet.com (John A. Halloran) writes:
>
>Borger has for the sign, the Akkadian baru^, Opferschauer.
Borger's Zeichenliste is not, I repeat, not, a lexicon of Sumerian nor a
listing of Sumerian sign values and meanings, but a list of Akkadian sign
values and Sumerograms that were used in Akkadian only. This means that many
learned conventions and neologisms used in Akkadian texts for a thousand years
after Sumerian was no longr alive are found there. This is one of them. The
writing a-zu, in normal Sumerian texts, means physician, and is translated in
Akkadian as asu^. Omen texts, particulalry, have many new logograms that are
not found in monolingual Sumerian texts and were divised by Akkadian scribes.
>>>Does Kaufman limit himself
to nouns on general principles, or because no >>>Akkadian verbs went into
Aramaic?
>>Read what he says carefully. The point is that the denominative verb of THIS
>>ROOT is a later development in Aramaic, as there are none in Akkadian from
>>this root.
>I was not asking specifically about a particular word, but about the fact that
>if you look at all the loanwords given in Kaufman's book, they are all nouns,
>with no verbs listed.
If you look at loan words across languages, you will find that verbs are much
more rarely loaned than nouns. The same holds true for loans between
Akkadian and Sumerian. It is generally assumed that no Sumerian verb was
borrowed into Akkadian. The same is assumed the other way around, although I
am not so sure of that.
>>I know that no one seems to be able to explain to you that your initial
>>premise of "invented Sumerian" is linguistically unsound and that your
>>intuitive, hunt and peck construction of Sumerian etymologies in unconvining,
>>but you have been warned and the rest is up to you.
>The problem with understanding how Sumerian evolved has been that scholars
>within the university system cannot make unprovable assertions. No one can
>prove that the Sumerian word for 'sickle' came from 'tooth;
>flint; obsidian' plus 'to cut off; to pull' (cf., geshbu2, 'a
>grappling hook for a wrestler'). So a scholar cannot spend time to make these
>kinds of analyses. A university scholar must limit his/her activities to the
>less risky activity of studying the signs and translating the texts. In the
>process of using the language as a tool, they learn a lot about it, but this
>is different from trying to go back into what happened in the millenia before
>the language was written down by looking at the vocabulary as an object to be
>analyzed in itself.
>I cannot prove that the etymologies that I give for many of the compound words
>are correct. If all I know are the Sumerian roots, and a complex word is a
>loanword from another language, then my Sumerian etymology for it will be
>incorrect. But if the semantics and phonetic evolution consistent with
>vowel/consonant harmony considerations are sound, and no other source is
>known, then an etymology internal to Sumerian should be considered.
>So the dilemma for a university-employed scholar is that he/she cannot carry
>out research into unprovable etymologies, but these types of researches are
>important for understanding the evolution of the Sumerian vocabulary. So even
>the subject of how the vocabulary evolved becomes off-limits because it is all
>unprovable. The only etymologies that are provable become those recorded by
>the Sumerian scribes with separate signs.
This kind of argument always gets m rather angry. It is the conspiratorial
view of academics that is particularly odious. It is completely incorrect to
claim that "academics" cannot do anything but "safe" work. I can do anything
I please, and no one can do anything to me. In fact, among Assyriologists,
especially when I was starting out, my work was considered very avant garde
and somewhat crazy. When I wrote an article on the Sumerian nominal and
verbal system, on ergativity, which was based on linguistics rather than
philology, it was very much seen as out of bounds. Nothing happened to me,
even tough some of the biggest names in the field were very offended, and a
major journal turned it down. Now my theory of split ergatovity is enshrined
in the standard grammar of Sumerian and I have survived. The issue is not
unusual work, but responsable research. Quite frankly and without trying to
offend, you are working in the dark, with little knowledge of the language and
writing system, and no linguistic methodology to speak of. You make so many
small mistakes along the way that the end result has to be wrong. In
addition, your initial premise, that Sumerian is somehow a new, invented
language, that is younger than any other, is simply goofy, to be kind. Anyone
can take a language that has basically mono and bisyllabic structure and try
to find the kind of unstructured correlations that you find. It means
nothing. The issue is not "academics vs amateurs," but a matter of solid
knowledge before embarking on a quest. If you cannot play the violin and have
not spent years on your craft, you cannot expect to be accepted into a
symphony orchestra. This is not a matter of "conspiracy," but just normal
common sense. Many people have tried to point out to you the wrong
assumptions of your quest, but you pay them no mind. Of course, there is the
romantic notion that in the end you will show us all, but given the fact that
your general linguistic concepts are so out of touch with so much research
that has been done, I suspect that in the end it will just be one other
collection that end up gathering dust, or whatever is the modern, net
equivalent. There are dozens of large tomes out there trying to prove that
Sumerian was related to Hungarian, Turkish, Indo-European, Chinese, etc. and
no one ever looks at them. I know that this will not have any effect on your
obsession, but there it is.
Subject: Re: Sunt lacrimae rerum... New Archaeology Contest!
From: skupinm@aol.com (SkupinM)
Date: 6 Oct 1996 08:51:07 -0400
Bill--
In point of fact, the thread should be parsed: an archaeology contest
that is new (as opposed to the 12K t-shirt contest), rather than a contest
involving the term New Archaeology.
Regardless, I am responding to your comment that I "cannot use" the term
New Archaeology the way I do, referring to the mereticious features of the
"Lite Eighties" and the "Nasty Nineties" that have permeated the
discipline.
Now, Bill, the term is not copyright; and this is, after all, the
Internet, where all kinds of non-standard things go on; and I'm a
non-standard guy, being one of those outlaws who inhabit the foothills of
archaeology (or perhaps the dunghills) rather than the heights.
Suffice it to say that I take note of your remark, and that if I continue
to use the term in question in the sense I have used it, it is not from
disrespect. I do, however, think that my sense is more useful, and has
more snap.
vale
Mike Skupin
Subject: Re: Nomadic sedentism
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 6 Oct 1996 14:36:30 GMT
In article <32567129.7757@utoronto.ca>, t.sagrillo@utoronto.ca says...
>
>Steve Whittet wrote:
>[snip]
>> Ptah was the Egyptian god responsible for making or creating
>> the sky. In that sense he was the sky father or creator in the
>> same sense the Bible uses the word father or creator.
>>
>> The Egyptians believed that things were created by giving them
>> a name "r". Thus the act of creation or naming by Ptah was
>> written as "Ptah" "r".
>
>Nonsense! There is absolutely no text with "Ptah r" meaning "father" (or
>anything else if "r" is taken as a *noun* (which you seem to be impying)
>-- /ptH r/ would be breaking every rule for forming a genetival
>construct [now /r ptH/ is another story...]). Besides the noun /r/ means
>"utterance; speech"; "name" is /rn/
>
>> As Saida has pointed out your analysis would be greatly improved
>> by an introductory course in Hieroglyphic Egyptian
>
>Hmmmmmm.........
I was not really implying that "r" be taken as a noun. although, it
could be in some cases. (Ptah, his name, his word, his writing)
I was thinking of "Ptah r" where "r" is more of a verb
Ptah says
Ptah speaks
Ptah created the name for, (or as an Egyptian would take it)
Ptah created or made.
"Ptah Ra" using the solar disk for "Ra" or "Re" instead of the mouth for r.
The sequence of hieroglyphics, left to right, right to left,
top to bottom, is a variable.
The consonants are "p", "t", "h", and "r"
where "p" might be replaced by "b" if the transmission
is through semitic languages and there are also the
possipility of prefixes, infixes and suffixes.
First the cognate
The glyphs "p","t","h" should have the sense of make,
create, father, cause to come into being.
The glyph "r" means things associated with the mouth; ie,
lips, teeth, tounge, kiss, words, breath, names, utterance,
speech, written word, inscribed name,...
There is the sense, with the determinative for papyrus,
of contract; ie, a writing bound and sealed with blessings
curses and the names of witnesses.
A contract was a special writing which contained sealed
within it the power to make something happen with words.
After some palaver a writing would be drawn up to document the
meeting of the minds. This was a writing which when unsealed
had the power to come forth from the papyrus to emphasise the
agreement and to create, perfect, make and enforce the
performance of the contract or pact between the parties.
Hence Latin, "caveat emptor" or "buyer beware" lest the
value of the purchase peter out.
Here "emptor" is buyer or party to the contract.
from the Egyptian "Ptah r" make a written contract...
Consider also:
Ptah Ra = sky father, [maker of] the day
Petra = city of rock cut tombs in Jordan associated with
Biblical Kadesh Barnea where the making of the day is marked
with obelisks.
Lets look at some words that don't exactly match
words with b replacing p
Ptah, btah, beta
Ptah, btah, beth
This is the second letter of the Greek and Hebrew alphabets
which the Semitic languages exchange for P.
using Beta or Bt
betroth = make arrangements to wed, possible kinship term
Are the following words ending in "ter" kinship terms or creation terms?
better = make improvements
bitter = make a bad taste
Are the following words considered a "ter" ending?
bother = make trouble
brother = make from wedlock a sibling.
Are the following words related?
both = make a choice
bother = make trouble
brother = make a sibling.
breath = make air enter the lungs
breathe = make a soft utterance
breather = one who breathes
brethren = make brothers
And yes I know this is one of the nice things about English,
it's just so damm flexible...:)
>
>Troy
steve
Subject: Re: Mr. Whittet's Linguistic Idiocies
From: Saida
Date: Sun, 06 Oct 1996 09:48:35 -0500
Kaare Albert Lie wrote:
>
> Saida wrote:
>
> >My, aren't we the rabid one? You are quite right, I don't have a
> >Sanskrit dictionary. But I do have an Egyptian one, which I think is
> >more than most people participating in this discussion, including
> >yourself, have.
>
> Hmm .... rabid? I am delighted by seeing some creative thinking
> and daring new theories from time to time - but confess being
> rather impatient with blatant ignorance and stubborn idiocies.
>
> Your comments on Egyptian are totally irrelevant here. I guess my
> copy of Gardiner should help me a little on my way, if necessary,
> but I am not discussing Egyptian with you. I gave a reply to your
> completely false statement about Indian languages.
>
> > Anyway, I couldn't care less what the various
> >grammatical forms of the word "mother" in Sanskrit are. The actual
> >word, itself, is lacking one.
>
> Try to understand this: In an inflected language, there exist no
> "actual word itself" outside of its grammatical forms. You can
> analyse the inflected word into root, stem, pre-, in- or
> suffixes, but none of these are the "actual word itself". Taking
> the nominative singular as "the actual word itself", as you seem
> to do, is downright stupid. The nominative singular is just the
> conventional lexical form, and takes no special precedence of the
> other forms. If you say don't care about the various grammatical
> forms of Sanskrit words, you are only showing the world that you
> do not understand the subject you write about.
>
> >Would you, being an expert in Sanskrit,
> >care to explain why?
>
> I have just explained why your question is meaningless.
>
> >> But check the full paradigm, and you will see that the 'r' is
> >> present in all the other forms of the declension - either as
> >> 'full' consonant or reduced to the semivocalic '.r'.
> >>
> >> You mentioned 'Indian languages' so let us first take a look at
> >> the closely related early Indian indoeuropean languages Sanskrit
> >> and Pali. Here is the singular declension of 'mother' in both
> >> these languages:
> >>
> >> Sanskrit Pali
> >>
> >> Nominative: maataa maataa
> >> Vocative: maatar maataa
> >> Accusative: maataram maataram
> >> Instrumentalis: maatraa maataraa
> >> Dative: maatre maatu
> >> Ablative: maatur maataraa
> >> Genitive: maatur maatu
> >> Locative: maatari maatari
>
> I could of course have added the dualis and plural forms, too,
> but somehow I do not think it would have been of much help to
> you.
>
> ______________________________________________________________
>
> Kåre Albert Lie
> kalie@sn.no
All right, you have made your point in that I did not know all the
grammatical forms of the word Sankrit word "mataa". I sincerely
apologize for my ignorance in this matter. One would think it might
help you at this point to be told what a pompous, condescending jerk you
are, but somehow I don't think it will.
Subject: Re: On Egyptian as an Afroasiatic language
From: Saida
Date: Sun, 06 Oct 1996 10:09:19 -0500
Troy Sagrillo wrote:
>
> Saida wrote:
> >
> > Loren Petrich wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <3254341F.34FD@pioneerplanet.infi.net>,
> > > Saida wrote:
> > > >Loren Petrich wrote:
> > >
> > > >> On what grounds is it partly IE and partly Semitic? Is this the
> > > >> isolated-comparison gimmick all over again? :-)
> > > >This is the truth, Loren, believe it or not. It's a strange language.
> > > >Go talk to the ancient Egyptians about it. I am not responsible :-)
> > >
> > > That's news to most linguists who have ever looked at Egyptian in
> >
> > > detail.
> >
> > Baloney! Here is a little bit from my "Egyptian Grammar" by Sir Alan Gardiner:
> >
> > "The Egyptian Language is related, not only to the Semitic tongues (Hebrew, Arabic,
> > Aramaic, Babylonian,etc.) but also to the East African languages (Galla, Somali, etc.)
> > and the Berber idioms of North Africa. It's connection with the latter groups, together
> > known as the Hamitic family, is a very thorny subject, but the relationship to the
> > Semitic tongues can be fairly accurately defined...In spite of these resemblances,
> > Egyptian differs from all the Semitic tongues a good deal more than any one of them
> > differs from any other, and at least until its relationship to the African languages is
> > more closely defined, Egyptian must certainly be classified as standing outside the
> > Semitic group."
>
> Where in all this does Gardiner claim Egyptian to be IE (even in part)?
> All he was stating is that Egyptian is *not* a Semitic language (as many
> of the earlier generation of Germans had been doing so), but related to
> it, and to other languages we now call Afroasiatic. And he is quite
> right.
>
> > In other words, old Stern was right when he wrote, in German "Egyptian has gone its own
> > way." It doesn't take a genius to see what is going on here. The old Egyptologists who
> > concerned themselves with the language, Stern, Budge et al, were struck by Egyptian's
> > resemblance to IE at times and were not afraid to say so. But, by Gardiner's day, the
> > Egyptian scholars got scared off (probably by people like you who were always insisting
> > Greek and Latin was the end of the road) and began to look for the part of Egyptian that
> > wasn't Semitic in Africa with, as you can perceive, indifferent results. I am sure, at
> > this very moment, the question is still being debated among Egyptologists,
>
> It most certainly is not! There is no question. Egyptologists know full
> well that Egyptian is *clearly* an Afroasiatic language with no more to
> do with IE than do Berber or Semitic. There are a few who argue that
> Egyptian is more closely related to Semitic than to, say Chadic, but I
> think that has more to do with the scholastic training of Egyptologists
> who are more likely to know Akkadian and Biblical Hebrew than Masmaje
> and Mandara.
>
> > but, in my
> > opinion, the impressions of the turn-of-the-century scholars were no more misguided than
> > those of the present-day ones. No doubt African terms found their way into ancient
> > Egyptian, but the bulk of the language will never be sueezed into this mold or any
> > other.
>
> It doesn't need to be squeezed into an AA mould -- it fits quite nicely.
>
> [snip]
>
> Troy
Since you are up on the latest in Egyptian language scholarship, I
believe you. However, all this leaves no room, then, for all the
similarities I see between Egyptian and Anglo-Saxon (this includes
German) and which I cannot regard as coincidental, no matter what the
linguistic classification of Egyptian has come to be.
Subject: Small mistakes along the way was: Re: Sumerian vocabulary analysis (was: Re: More monkey business)
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 6 Oct 1996 15:11:24 GMT
In article , piotrm@umich.edu says...
>
>In article seagoat@primenet.com (John A.
Halloran) writes:
>>
>>Borger has for the sign, the Akkadian baru^, Opferschauer.
>...snip...
>This means that many learned conventions and neologisms used in
>Akkadian texts for a thousand years after Sumerian was no longr
^^^^^
>alive are found there.
> This is one of them.The writing a-zu, in normal Sumerian texts,
>means physician, and is translated in Akkadian as asu^.
>Omen texts, particulalry, have many new logograms that are
^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>not found in monolingual Sumerian texts and were divised by
^^^^^^^
>Akkadian scribes.
...snip...
>>>I know that no one seems to be able to explain to you that your
>>>initial premise of "invented Sumerian" is linguistically unsound
>>>and that your intuitive, hunt and peck construction of Sumerian
>>>etymologies in unconvining, but you have been warned and the rest
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
...snip...
>
>This kind of argument always gets m rather angry. It is the
^^^
>conspiratorial view of academics that is particularly odious.
>It is completely incorrect to claim that "academics" cannot do
>anything but "safe" work. I can do anything I please, and no one
>can do anything to me. In fact, among Assyriologists, especially
>when I was starting out, my work was considered very avant garde
>and somewhat crazy. When I wrote an article on the Sumerian
>nominal and verbal system, on ergativity, which was based on
^^^^^^^^^^
>linguistics rather than philology, it was very much seen as out
>of bounds. Nothing happened to me, even tough some of the biggest
^^^^^
>names in the field were very offended, and a major journal turned
>it down. Now my theory of split ergatovity is enshrined
^^^^^^^^^^
>in the standard grammar of Sumerian and I have survived.
>The issue is not unusual work, but responsable research.
^^^^^^^^^^^
>Quite frankly and without trying to offend, you are working
>in the dark, with little knowledge of the language and
>writing system, and no linguistic methodology to speak of.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>You make so many small mistakes along the way that the
>end result has to be wrong.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> In addition, your initial premise, that Sumerian is somehow a
>new, invented language, that is younger than any other, is simply
>goofy, to be kind.
...snip...
We all make mistakes, at least I often do. A little tolerance
for small mistakes along the way would probably contribute more
to the general discussion than a lot of lectures. I really
don't feel that small mistakes necessarily detract from the
work being done here, let's correct them and move on...:)
steve
Subject: Re: Mr. Whittet's Absurdities about Migrations...
From: mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal)
Date: Sun, 06 Oct 1996 16:09:51 GMT
whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>In article <532vip$iul@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>, rg10003@cus.cam.ac.uk says...
>>
>>Steve Whittet (whittet@shore.net) wrote:
>>[...]
>>: > And Turkish is *very* closely related
>>: >to the Central Asian Turkic languages, something on the order of how
>>: >close the Romance languages are (I'm not exactly sure, however).
>>
>>: Perhaps, but the connection would be trade across the Caspian sea
>>: and up the Aras river.
>>
>>That's in a word bull shit. The turks are a Turkic people
>>who used to live in central Asia. Other Turkic peoples lived
>>in that region and spoke very closely related languages just
>>like say Germans and Austrians - shareing parts of their
>>history.
>The question is why would people from Cental Asia want to
>migrate to Turkey in the first place? Once you realise that
>there is a major trade route from the Namazga culture across
>the Caspian to what is to the Kura or Aras river leading to
>Mt Arat as documented by a line of closely associated sites
>dating to the 3rd millenium BC it seems simplistic to hypothesis
>this had no role in the decision making process.
>> If you can speak Turkish you can basically talk and understand
>>all the Turkic peoples between Turkey and West China.
>That is because of a much later development called the Silk Road
>which provides a mechanism connecting these peoples together.
>> There was no need for trade links to spread the same language
>>between related peoples - connections help keep it up, but they
>>were'nt necessary for establishing it.
>The question is what relation can you produce prior to the
>3rd millenium BC when the trade route appears?
I thought the following, which I posted to sci.lang some weeks ago
might be relevant to the discussion. This was a long thread about
Slavic expansions versus Iranians and Turks, under the rather
inappropriate heading of "Etymology of Warsaw and Kiev".
====================================================================
To summarize this whole thread:
There's nothing special about Slavs which makes them more likely to
assimilate other peoples than to be assimilated. In fact, nothing of
this has to do with race, language or religion. It's simply a matter
of demographics in most cases, and politico-military power where the
demographics are roughly equivalent (as between Slavs and Germans, or
Greeks and Slavs, all basically agricultural peoples).
Where demographics (and also climatic conditions) play a decisive role
is in the nomad-peasant conflicts, which have played a major role in
European and also Chinese history. Firstly, it should be realized
that both ways of life are closely intertwined. It is sometimes
incorrectly believed that nomad pastoralism constitutes a more
"primitive" phase than settled agriculturalism. This is not so: in
fact agriculture represents the earlier stage, and pastoralism did
only develop _after_ the establishment of Neolithic-style agriculture.
It represents an expansion of Neolithic techniques (like pottery) and
resources (like domesticated animals) into areas that are otherwise
unsuited for the cultivation of crops. The conflict between nomad and
farmer is only relative: under normal circumstances, the nomad needs
the farmer's cereals and the farmer needs the pastoralist's dairy
produce, and there is extensive trade between the two groups. The
problem emerges when the line between "arable land" and "grazing land"
begins to shift due to climtic circumstances (dry and wet periods), or
due to technological advances (iron ploughs, fertilizers, machinery on
the one hand; mostly advances in military horse technology on the
other: chariots [by 1600 BC], horseback riding [ca. 1000 BC],
invention of the stirrup [by 500 AD]).
The areas that have switched between "arable land" and "grazing land"
over the course of the centuries are primarily: the Balkans as a
whole, but more specifically the areas north of the Danube [modern
Hungary and Romania], the "Southern Russian steppe" [modern Ukraine
and S. Russia through Kazakhhstan], the Iranian and Anatolian
plateaus, and Northern China. The areas of Central Asia (Western and
Eastern Turkestan [Sinkiang]), Mongolia and Manchuria have
consistently been nomad areas, until the advent of modern agricultural
technologies by the 17th century, which has brought even these areas
under the control of "agriculturalist" states like Russia and China.
The history of nomadic Eurasia is a fascinating affair, chiefly
because relatively little is known about it. Only when "nomad
trouble" made itself felt in Europe, the Near East or China, do the
chronicles reveal something about the inhabitants of the Eurasian
steppe. Archaeology too has been mostly dedicated to investigating
the areas of dense agricultural settlement, rather than the sparsely
inhabited pastoralist areas.
I think the following summarizes what is known about the history of
the Eurasian nomads. I'd like to hear if there are any major errors
or omissions:
>6000 BC: First Neolithic culture in Western Turkestan (Seroglazovo),
probably of Near Eastern origin (the technology, that is,
not necessarily the ethnic makeup).
5500 BC: First Neolitic cultures in Ukraine (Bug-Dniestr, of Balkan
origin), Dniepr-Donets, possibly of "Northern" origin
[Poland, Belorussia] (same caveats as above).
The Samara culture of the Caspian probably represents an
eastern expansion of the Dniepr-Donets.
<4000 BC: First Neolithic cultures in Sinkiang, China and Mongolia.
Origin in Western Turkestan (Seroglazovo) is probable.
4000 BC: Start of a possible "dry era", with "nomad trouble" in the
Balkans (Gimbutas' "Kurgan" invasions),"Secondary Products"
revolution in temperate Europe (more emphasis on meat and
dairy products), and demise of Chinese-style "Mongolian
Neolithic".
3000 BC: Afanasievo culture in Upper Yenisei area, of probable
Western origin (Tokharians?)
2000 BC: Andronovo culture in Western Turkestan, probable Indo-
Iranian homeland.
By 2000 BC we may start to get an idea of the ethnic composition of
the areas under consideration. The Balkan/Danube area is inhabitated
by Indo-European agriculturalists [this seems to have been a "wet
era"] (Dacians, Thracians, Illyrians), with Germans, Celts and Italics
in W./N. Europe, Balto-Slavs in NE. Europe (roughly the area of the
Eastern Corded Ware complex, i.e. Baltic Battle Axe and Fatyanovo; an
area that certainly includes the Pripet marshes, but is not limited to
them). The Ukraine/S.Russian steppe and Western Turkestan is
inhabited by IE nomads (Cimmerians and Indo-Iranians). The Sinkiang
is probably inhabited by a few Indo-European Tokharians, but mostly by
people of Tibetan origin.
The Altaic peoples (Turks, Mongols and Tungus) inhabit Mongolia and
Manchuria. Northern China will have its first historic dynasty (the
Shang) a couple of centuries later.
There is linguistic evidence (see my second article on Ruhlen) that
there was contact between the North Caucasians (Abkhaz, Chechen,
Dagestanians) and the Tibetans in the early Neolitic [borrowing of the
numbers 1-10]. I believe this might indicate that the "Seroglazovo"
people were North-Caucasian, who were gradually cut off from the
Tibetans later with the advent of the probably Indo-European Samara
and Khvalynsk cultures. The current location of Northern Caucasian
speakers is consistent with this (the Northern Caucasus has been the
last hiding place of many peoples who once dominated the steppe lands
to the North: Alans [Ossetians], various Kipchak Turkish tribes,
Kalmucks, etc.) This would make the Northern Caucasians the
"original" inhabitants of the Eurasian steppe: but it's all
speculation...
1600 BC: Indo-Aryans on war chariots emerge in India and the Near
East [Mitanni, Kassites].
1200 BC: Dorian and Phrygian invasions into Greece and Anatolia.
"Sea Peoples". I don't think these events were nomad-
related.
700 BC: Iranians fighting on horseback emerge: Scyths (pushing the
Cimmerians out of the Ukraine and into Anatolia), Medes
and Persians.
200 BC: Chinese fight against mounted Hsiung-Nu (Huns, r-Turkic
peoples) in the North [Mongolia].
100 BC: The Huns push the Iranians (Yue-Chi, Kushans) out of
Sinkiang.
200 AD: The Germanic Goths adopt the nomadic way of life, and
take control of the Ukrainian steppe.
By AD 300, the situation clearly starts to shift in favour of the
nomads. Northern China and the Hungarian steppe, as well as parts of
Iran and Anatolia come under nomadic control for various periods of
time. The era culminates with Genghiz Khan's Mongol Empire (ca 1250).
300 AD: Northern China is overrun by the Hsiung-Nu, Hsien-Pei
(Mongols), Ti and Ch'iang (Tibetans) and T'o-Pa (Toba)
Turks. Until 500 AD (Chinese T'ang Empire)
400 AD: The Western Huns crush the Ostrogoths and settle in the
Pannonian steppe. Attila's Empire (430-450).
The White Huns (Ephthalites) defeat the Kushans and become
masters of Western Turkestan (they later went on to
Persia and India).
600 AD: Turkish Khanate (E. and W. Turkestan) established.
Defeated Jouan-Jouan (Mongolians?) and White Huns take
control of the Hungarian steppe as Avars.
Hunnish remnants form the Bulgar confederation in the
Ponto-Caspian area, and are joined by Turkish Kazars.
700 AD: Avars and Danube Bulgars in the Danube area, Onogur
Bulgar-Magyar confederation in the Ukraine, Volga Bulgars
(Chuvash) and Khazars along the Volga.
Sinkiang dominated by Uyghur Turks.
900 AD: Northern China dominated by Khitan (Mongol), Juchen
(Tungus) and Tangut (Tibetans).
Magyars (Hungarians) take the Pannonian plain.
1000 AD: Kipchak and Oguz Turks establish control over
Ukraine (Pechenegs, Cumans [Polovtsy]) and Near East
(Seljuk Sultanate defeats Byzantines at Manzikert).
1200 AD: Mongol Empire.
At its high point ends the era of steppe domination. The Magyars had
converted to Christianity (and more importantly, to agriculture) by AD
1000. By AD 1300, Wallachia and Moldavia had been established by
Romanian farmers, Poland-Lithuania had taken control of the Ukraine by
AD 1400, and the final blow was dealt by Muscovy when it defeated the
Khanate of Kazan in 1552. The Ottoman Empire, established around
1300, was always basically an agricultural state, and its victories
were won primarily by its infantry, not its cavalary. The same can be
said of the Empires of Timur in Persia/Turkestan and the Mughal Empire
of India.
A final flourish was still seen in the 1600's with the Kalmuck
Mongol's raids over the whole of Turkestan, and especially with the
conquest of China by the Manchus.
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal ~ ~
Amsterdam _____________ ~ ~
mcv@pi.net |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig
Subject: Re: Nomadic sedentism
From: mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal)
Date: Sun, 06 Oct 1996 16:48:58 GMT
whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>Hence Latin, "caveat emptor" or "buyer beware" lest the
>value of the purchase peter out.
>Here "emptor" is buyer or party to the contract.
>from the Egyptian "Ptah r" make a written contract...
Sorry, "emptor" is from from the root em- "to buy".
em-tor > emptor.
>Lets look at some words that don't exactly match
>words with b replacing p
>Ptah, btah, beta
>Ptah, btah, beth
>This is the second letter of the Greek and Hebrew alphabets
>which the Semitic languages exchange for P.
And "beth" means "house", not "father" or "Ptah" or "creator".
>using Beta or Bt
>betroth = make arrangements to wed, possible kinship term
be- is a common Germanic prefix. The root is "troth", related to
"truth".
>Are the following words ending in "ter" kinship terms or creation terms?
>better = make improvements
From Germanic *bat-iza
>bitter = make a bad taste
Related to "bite", i.e "biting taste" (*bit-er).
Neither of them contains -ter.
>Are the following words considered a "ter" ending?
>bother = make trouble
No, from Irish bodhar, ends in IE *-dher.
>brother = make from wedlock a sibling.
Yes, -ter kinship ending. *bhra:-ter.
>Are the following words related?
>both = make a choice
>bother = make trouble
>brother = make a sibling.
No.
>breath = make air enter the lungs
>breathe = make a soft utterance
>breather = one who breathes
Yes.
>brethren = make brothers
Related to brother, of course.
>And yes I know this is one of the nice things about English,
>it's just so damm flexible...:)
Everything is flexible if you know nothing about it.
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal ~ ~
Amsterdam _____________ ~ ~
mcv@pi.net |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig