Newsgroup sci.archaeology 48128

Directory

John,
   > For a large and growing selection of difficult to find and out-of-print
   > books  on ancient history and archaeology, check out:
   > http://www.fragments.gosite.com...
   > John Ambrose
	There is one qualification that you need to add to your advertise-
ment: you are primarily offering books on ancient Roman and Greek *art*
not books on history and archaeology.
	However, bearing that in mind, I enjoyed your website immensely.
	Best wishes.
Virgil Brown

"William Belcher"  wrote:
>Well, when I hear statements like "We don't want any foreign teams doing
>archaeology here because they might "co-opt" our history", I think that is
>indicative of what some anthropologists have called "colonial angst" - a
>common occurrence throughout Africa and Asia. This situation (compounded by
>some pretty juvenile behavior by the Americans involved accusing each other
>of being CIA agents) is what closed down research in Ethiopia on
>Plio-Pleistocene hominids until very recently. I can't say specifically of
>what goes on in Egypt, but my experience in South Asia and in East Africa
>suggests that the fear of colonialism and loss of independence is still
>there.
No doubt you are right.
Unfortunately the backlash you report is beginning to generate a
backlash of its own.  I for one, am running out of patience with it.
Most of the most vocal objectors to "colonialism" and "racism" are too
young to have experienced either.  I've got a lot more patience with
those people, and in those areas, where the fears have some basis in
fact and/or where living inhabitants of the area actually experienced
either or both in their own lives.
Stella Nemeth
s.nemeth@ix.netcom.com

spryder@sprynet.com (Stephen P Ryder) wrote:
>I am doing research at the moment on how disease spread throughout North 
>America eradicating hundreds of thousands of Indians whose immune systems 
>could not combat European sicknesses.  I am hoping to specialize on how the 
>American Indian diet affected their immune systems, as well as the spread of 
>disease in general after European contact.
>If anyone has any information on this, especially recent studies/findings, 
>please feel free to share it with the group or with me directly over e-mail at 
>spryder@sprynet.com -- thank you!
If you are going to do this, spend at least some time on contact
diseases in general.  You'll have a more balanced view of the entire
subject.
Stella Nemeth
s.nemeth@ix.netcom.com

>: Well, your logic is amazing, he lists a whole series of cases
>: for plants that didn't make it across. 
>
>No, he presents a hodge-podge list with all kinds of plants, some of 
>which DID make it across. Why should I sort his list for him?
Yuri cannot answer the question.
The question is: 
If there was contact between Polynesia and South America sufficient to allow 
the Polynesian to take the Kumara back with them, why did maize, an important 
staple, not also travel.
Or the potato. Or tobacco.  ????? Or that delight of the South American  
chocolate
I also mentioned Syphilis. This disease should have, if the diffusionists are 
correct, been in Polynesia before the European whalers and sealers.
True, the list was a mix. I had to include the basic staples over the range of 
the coast of South America.
>: How should
>: he proved references for things that don't exist!
>
>Only for those that do exist, this would be enough...
>
>: Please give some references for transfer of the
>: other plants, if it exists.
>
>I gave plenty of other plants already, and gave references for many
>studies. I would prefer to discuss things with people who at least did
>the minimum of homework.
>
>: Also, I am interested in the pineapple in Pompei.
>: I do not have access to the reference you mention,
>: but I have recently been in Pompeji (and had I known,
>: I 'd have looked out for the pineapple).  Anyway, I have
>: books with pictures from Pompeji,  can you tell me
>: how the picture looks, or which picture scene from
>: which villa it is? (the villas have all names)
A note:
The Athenian school of painting to whom Nicias, Praxiteles painter, has copies 
of three of his paintings preserved in frescoes at both Pompei and Rome.
The school of Sicyon held such great painters as Pausias, Lysippus and 
Apelles. Their preference was for portrait and  --allegorical--  pictures.
Were there pineapple sufficient that they would be painted in mural at Pompei 
they would also be preserved in the literature of the time. In the archaeology 
of the area the pollen would be present, and, I hope, remarked upon. 
>The simple answer, Thomas, is that I don't know any of this stuff yet. I
>just saw the ref in a reputable publication and gave it. Can someone else
>help?
I've gone through most of my reference but I find nothing about pineapples in 
Pompei. 
I am reminded of the 'cross' in a particular room (at Pompei). To the delight 
of christians. 
However the 'cross' turned out to be the back of a mirror that had hung from 
the wall.
Some people can stay longer in an hour than others can in a week
gblack@midland.co.nz

For the information of those earlier posters who were interested in the 
subject of cave paintings and rock art, check out Science News, October 5, 
1996, vol. 150, pp. 216-217.  Available in the periodicals section at every 
local library.
Bruce Bower has written another one of his excellent review articles - this 
time on how a growing number of prehistorians are embracing the concept that 
early paintings and art depict images and states such as shamans encounter 
during trance experiences.
Regards,
John Halloran

In article <535ueb$7cq@shore.shore.net>, Steve Whittet
 writes
[very big snip]
>Madagascar is settled from Indonesia c 2000 BC.
"Such archeological diggings as have taken place so far have failed to
unearth evidence of human occupation earlier than approximately 900 AD,
apart from one isolated and unconfirmed carbon-dating of pottery from
around 600 AD at a fishing settlement near St. Augustine's Bay in the
southwest. The remarkable unity of language in this huge island points
to a fairly recent human settlement... A study of the rate of
deforestation resulting from human occupation suggests that the the
first inhabitants arrived not much more than a thousand years ago.
... One might deduce very cautiously that the ancestors of the Malagasy
left Indonesia about 2,000 years ago" 
Sir Mervyn Browne "Madagascar Rediscovered"
>
>The ports alonmg these coasts in the 3rd millenium BC are perhaps
>a days sail apart. It's really no big deal to keep passing the 
>stuff along to the next guy. get the drift?
John

Saida wrote:
> 
> ayma@tip.nl wrote:
> >
> > Saida  wrote:
> >
> > >In the linguistic threads we have been talking about the possible extent
> > >of the influence of the Egyptian language or how far Egyptians reached
> > >in their commerce and or communications.  There are a couple of stories
> > >that make some intriguing suggestions.  One is contained in the writings
> > >of Hecataeus of Abdera, who travelled to Thebes in the time of Ptolemy
> > >Soter and visited the mausoleum of Ramesses II there, the Ramesseum.
> > >Hecataeus claimed he saw a library therein and also a wall decoration
> > >depicting Ramesses' Bactrian campaign.  That would have put the pharaoh
> > >in Afganistan, I believe!
> >
> > ***Interesting, I didn't know this reference. Can you quote it
> > verbatim, or better give a reference? My quess would be it deals with
> > the legendary figure Sesostris, about whom the Greeks told all kind of
> > fantastic stories, like they did around the mesopotamian Ninus.
> > So not  real history.....
> 
> You may read about it in an interesting new book called "The Vanished
> Library" by Luciano Canfora (University of California Press)
> 
> >
> > >Another tale, held to be apocryphal, but perhaps, like all such stories,
> > >contains elements of truth. Here it is as described by Budge in his
> > >book, "The Mummy":
> >
> > ***This so called Bentresh Stela is generally to be held a
> > propogandistic forgery of the Persian/Ptolomaic time, to boost the
> > prestige of the god Chonsu. So it is a mixture of fact and fiction
> > (as indicated below)
> > The full text of the stela  you can find in Lichtheim's Ancient
> > Egyptian Literature.
> 
> It would be interesting to know at what point the stele was dubbed a
> forgery and who reached this conclusion.  Can you enlighten us?
As Ayma notes, it is in Lichtheim's vol.3 (90ff) -- with citations to
earlier discussions. She writes:
The 2 monumental inscriptions known as the Bentresh Stela and the Famine
Stela are examples of a genre that appears to have been favored in the
Late Peroid. They are propogandistic works composed by priests that are
disguised as royal inscriptions of much earlier times, the purpose of
the disguise being to enhance their authority.
> > >"The reigns of Rameses X and Ramses XI are of no interest.  Of the reign
> > >of Ramses XII, their successor, an interesting though fabulous story is
> > >recorded.
> >
> > ***This is odd: the Stela is generally accepted to deal with
> > Ramses II !!
> > In the text, the royal names of Ramses ii are named, being however
> > mixed up with some names of Tuthmosis IV (one of the things showing
> > the stela to be a forgery) -  fact 1 + fiction 1.
> 
> Whoa!  Ramesses the Second's throne name was User-ma'at-Re Setep-en-Re
> Mery-Amun and that of Thutmose IV was Menkheperure.  Kind of difficult
> to confuse, I would think. 
The text gives "User-ma`at-re` setep-en-re` Ra`messes mery-amen"
(Ra`messes II); the names of Thutmosis IV used in the text are his
"Horus" name (Mighty Bull, Beautiful of Crowns), "2 ladies" name
(Abiding in Kingship Like Amen), and his "Golden Horus" name (Strong of
Arm, Smiter of the 9 Bows).
> Now the throne name of the rather shadowy
> Ramesses XII was supposed to be Sekha-en-Re Mery-Amun.  Again, what do
> you suppose would have accounted for the mix-up?
There is no "rather shadowy Ramesses XII" -- the last Ramesside king was
Ramesses XI, the last king of Dyn. XX (the king of the Wen-amen story).
Budge's "Sekha-en-Re Mery-Amun" is Siptah (Sekha-en-re` meri-amen,
Ra`messes sa-ptah), the 2nd to the last king of Dyn XIX.
[snip]
Lichtheim feels that "Bekhten" is likely Bactria and that "Bentresh"
'may be Canaanite'. (Bent Resh? Bent Reshe(p)??)
BTW, the hieroglyphic text is published in Kitchen's Ramesside
Inscriptions vol 2.
Troy

Who is trying to rebuild dinosaurs from DNA? I thought that was Hollywood
fiction. This inquiring mind would like to know.
DC robinson
david_robinson@otter.monterey.edu

Hello experts,
I'm no archeologist, but I look through this group from time to time as
ancient archeology fascinates me.  I have a fairly good understanding of
the intersecting
timelines of the ancient cultures but the question that keeps coming to
me is on
the origins of the ancient Egyptians.  From what little I know, records
place there
cultural beginnings at about 3,000 BC.
In comparison to later cultures in the Mediteranian, (i.e. Minoans,
Greeks, etc. ), it
seems very little is known about Egyptian origin.  Is the 3,000 BC mark
pretty well
established or is it debated?  Is there any evidence of strong cultures
predating the
Egyptians?
Insight on this matter from those more educated than I would be
appreciated.
Thanks,
R. Wey

In article <539eh9$f9v@trojan.neta.com>,
   blair@trojan.neta.com (Blair P Houghton) wrote:
>>The labor force would thus consist of all of the 
>>agricultural workers during that part of the year when agriculture wasn't 
>>being practiced. Is this incorrect?
>
>Probably not all.  It wouldn't take that many to build
>the pyramids.  And some of the pyramid-building force
>would have been skilled craftsmen and engineers.
	Blair is correct.  In fact, agricultural workers have low
marginal productivity - removing a few will have little effect on
overall output.  In ancient China such labor was not limited to
the off-season alone, as I recall (anyone know offhand?) but
was assessed all year 'round.  
	Further, workers may have had other incentives.  Most
agricultural workers remain outside the money economy even
today in underdeveloped countries.  Thus, they view seasonal
unskilled labor as a way to get cash for those economic needs
which cannot be settled by barter.  Regardless of wage, they need
cash work.  I do not know if the Pyramid labor force was corvee
or paid labor, but a money wage may have induced considerable
farm labor to leave the ag sector and report to the Pyramid 
contractors.  In Kenya where I used to live I often saw roads
and other public works built this way for low wages by local
women who normally worked on the farm.
Mike Turton
mturton@stsvr.showtower.com.tw

In article ,
John A. Halloran  wrote:
>Bruce Bower has written another one of his excellent review articles - this 
>time on how a growing number of prehistorians are embracing the concept that 
>early paintings and art depict images and states such as shamans encounter 
>during trance experiences.
	These shamans would have a hard time operating without the use of 
language, don't you think?
-- 
Loren Petrich				Happiness is a fast Macintosh
petrich@netcom.com			And a fast train
My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html

In article  piotrm@umich.edu (Piotr Michalowski) writes:
>>In article  piotrm@umich.edu (Piotr 
Michalowski)>>writes:
>>>to this day no one has come up with Sumerian 
>>>etymologies for most Sumerian city names.  Jacobsen's etymologies have found 
>>>little acceptance (as opposed to some of his graphic discoveries)
What did you mean about his 'graphic discoveries'?
>>  and we 
>>>really do not know what the origin of Nibru, Urim, Lagasha, etc. was.
[reference to an etymology for Nippur and Sumer by Th. Jacobsen]
>2.  Jacobsen wrote that article in 1939!  That is prehistory as far as 
>Sumerology is concerned, and he cited Poebel's works from much earlier.  His 
>etymology is simply wrong for numerous reasons.  He assumed that Nippur was 
>oritginaly nig~ir, from the Sumerian name of Sumer ki-en-gi(r).  We now know 
>that this simply mneans "native land" ki + g~ir, as in dumu g~ir, "native 
>son."
What is the sign numeration on g~ir meaning 'native'?
Since Jacobsen's suggestion is no longer possible, consider the following 
quote:
"Although the city of Nippur had a long prior existence, and its Inanna temple 
can be traced back almost to the beginning of Uruk times (about 3400), there 
is no prior evidence of an Enlil sanctuary.  Its foundation may well mark or 
symbolize the shift from Kish as political capital to Nippur as religious 
center of the rival city-states.  If so, it is significant that its foundation 
is attributed to a king of Kish, for Enmebaragesi is known as King of Kish." 
Hallo and Simpson, The Ancient Near East, p. 45.
This late foundation of the Enlil sanctuary at Nibru by a king of Semitic Kish 
suggests that we can look at Akkadian where we find neberu, meaning 'ferry, 
ford, river crossing'.  
It may or may not be coincidental that nibiru was also a name for Jupiter, the 
planet of Babylonian Marduk, who supplanted the god of Nippur, Enlil.  I have 
never seen a suggestion that Jupiter was associated with Enlil.  But Marduk 
did assume the older god's attributes.
>3. Lagash.  All these etymologies confuse the writing system from the 
>language.  Most, although not all, Sumrian city names were written early on 
>with a subsystem of STANDARD OF MAJOR DEITY(+UNUG) (my own theory is that UNUG 
>is the early sign for "city" that was replaced by a Semitic loan iri [usually 
>transliterated uru], but that is another issue).  Thus Ur (Urim) is written 
>with the sign that was originally the standard of the moon god Nanna and UNUG. 
>This has nothing do with the etymology or the way the city name sounded.  I 
>eve wrote an article on some of these issues "On Some Early Sumerian CIty 
>Names," in the Kutcher Memorial Volume.
Would you please tell us who edited that volume so that we can find your 
article?
Regards,
John Halloran

In article ,
John A. Halloran  wrote:
>In article  petrich@netcom.com (Loren Petrich) writes:
>I will not deny the accomplishments being made by Nostratic scholars.  I 
>have also read and saved your valuable review article on the Nostratic 
>field.  But these scholars are unifying proto-languages dated on the basis of 
>common late technology words to around 5500 years ago.  So this says that 
>Nostratic is older than 5500 years old.
	And these people recognize some other families comparable to 
Nostratic, such as Sino-Caucasian.
>I would also ask you to consider that language families that have similar 
>elements with major differences can have borrowed elements during the 
>formative process while being exposed to the concept of speaking. ...
	It would be easier to borrow the whole thing, as children 
generally do.
-- 
Loren Petrich				Happiness is a fast Macintosh
petrich@netcom.com			And a fast train
My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html

That's pretty cool, Steve.  Interesting.

Thanks for the stuff about the rock joints.  BTW, is Schosh only
claiming rain induced weathering for the areas at pit level and below,
or there areas that are higher?
August Matthusen wrote:
> FWIW, erosion rates for in situ limestones in arid and semiarid
> environments: Cole and Mayer (1982, _Geology_, vol 10, pp 597-599)
> indicate the Redwall Limestone at the Grand Canyon has eroded between
> 18-72 cm per thousand years (cm/ka)  averaging 45 cm/ka.  Gerson
> (1982, _Israel Journal of Earth Sciences_, vol 31, pp 123-132) indicates
> limestones, igneous, and metamorphic rocks in Israel have eroded at
> rates of 100-600 cm/ka.  Yair and Gerson (1983, _Annals of Geomorphology_,
> Supplement 21, pp 202-215.) indicate 10 to 40 cm/ka for limestones and
> dolomites in Israel.
Thanks.  This was interesting.  Surprisingly rapid weathering rates. 
T'would be nice to know the rates for Giza limestone, at different
levels since they vary so much.  The Yair and Gerson cite was obviously
not for comparison to Giza limestone considering it referred to erosion
(not weathering) of a bunch of different rock types.
Thanks for the info about removing material *for* restoration.  Very
true.
Thanks for the info about my local weather stats.  You put me to shame.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say by showing that the post-ice-age
rainfall in Giza was about half of what we receive in Vancouver.  If you
are trying to insinuate that this would have only a marginal effect on
the Egyptian situ limestone my first instinct would be to say that
Egyptian rock wouldn't be *used* to that kind of water fall, and it
might indeed have a deep effect.
BTW, my news server (or somewhere) is stopping me from posting with too
many old quotes...  Weird.  So their gone.
-- 
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/

In article , Son of Traven wrote:
>>The best source perhaps is the Egyptian Story of Sinuhe, the...
>
>I once read "The Egyptian" by Mika Waltari and it was a great story, though 
>a novel.  
And you really should keep that in mind.  Waltari writes very well, and 
uses a lot of historical facts.  However, the story itself is his own 
imagination, so do not take the book too seriously.  The pessimistic mood 
in the book was greatly affected by the Second World War, and the overall 
atmosphere does not present the ancient Egyptian way of thinking.  
Waltari never even visited Egypt.
The original story of Sinuhe is another thing. As a contemporary source 
it gives a lot of information.
-- 
**************************************************************************
* Paivi Miettunen    * E-mail:                * I walk over it alone,    *
* Kamnerintie 7 F 48 * clotilde@lyseo.otol.fi * in the cold moonlight    *  
* 00750 Helsinki     * phmiettu@helsinki.fi   * the sound of the bridge. *
**************************************************************************
                     *      CARPE DIEM!       *
                     **************************

In article <325383A3.5581@lynx.bc.ca>,
   Jiri Mruzek  wrote:
>Adrian Gilbert wrote:
> 
> In article <3247e4bc.43620391@news.nwrain.net>,
> fmurray@pobox.com (frank murray) wrote:
>> >On Sat, 21 Sep 96 04:09:06 GMT, solos@enterprise.net (Adrian
>> >Gilbert) wrote:
>
>> >>I have never disputed that Egyptian pyramids were primarily tombs,
>> >> though they seem also to have had functions beyond merely being
>> >> last resting places.
>
>> >adrian,
>
>> >does your "have never disputed" translate as "believe", and
>> >if so, why so??...the dearth of direct evidence supporting
>> >such a belief, weighed against the directly contradicting
>> >evidence from the sekhemkhet pyramid (the still sealed, yet
>> >empty sarcophagus - are we to believe that the egyptians
>> >were so stupid that they forgot to bury the body??..)
I know it would be nice to think that the pyramids were some kind of 
"space-age" power-station or the receptacles of psychic energies etc. However, 
 examination of them on the ground doesn't, to my mind, support such New Age 
fantasies, howeve appealing. To me the pyramids are fascinating enough for 
what they are without having to invent strange theories about them being 
batteries running on water-power, etc. It is clear that they are remarkable 
structures that embody numbers, proportion, exact orientation to the stars and 
 the religious ideals of those we believe built them. They may not have been 
tombs themselves but they sure as hell are situated in the middle of large 
grave-yards on the West Bank of the Nile. The implication is clear that they 
were associated with rituals to do with rebirth and ascension to the stars. 
Whether or not the corpse or mummy of the pharaoh was finally sealed inside 
the pyramid is a mute point. To me it seems more probable that it was- 
certainly in the Vth and VIth Dynasty pyramids if not in the IVth. As these 
pyramids were robbed in antiquity we don't know. As for the Great Pyramid 
itself. I suspect we will find the body of Khufu in a chamber at the top of 
the shaft with the little door. A clairvoyant friend of mine has drawn 
pictures of what she says is at the end of this shaft and this seems to 
include a sarcophagus, with lid. These pictures can be viewed at 
http://www.netlink.co.uk/users/solos should you wish to take a look yourself.
   All of this is a long way from the cocaine mummies that this thread is 
supposed to be about. Does anyone else out there agree with me that it is more 
than likely that the Egyptians crossed the Atlantic and trade with the 
indigenous peoples of the New World, leading to cross-cultural fertilization? 
I have written about this in "The Mayan Prophecies" and apart from some 
uninformed abuse have heard very little on the subject, most people being more 
interested in the Mayan End-date or 2012. 
Adrian G. Gilbert.

Steve Whittet wrote:
> 
> In article <3259001B.7D9B@utoronto.ca>, t.sagrillo@utoronto.ca says...
> >
> >Steve Whittet wrote:
> >>
> >> In article , petrich@netcom.com says...
> >> ...snip...
> >> >
> >> >In article <538g5e$f9e@shore.shore.net>,
> >> >Steve Whittet  wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>I was thinking of "Ptah r" where "r" is more of a verb
> >> >
> >> >        Actually, Mr. Whittet shows his ignorance of the structure of the
> >> >Egyptian language, whose preferred syntax was verb-subject-object.
> >
> >And by claming that /r/ is a verb to begin with....
> 
> Gardiner page 214 Section 281 Tetiae Infirmae verbs
> "(iri) make; do; is usually written without the expected phonetic
> complent (r)"
> 
> So...is Gardiners Egyptian Grammar incorrect...?
No, of course not, and this has absolutely *nothing* to do with anything
other than orthography (writing). Gardiner is referring to the /r/ of 
/iri/ *not* being **written** as a distinct grapheme but implied in the
biliteral /ir/ sign (the eye). But you are changing the issue once
again. you wrote:
"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"."
You did not write "Ptah iri"; you wrote "Ptah r" and then continued:
"I was thinking of "Ptah r" where "r" is more of a verb"
Now which is it? "Ptah r" [Ptah + /r/ mouth] (which is impossible as /r/
is NOT a verb), or (now) "Ptah iri" [Ptah + /iri/ eye]?? And again I
ask, where is this text?
Troy

Ahem!  When I started this thread, it was about Henry Lincoln; it is now
about all kinds of things. It's time to retitle!
vale
Mike Skupin

Yuri--
Relevant to the Chinese/Mayan question is the work of Knorozov, whose
books I don't know firsthand (and even if I did, my Russian's pretty
limited).  He's a shadow-figure in Maya studies, I gather, because many of
his ideas were subsumed (or lifted, if you will) by later,
English-speaking scholars.  If you're familiar with his work, that might
be an important element in the question, or at least a source of insights.
fsevo khoroshevo
Mike Skupin

In  spryder@sprynet.com (Stephen P
Ryder) writes: 
>
>
>
>I am doing research at the moment on how disease spread throughout
North 
>America eradicating hundreds of thousands of Indians whose immune
systems 
>could not combat European sicknesses.  I am hoping to specialize on
how the 
>American Indian diet affected their immune systems, as well as the
spread of 
>disease in general after European contact.
>
>If anyone has any information on this, especially recent
studies/findings, 
>please feel free to share it with the group or with me directly over
e-mail at 
>spryder@sprynet.com -- thank you!
>
>Stephen P Ryder
So I take it that you're asserting that there was something other than
the fact that Native Americans were just never exposed to European
diseases that led to the epidemics?  
Seeing that there were upwards (if not in excess) of 80 million Native
Americans in North and South America, do you suppose that they all in
any way had similar diets?
This line of thinking strikes awfully close to the sociobiological view
that Indians *lack of immunity* was genetic, and due in particular to a
lack of genetic diversity, as it places the *fault* of their own demise
upon the victim, in this case, the Indian, _not_ the perpetrator, the
disease-carrying Europeans.
MB Williams
Dept. of Anthro., UMass-Amherst

In article , piotrm@umich.edu says...
>
>In article <538r80$rgh@shore.shore.net> whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) 
writes:
>>
>>Here is the issue as I see it. The original classifications of
>>"Hamitic" and "Semitic" came from Biblical references to the sons
>>of Noah, Shem, Ham and Japheth. 
>
>>If we can discover what tribes had what territories it makes some
>>sense to assign their linguistics accordingly.
>
> snip
>
>>When I say that the original classifications of "Hamitic"
>>and "Semitic" came from Biblical references to the sons
>>of Noah, Shem, Ham and Japheth, I expect that any sensible 
>>person can see that these are clearly references to early
>>tribes, clans, or households.
>
>>In that sense they provide a good correlation to which early 
>>people were settled where  and related to whom. There also 
>>appears to be some relation to chronology as well.
>
>Why don;t you pay a little more attention.  The notions of "Hamitic" vs 
>"Semitic" are not Biblical, but modern, and are part of the history of 
>linguistics. 
Sorry, the "modern" linguistic etymology is a Biblical reference.
> I posted earlier the history of both terms.
The history of the terms goes back to their original point of origin.
> Today, no linguist recognizes these as separate entities, 
That is one of the problems with linguistic analysis, it needs
to come together with recent archaeological analysis which shows
that there is sufficient accuracy to the Biblical accounts to
suggest they were contemporary histories. The recent BAR interviews
with William Dever for example.
>but you persist, and attach ethinic or tribal meanings to boot.
No question about it, they are references to tribal territories
and tribes, place names, etc; all with appropriate adjacency to
one another. What would help would be for the linguists to
re examine the table of nations.
>  If you want to now become a Biblical scholar, all 
>power to you, but be warned that there is more secondary 
>literature on Genesis than you can read in your lifetime,
> and the good stuff is not on the net.  
I have to wonder why you would want to reject out of hand
possibly useful material just because it is tainted with
poor secondary analysis.
>There are active debates about the time of the writing down 
>of Genesis, about the metaphors involved in the table of 
>nations etc.
What I liked about the Dever interview with Herschel Shanks
was that he backed up the linguistics with solid archaeology,
pottery, architecture and discussions like "What is a pym?"
>All of that has nothing to do with the fact that you are now 
>projecting a hypothetical "hamitic" entity, which was recognized 
>for a time, but now is not, back into Biblical times. 
The Hamitic entity existed, but secondary analysis had taken
a rather racist tack. The disassociation was just an early attempt
at PC. Now it is time to go back and look at the groupings in the
table of nations and ask what each group refers to.
> The terms Hamitic and Semitic were invented by European 
>linguists, and they used the Biblical names only as matrixes.
This reminds me of the fifties when the Americans would invent
something like the hula hoop and the Russians would claim to
have discovered it first.
The terms Hamitic and Semitic were Biblical references, yes or no?
>What is the point of all of this if you ignore history and
>scholarship completely, and just ramble on without any idea 
>of what hundreds of people have spent their lives working on.
I am just engaged in a process typical of real science which
goes back and questions the entire slippery slope which led
to present theory and then attempts to reformulate the equasion
so as to expand the perspective.
>How about resurrecting Japhetic, as somene else suggested in 
>jest, or a little Marrist linguistics?
How about just putting the linquistics aside and looking at the
archaeology. This is after all an archaeological forum.
>The last few decades have witnessed a tremendous amount 
>of new discoveries in Afroasiatic, especially on the 
>African side, and you want to take us back to the last century.
I want to look at the Arabian influences on Egypt across the Red Sea.
The problem with looking at "afroasiatic" as Egyptian and a number
of African languages is that it completely ignores the influence
from southwestern Arabia. Aparently the idea is that all Arabian
languages are Semitic. That is why I am trying to make the 
distinction "Hamitic", to take into account the interaction 
of peoples across the Red Sea. The Arabian influence on Africa
and the African influence on Arabia.
The "African" people of northeast Africa have often been 
called Hamitic. I would propose that they are closely tied 
to the people in southwestern Arabia. The people in the 
western techno complex c 8,000 BC were pastoral nomads
and there is a connection between the Semitic nomads of the
north and the Hamitic nomads of the south. This is the
connection I see between Egyptian and the Semitic languages.
>  What is all this research for if people like you want to 
simply ignore it and blather on. 
If you don't have enough confidence in your research to defend it 
against all comers without getting shrill, perhaps you should take 
a sabatical and spend some time blowing some more progressive jazz.
> The internet is becoming a horror show, as it seems that 
>reading and thinking are taboo, 
Actually, people are reading voraciously and totally exceeding
the ability of libraries and bookstores to satisfy the demand
for more information.
>and one can simply bypass everything that has been done before, 
>refuse to learn the subject one is rambling on about, and just emote.
It's a shame you feel that way. In fact the creation of new ideas
should have some empathy and respect for the process whereby old
ideas were created. If you want to see that in action take a look
at what's going on in architecture. We no longer just tear down
old buildings and replace them with shiny new skyscrapers. 
>  I assume that one would not try to discuss nuclear physics 
>without first learning the basics of the field, why is ancient 
>history and linguistics any different? 
The real issue is should specialists in linguistics cooperate 
with specialists in history, archaeology, geology, chemistry,
biology, architecture, mathematics, philosophy, religion, art,
etc; and if so isn't there a role for generalists to coordinate
the effort?
Someone needs to administer the process and direct the 
cooperative effort. Specialists are not well suited to
coordinating interdisciplinary studies because they tend
to be very focused on their own particular area of expertise.
Many of the questions generalists raise are frustrating to
specialists because they go into areas outside the specialists
provenence. I think that is the thing that really irks you.
In the wider discussion your area of expertise in which you
may be king of the heap, is just enough of a chip to buy an
ante in the larger pot.
steve

In article , piotrm@umich.edu says...
>
>In article <32591671.3AD0@PioneerPlanet.infi.net> Saida 
 writes:
>>
>>As you may have noticed, I am not much impressed by "universal 
>>linguistic opinion", if there really is such a thing, or I would never 
>>have offered the observation that I see a good deal in ancient Egyptian 
>>that looks like IE.  Because of this, I am very suspicious of any 
>>classification of this language.  Not only that, but I am most wary of 
>>some of what is nowadays "universal linguistic opinion" of the 
>>pronunciation or value of the hieroglyphs.  Additionally, as I am well 
>>out of the academic or controlled study of Egyptian, I have no reason to 
>>worry about its classification among the world languages. In other 
>>words, I have no one to tell me what I must believe in order to pass 
>>tests or get a degree.  To me, it is just "Egyptian", the study of which 
>>has become a fascinating and enlightening hobby.  The more I learn, the 
>>more it surprises me.
>
>I am sorry, but this is a completely irresponsable answer.  
>"Universal opinion" is not based on fairy tales or empty intuition. 
The "opinion of the many" does not equate to knowledge. Plato
refered to this sort of education in Book I of the Republic as 
"a torch race on Horseback". As the student rushes through school
in search of the grades to earn a degree there is little real
interest or motivation to enquire deeply into the process which
has led to the opinons disseminated as education.
Only when people come into the process as Saida has done, motivated
by an "Eros for wisdom", a lust to learn more and more and more,
do we get people going down into the basement with a flashlight
to look for the cracks in the foundation, the rotted timbers,
rusty pipes and bare wires supporting the continued existence
of the magnificent edifice above.
>It is the result of a tremendous amount of hard work by many people 
>over generations.  If you want to deny it, you have first know it, 
>and then have cogent reasons for rejecting it and proposing something 
>different.  Otherwise, it is all whistling in the dark, and, quite 
>frankly, a waste of everyone's time, including your own.
Meanwhile, to continue the analogy, we have you sitting in your
research lab, trying to do your work and complaining about the noise
from the workmen making repairs and digging up the street below
with their jackhammers.
steve

In  spryder@sprynet.com (Stephen P
Ryder) writes: 
>
>
>>I think that the fact that most of the diseases used are still highly
>>dangerous for adults who contract them tends to deal a rather
>>overwhelming blow to your hypothesis.  Sorry!
>
>No need for apologies -- you've made some very enlightening points. 
But I 
>suppose the question would then be why were the indians so drastically
>affected then, but similar outbreaks have rarely (to my knowledge)
occurred 
>elsewhere.   
The Pacific Islanders, as wells as Australian Aborigines and New
Zealand Maoris, were also decimated by European diseases after contact.
In the Americas, the reason Indians were so drastically effected was
that the majority of the diseases originally developed from similar
diseases whose hosts were domesticated animals, e.g., smallpox from
cows.  Native Americans had few domesticated animals, dogs, llamas, and
thus the vectors through which transmission could occur and spread did
not exist.
As Paula mentioned previously, European epidemics in the Americas were
particularly devastating because they hit non-immune adult populations
as well as adolescent and infant populations.  It is also important to
note that not everyone died of the diseases themselves -- as epidemics
struck an entire group at the same time, many people died of
dehydration and general lack of medical attention, as there was noone
to care for the sick, as everyone was afflicted.  Also, epidemics often
struck after direct contact with Europeans, which most often occurred
in coastal/riverine communities in the warm-weather months.  This often
led to a neglect of crops/collection activities, and famine later
ensued.
An excellent work on New World epidemics is Pat Ramenofsky's _Vectors
of Death_ (its downstairs presently, so I don't have all the
specifics.)
Also, Henry Dobyn's _Their Numbers Became Thinned_ (I think that's the
correct title... Once again, its not directly available.)
Good luck,
MB Williams
Dept. of Anthro., UMass-Amherst
>If I were to focus on "everyday" sicknesses like mumps and measles,
are there 
>any specific studies which might shed some more light on the topic?  
>
>Thanks again,
>
>Stephen P Ryder

In article <325A0EB2.1FE6@primenet.com>, diinc@primenet.com says...
>
>Hello experts,
>
>I'm no archeologist, but I look through this group from time to time as
>ancient archeology fascinates me.  I have a fairly good understanding of
>the intersecting
>timelines of the ancient cultures but the question that keeps coming to
>me is on
>the origins of the ancient Egyptians.  From what little I know, records
>place there
>cultural beginnings at about 3,000 BC.
That is a good rough number for the start of Dynastic Egypt,
pre dynastic Egyptian civilization in the Nile valley and
the Nile Delta goes back about another 1500 years through
the Naquada and Badariam cultures. The presence of people
goes back at least another 2000 years beyond that in the 
Paleolithic. 
>
>In comparison to later cultures in the Mediteranian, (i.e. Minoans,
>Greeks, etc. ), it
>seems very little is known about Egyptian origin.  Is the 3,000 BC mark
>pretty well
>established or is it debated?  Is there any evidence of strong cultures
>predating the
>Egyptians?
Catyal Hyuk, Turkey goes back to the 7th millenium, Jehrico
in Palestine, sites with pottery go back to c 10,000 BC and 
sites with plaster floors go back into the Neolithic.
I would use a date of c 4,500 BC for the first real emergence
of what we might call "cultures"...
>
>Insight on this matter from those more educated than I would be
>appreciated.
>
>Thanks,
>R. Wey
steve

spryder@sprynet.com (Stephen P Ryder) wrote:
>>I think that the fact that most of the diseases used are still highly
>>dangerous for adults who contract them tends to deal a rather
>>overwhelming blow to your hypothesis.  Sorry!
>No need for apologies -- you've made some very enlightening points.  But I 
>suppose the question would then be why were the indians so drastically 
>affected then, but similar outbreaks have rarely (to my knowledge) occurred 
>elsewhere.   
The single most important reason has already been outlined in the post
by Rebecca Johnson.  Once settlers, etc., became aware of the dramatic
effects of these diseases, *some* began to use them as explicit
weapons for clearing areas of land that they desired to occupy.  I
believe there is some documentation of this being done in Canada and
the Great Lakes region in the 17th century.  Mary Beth Williams has
previously posted far better explanations than I can WRT issues of
relative nutritional health of natives vs. immigrants *and* disease
campaigns (with good reason; among other professional qualifications,
she's a physical anthropologist).  I'm trying my inadequate best to
fill in, as she's known to be just a little *busy* at the moment :-)
..  So I've been using my (now dated) background in pathogenic
bacteriology (3 years in an immuno lab) to try to fill in a bit.
>If I were to focus on "everyday" sicknesses like mumps and measles, are there 
>any specific studies which might shed some more light on the topic?  
Sorry, I really don't know the literature, but it shouldn't be hard to
find.  If MB can find a minute, she probably has it at her fingertips.
An issue which has some relevance, and which is periodically rehashed
here and other places, is the fact that most important pathogens seem
to arise through transfer of infectivity (adaptation to a new host)
across species barriers (e.g., the infamous "swine flu").  The large
variety of domesticated animals in the Old World provided far more
opportunities for interspecific transfers, and thus for the
development of many more human pathogens.  By contrast, prior to
Contact, the only common domestic animal in North America was the dog
(although my ancestors, and possibly other tribes as well, would raid
turkey nests and raise the chicks).  
In South America, there were more domestic animals, and, possibly,
more endemic diseases (though I don't know if anyone has ever looked
at this).  It would also be interesting to know (and perhaps someone
familiar with the conquest literature of South America could speak up
and tell us?) whether the same sorts of devastating epidemics occurred
there.  Certainly, the efforts there were not to kill, but primarily
to enslave.
Paula.Sanch@emich.edu
-----------------------------
"We can disagree without being disagreeable."
(Sis. Mickey Eaton, a southern Pentecostal)

In article <53dgor$nad@shore.shore.net> whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) writes:
>F
>Meanwhile, to continue the analogy, we have you sitting in your
>research lab, trying to do your work and complaining about the noise
>from the workmen making repairs and digging up the street below
>with their jackhammers.
Well said!  Jackhammer is perhaps too subtle a metaphor for the lunacies that 
you propagate here.  If you think that  a complete--and stubborn-- ignorance 
of basic facts, a willingness to opine on events and languages that you have 
not even an elementary knowledge of, invention of facts, misreadings presented 
as knowledge and bad manners are making a contribution to anything, or are 
going to have any effect on anything beyond a small coterie of similar minds 
here, you have my sympathies.  Quite the opposite.  Your insistence on arguing 
about anything under the sun, with learning anything about it, your refusal to 
accept any other point of view, and your constant repetition of the same 
mistakes, have made any cogent discussion of anything almost impossible. Every 
time someone starts a discussion, you manage to sidetrack it by proposing a 
whole series of ridiculous ideas, supported by a whole series of demonstrably 
incorrect facts.  The discussion then deteriorates as you opine on languages 
you do not know, misread maps, disregard time and space, and refuse to accept 
even basic corrections.  Jackhammer indeed!  I know that in a few years 
you will be repeating the same nonsense again and again, your Hatur's , 
Akkadian pictographs, your phantom naval empire, your Phoenician Greek and 
other lovely nonsense that would make a child blush with shame.   It will be 
foir nought, as it will have no influence on any serious any thinking about 
anything, but it will continue to obstruct serious discussion on 
the internet.   Fortunately, there are more important forums for 
such matters, and they will not be made obsolete by the 
internet, as that has definitely been taken over by the 
patients.  Its is all a sad waste of time. 

In article , piotrm@umich.edu says...
>
>In article <53cats$c2p@shore.shore.net> whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) 
writes:
>
>
>>To me Linear A and B resemble a hieratic form of the characters seen
>>in Hieroglyphic form on the Phaistoes Disk. This has a resemblence
>>to Luwian, Hieroglyphic Egyptian, even Pictographic Akkadian. That
>>admittedly does not mean the languages are related, but it does
>>show some cultural interface and contact.
>
>Here we go again.  Aside from the fact that it is Phaistos, the 
>point has been made repeatedly to you, but of course repeating 
>errors is a trademark here, but I will repeat it once again.  
>There never was, repeat, never any such thing as 
"Pictographic Akkadian." 
I am using Michael Roaf CAM "The Origins of Writing, p 70
as a reference here, but I have seen numerous references to
pictographs in other literature.
First we have pictographic signs, c 3100 BC
Then we have  recognizably derived from the
pictographs but made using the wedge shaped straight line 
mark of a stylus in clay which straightens out the curves of the
pictographs c 2400 BC. These are still recognizable pictures.
Then we have cuneiform signs rotated 90 degrees and stlyized
as abstractions of the pictures with the compositional massing 
organized in a linear as oposed to cluster arrangement. c 700 BC
still referencing the original pictures in a recognizable way.
When we compare the pictographic Akkadian cuneiform of c 2400 BC
with the glyphs of the Phaistos Disk the similarity is striking.
>  By the time cuneiform was adapted to Semitic languages such 
>as Eblaite and Akkadian, it had long lost any pictographic qualities.
I strongly disagree, but then I am used to looking at the 
transformation of compositional elements in the architecture 
of buildings. The elements of architectural design are refered 
to as a "design vocabulary". I can clearly see the evolutionary
process working in a very similar manner in the arrangement of
the strokes used to create each cuneiform sign.
>  The whole scheme is rather strange.  Can you show any other 
>examples of the Frankenstein creation of a writing system from 
>three completely different scripts? 
The Rosetta stone?
> Even more bizarre is the claim that it could have had any 
>relationship with a "pictographic" form of cuneiform, since 
>the pictographic elements of that writing system had ceased 
>to be used hundreds of years before? 
That is a very superficial analysis.
The first transformation is the use of straight strokes
to replace curved line because it was hard to draw curves
in clay. 
The second transformation is the rotation of the arrangement
by ninety degrees.
The third transformation is the remassing to minimise the 
number of directions from which strokes are made.
> Others have asked you to show the existence of "Luwian," that 
>is the monumental Hittite Hieroglyphic before the proposed date 
>of the Phaistos disk and you answered with a series of unrelated 
>facts.
"Tablets of Hittite-Luvian hieroglyphics from Hama, Syria
remained indecipherable for nearly a century after their discovery."
Ewa Wasilewska "The Hittites of Anatolia"
The illustration shows glyphs in bas relief in linear bands.
Other illustrations show a circular arrangement and the mixture 
of cuneiform with pictographs.
Glyphs common to both the Phaistoes Disk and those illustrated as 
Hittite- Luvian include the "se" glyph (stalk of wheat) and a man
walking.
>You just lectured me about moving on with work, but you only 
>repeat the same mistakes again and again, so where is the 
>movement going? 
Lets both try dealing with the substance of the argument and just
ditch the lectures and then perhaps we will get on better.
steve

mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal) wrote:
>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. 
>Who is denying this?  
I suggest you reread the threads.  It has been denied up, down and
sidewise.
Stella Nemeth
s.nemeth@ix.netcom.com

In article , rejohnsn@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu writes
>And for non-place-name words, the book *Cosmos* (by Carl Sagan) mentions 
>a German Word, apparently used by Einstein, meaning "tram that moves at 
>the speed of light" (or would that be "tramthatmovesatthespeedoflight"), 
>supposedly using 50+ letters.
Naw. German's banned, because of the near-limitless availability of
compounds. My first German teacher (in Scotland, in the '50s) claimed
actually to have seen an office door with the inhabitant's job title
painted on it:
NorthRhineSteamshipTransportationCompanyAssistantGeneralManager.
-- 
Alan M. Dunsmuir

In article <53b8pd$pko@news1.io.org> yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
>A while back, I promised to send you some refs in regard to the
>theories that the Mayan writing system may have been based on some
>Chinese prototypes. I have investigated this matter further, and I
>must say that I found quite little work that has been done in this
>area. Nevertheless, there's some...
[deletions]
>Also, I would like to make it clear that I never claimed that
>decisive proof exists that Mayan writing was derived from Asian
>prototypes. All I said was that _some people_ suggested it. Such
>evidence as exists is extremely intriguing and deserves further
>investigation. I hope someone can research these matters further.
> 
>Yuri.
The fact that "_some people_" say something doesn't necessarily mean
anything.  I'm sure we are in agreement that although _some people_ say
Pacal's sarcophagus lid depicts a Mayan king in a spacecraft, this interpretion
is incorrect.  The question isn't whether some people say something,
the question is whether some people say something and can show it to be
true.
I may, or may not, look into this supposed chinese derivation of Mayan
writing, but my current feeling (based on the fact that none of the Mayan
epigraphers mention any such connection) is that it is baseless.  Keep in 
mind that the Maya were not the first Mesoamerican civilization to use 
writing, at present that distinction seems to belong to the Formative Zapotec 
of the Valley of Oaxaca.
Peter van Rossum
PMV100@PSU.EDU

In article <3259EA14.27D5@utoronto.ca>, t.sagrillo@utoronto.ca says...
>
>Steve Whittet wrote:
>> 
>> In article <3259001B.7D9B@utoronto.ca>, t.sagrillo@utoronto.ca says...
>> >
>> >Steve Whittet wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In article , petrich@netcom.com says...
>> >> ...snip...
>> >> >
>> >> >In article <538g5e$f9e@shore.shore.net>,
>> >> >Steve Whittet  wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>I was thinking of "Ptah r" where "r" is more of a verb
>> >> >
>> >> >        Actually, Mr. Whittet shows his ignorance of the structure of 
the
>> >> >Egyptian language, whose preferred syntax was verb-subject-object.
>> >
>> >And by claming that /r/ is a verb to begin with....
>> 
>> Gardiner page 214 Section 281 Tetiae Infirmae verbs
>> "(iri) make; do; is usually written without the expected phonetic
>> complent (r)"
>> 
>> So...is Gardiners Egyptian Grammar incorrect...?
>
>No, of course not, and this has absolutely *nothing* to do with anything
>other than orthography (writing). Gardiner is referring to the /r/ of 
>/iri/ *not* being **written** as a distinct grapheme but implied in the
>biliteral /ir/ sign (the eye). But you are changing the issue once
>again. you wrote:
>
>"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"."
>
>You did not write "Ptah iri"; you wrote "Ptah r" and then continued:
>
>"I was thinking of "Ptah r" where "r" is more of a verb"
 Gardiner page 214 Section 281 Tetiae Infirmae verbs
"(iri) make; do; *is usually written without the expected phonetic
complent (r)"*
So did I write this verb properly...or not?
>> 
>
>Now which is it? "Ptah r" [Ptah + /r/ mouth] (which is impossible as /r/
>is NOT a verb), or (now) "Ptah iri" [Ptah + /iri/ eye]?? And again I
>ask, where is this text?
I found at least one example, cited already elsewhere, 
in the "Book of the Dead". As Budge is suspect, and I am
certainly willing to be corrected, why don't you see
whether or not you find any reference to Ptah being
the "father of all fathers" in the literature to
which you have access.
>
>Troy
steve

In article , piotrm@umich.edu says...
>
>In article <53c0aj$l4m@shore.shore.net> whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) 
writes:
>
>
>>>>What stratigraphic evidence?'
>>>
>>>>In 1894 clay tablets were found at Bogazkov in Anatolia by the French 
>>>>archaeologist Ernest Chantre.
>
>>>>In 1945 in Karatepe in southern Turkey inscriptians in Hittite-Luwian
>>>>and in the Phoenician alphabetic script were found.
>>>
>>>>The dating is by reference to the Armana letters.
>>>
>>>I do not understand how Karatepe is dated by the Amarna letters.  Please 
>>>elaborate,
>>>
>>I was refering to the dating of the tablets found at Bogazkoy.
>
>>"The Royal archives of Tell el Armana, a city occupied between
>>1375 and 1360 BC comprised the official letters of two Egyptian 
>>Pharoahs, Amenhotep III and Akhenaten and included some 400 
>>cuneiform tablets mostly in Akkadian."... "Among these were some 
>>written in the same language as those from Bogazkoy."
>>"The Hittites of Anatolia" Ewa Wasilewska
>
>>The ideographic Karatepe inscriptions present the same text
>>in Luwian and Phoenician alphabetic script 
>
>So what--we all know these basic facts.
>None of this answers the question that was posed, 
>namely that of stratigraphy, 
The inscriptions are not dated by stratigraphy but rather by 
similarity to other documents found in the archives at Armana
which go back to the campaigns of Tuthmosis I c 1504-1492 BC
>and your early date of Luwian. 
I have provided no date for Luwian, simply said that there
are glyphs identified as Luwian which are similar to glyphs
on the the Phaistos disk which is dated to c 1700 BC is also
strikingly similar to Sumerian or Akkadian pictographs and 
Hieroglyphic Egyptian and may have been the genesis of both 
the Luwian and Liniar A and B scripts
> What was the point?  Karatepe is certainly not that early,
Karatepe in 1945 was the first instance of a discovery of
the Hittite Luwian script associated with a Phoenician script 
which helped in its decipherment.
> unless you are going to redate it for us. 
Why not just read what I say? Why do you find it necessary
to extrapolate from what I have said, something I have not said, 
and then argue against that?
>  As for Amarna, it is all very intereting, but that is not 
>how one dates the archives from the Hittite capilol, which 
>span a much longer time than do the short-lived, and relatively 
>sparse archives of Tell el-Amarna (compared to those from 
>Boghazkoy).
In assigning these texts to their owners the Armana archives 
were of great help. Among them there were some tablets written 
in the same language as the texts from Bogazkoy.
steve
>
>
>

In article <53dlgb$3da@shore.shore.net> whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) writes:
>I am using Michael Roaf CAM "The Origins of Writing, p 70
>as a reference here, but I have seen numerous references to
>pictographs in other literature.
>First we have pictographic signs, c 3100 BC
>Then we have  recognizably derived from the
>pictographs but made using the wedge shaped straight line 
>mark of a stylus in clay which straightens out the curves of the
>pictographs c 2400 BC. These are still recognizable pictures.
Look, you know nothing about this, so why don;t you simply pay some attention. 
This is not a matter of theory, it is documented information.  There are no 
Akkadian pictographs, as by the time Akkadian was written down the script has 
not pictorgraphic elements left.  SInce you do not know these languages, nor 
anything about the writing system, simply asserting rubbish is not getting us 
anywhere.  The straightening out of "curves" happened very quickly after the 
development of writing, long before 2400.   Early Dynastic texts are already 
written with wedges, not drawn, and are completely abstract.  I work with 
these texts every day and I find it incredible that you can simply assert such 
false statements without any idea of what you are talking about.
>Then we have cuneiform signs rotated 90 degrees and stlyized
>as abstractions of the pictures with the compositional massing 
>organized in a linear as oposed to cluster arrangement. c 700 BC
>still referencing the original pictures in a recognizable way.
If you think that around 700 BC there were pictographs left in cuneiform, 
there is nothing to discuss. I cannot demonstrate this on this forum, but it 
is complete nonsense.   This is the date of the libraries of Assurbanipal and 
the Assyrian and Babylonian forms of cuneiform used there are completely 
abstract, as any first year Akkadian student knows from struggling with trying 
to memorize signs that are difficult to associate with values.
 >When we compare the pictographic Akkadian 
cuneiform of c 2400 BC>with the glyphs of the Phaistos Disk the similarity is 
striking.
No it is not.  First, I do not think you can tell Akkadian from Sumerian, nor 
can you show any 2400 BCE cuneiform that was pictographic.  Second, even if 
this nonsense were true, how would that relate to the Phaistos disk, which you 
yourself date around 1700.  That is 6000 years!  If you were an epigrapher on 
an excavation you would misdate things by millennia with your ideas.  Way to 
go!
 >>  By the time cuneiform was adapted to Semitic languages such 
>>as Eblaite and Akkadian, it had long lost any pictographic qualities.
>I strongly disagree, but then I am used to looking at the 
>transformation of compositional elements in the architecture 
>of buildings. The elements of architectural design are refered 
>to as a "design vocabulary". I can clearly see the evolutionary
>process working in a very similar manner in the arrangement of
>the strokes used to create each cuneiform sign.
How can you strongly disagree about something you have never studied?  This 
can only be said by someone who has never studied cuneiform, and yet out of 
sheer obstinacy, you will argue to the last with someone who actually works 
with early texts.  
>>  The whole 
scheme is rather strange.  Can you show any other >>examples of the 
Frankenstein creation of a writing system from >>three completely different 
scripts? 
>The Rosetta stone?
What about it, this is fantastic logic!  The Rosetta stone contains three 
different writing systems, not a new writing system concocted out of disparate 
elements of other systems.  What is the point of such argumentation?  It is 
one thing to argue out of ignorance, but when elementary logical connections 
are missing, we really are left with nothing.
>> Even more bizarre is the claim that it could have 
had any >>relationship with a "pictographic" form of cuneiform, since 
>>the pictographic elements of that writing system had ceased 
>>to be used hundreds of years before? 
>That is a very superficial analysis.
>The first transformation is the use of straight strokes
>to replace curved line because it was hard to draw curves
>in clay. 
>The second transformation is the rotation of the arrangement
>by ninety degrees.
>The third transformation is the remassing to minimise the 
>number of directions from which strokes are made.
What do these statements have to do with the price of eggs?
>> Others have asked you to show the existence of "Luwian," that 
>>is the monumental Hittite Hieroglyphic before the proposed date 
>>of the Phaistos disk and you answered with a series of unrelated 
>>facts.
>"Tablets of Hittite-Luvian hieroglyphics from Hama, Syria
>remained indecipherable for nearly a century after their discovery."
>Ewa Wasilewska "The Hittites of Anatolia"
Another brilliant irrelevancy!
>The illustration shows glyphs in bas relief in linear bands.
>Other illustrations show a circular arrangement and the mixture 
>of cuneiform with pictographs.
>Glyphs common to both the Phaistoes Disk and those illustrated as 
>Hittite- Luvian include the "se" glyph (stalk of wheat) and a man
>walking.
>>You just lectured me about moving on with work, but you only 
>>repeat the same mistakes again and again, so where is the 
>>movement going? 
>Lets both try dealing with the substance of the argument and just
>ditch the lectures and then perhaps we will get on better.
We will never get on, until you stop posting disinformation, and stick to some 
elementary logic in your postings. Just look back on this posting: Rubbish on 
rubbish--a question about the dating of Luwian has resulted in completely 
randon quotes from an atlas and a net article, none of which answer the 
question at all.  A second requst  results in more unrelated citations.  Then 
you insist on inventing facts about a writing system you know nothing about.  
I suggest that you look at just one Sargonic period cuneiform text, I do not 
expect you to read it, but you do not have to be a genious to realize that 
nothing about any of them is pictographic.  I cannot do more than that.  This 
is really tiresome.

George Black (gblack@midland.co.nz) wrote:
[Yuri:]
: >No, he presents a hodge-podge list with all kinds of plants, some of 
: >which DID make it across. Why should I sort his list for him?
: Yuri cannot answer the question.  : The question is: : If there was
contact between Polynesia and South America sufficient to allow : the
Polynesian to take the Kumara back with them, why did maize, an important
: staple, not also travel.  
OK, George. There are plenty of suggestions that maize made it across to 
China. See MAN ACROSS THE SEA, the book I already referenced. 
: Or the potato.
There's good evidence that yam, plantain, and taro made it across. See 
the same book, p. 27.
: Or tobacco. 
There are some studies indicating that tobacco made it across. I just
posted about it yesterday. 
: True, the list was a mix. I had to include the basic staples over the range of 
: the coast of South America.
: >I gave plenty of other plants already, and gave references for many
: >studies. I would prefer to discuss things with people who at least did
: >the minimum of homework.
: I've gone through most of my reference but I find nothing about
pineapples in : Pompei.
Yesterday I actually tried to look it up, but the volume I needed was in
another library at the U of T. I have to make another trip sometime later.
Perhaps I will try, in spite of the rudeness of Thomas who says he is so
interested, but doesn't have the manners to ask nicely. The book in
question is by Elmer Drew Merrill, about Cook's voyages, and came out in
'54. He discusses pineapple there.
Yours truly,
Yuri.
--
             #%    Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto    %#
  --  a webpage like any other...  http://www.io.org/~yuku  --
Students achieving Oneness will move on to Twoness   ===   W. Allen

Alan M. Dunsmuir wrote:
> 
> In article <32591240.16B9@PioneerPlanet.infi.net>, Saida
>  writes
> >You say that "it is usually assumed
> >that goose in this compound refers to the "downy" appearance of
> >gossamer".
> 
> "I" didn't say anything. The Oxford English Dictionary said it all.
> 
> >Are you referring to the cloth here or just what?
> 
> Do you actually know what gossamer is, in an English context? Have you
> ever walked through an English meadow in late suumer and seen it?
> 
> Perhaps I should have quoted the definition part as well as the
> etymology.
> 
> "1. A fine filmy substance, consisting of cobwebs, spun by small
> spiders, which is seen floating in the air in calm weather, esp. in
> autumn, or spread over a grassy surface: occas. with a and pl., a thread
> or web of gossamer."
> Alan, I have been in England for protracted periods but have never 
experienced this phenomenon.  I can see where THIS, as you quote it, can 
either be used to describe a filmy cloth or, in reverse, it could have 
been named after a *transparent* fabric that was called "qatchamar", 
although I want to be clear I don't know what sort of cloth this 
actually was.  I am not saying this IS the answer but I still don't see 
how the goose gets into the comparison and I feel that the etymology 
seems rather a stretch--not the one we are dealing with today, but the 
one with "goose-summer", etc.  Perhaps it is just a case of perpetuation 
of mistaken etymology.  It's not impossible.

Piotr Michalowski wrote:
> 
> In article <32591671.3AD0@PioneerPlanet.infi.net> Saida  writes:
> >
> >As you may have noticed, I am not much impressed by "universal
> >linguistic opinion", if there really is such a thing, or I would never
> >have offered the observation that I see a good deal in ancient Egyptian
> >that looks like IE.  Because of this, I am very suspicious of any
> >classification of this language.  Not only that, but I am most wary of
> >some of what is nowadays "universal linguistic opinion" of the
> >pronunciation or value of the hieroglyphs.  Additionally, as I am well
> >out of the academic or controlled study of Egyptian, I have no reason to
> >worry about its classification among the world languages. In other
> >words, I have no one to tell me what I must believe in order to pass
> >tests or get a degree.  To me, it is just "Egyptian", the study of which
> >has become a fascinating and enlightening hobby.  The more I learn, the
> >more it surprises me.
> 
> I am sorry, but this is a completely irresponsable answer.  "Universal
> opinion" is not based on fairy tales or empty intuition.  It is the result of
> a tremendous amount of hard work by many people over generations.  If you want
> to deny it, you have first know it, and then have cogent reasons for rejecting
> it and proposing something different.  Otherwise, it is all whistling in the
> dark, and, quite frankly, a waste of everyone's time, including your own.
Piotyr, you are right--this would be an irresponsible answer--except in 
Egyptology (especially the philological part). You are saying what I 
always try to say--that the philologists who, for generations, worked in 
this area, were not dunces--some, in fact, were brilliant.  This always 
falls on deaf ears because, in Egyptology, it seems, the idea of the 
moment is always *the absolute truth* and the ideas of past scholars are 
relegated to the moth balls.  It is even fashionable to ridicule some of 
them.  Personally, I don't want to ignore the truth of the moment, but I 
see merit in the *truths* of the past as I have come across them.  All 
new ideas are not necessarily progress and they could be debunked in 
their turn.  That's how it is in Egyptology, where so much is built on 
educated guesswork.  That's all I meant.  In my situation, I don't HAVE 
to believe anything.  There is no one standing over me.  I am not 
involved in brain surgery, so I am not jeopardising anyone by being an 
independent thinker--although I am teachable ;-)

(apologies for cross-postings)
Dear All!
*assemblage*, the new Sheffield Graduate Journal of Archaeology, has just 
been launched and is now on the World Wide Web for all to see! We may be 
found at:
http://www.shef.ac.uk/uni/union/susoc/assem/index.html (or, if you�re a 
non-Mac user, just http://www.shef.ac.uk/~assem/  should do the trick.)
Your comments on No.1, and your contributions for No.2, are welcome!
Following is a table of contents for your perusal. We hope you�ll visit 
soon. (Do forward this message to anyone who might be interested.)
Cheers,
The assemblage Editorial Team 
Research School of Archaeology and Archaeological Sciences
University of Sheffield, England
_________________________________________________
*TABLE OF CONTENTS - ASSEMBLAGE NO. 1*
Our editor speaks
ABOUT ASSEMBLAGE
A brief word from our sponsor, Notes for Readers on how to use this 
journal, our mission statement/call for papers, notes for contributors, 
Kathryn Denning�s ruminations about electronic publishing and 
archaeology, About the Editors, and our many acknowledgements.
RESEARCH PAPERS
 In our peer-reviewed research paper section, Evan Peacock (Sheffield) 
describes new archaeological uses for the analysis of freshwater 
bivalves, while John Hawthorne (Southampton) argues that ceramic 
abundance and scarcity may be more closely correlated with changes in 
vessel size -- and dining habits -- than with macroeconomic trends 
FEATURES
Martin Evison gives a fully illustrated overview of the state of 
computerised forensic facial reconstruction, and discusses its potential 
for archaeology, while Rebecca Harrison discusses the intriguing 
parallels between Elvis worship and the Roman imperial cult.
FORUM
Cornelius Holtorf makes a point about relativism and its political 
implications, Bob Trubshaw comments on the convergence of some areas of 
�fringe� and orthodox archaeology, Bill Bevan makes a case for better 
care of archaeological landscapes in the face of development, and Kenny 
Aitchison calls for mobilisation within the IFA towards improvements for 
junior field archaeologists.
RECANTATION, REFLECTION, REVISION
We give veteran archaeologists Andrew Sherratt and Alasdair Whittle the 
chance to get nostalgic.
WORDS OF WISDOM FOR GRADUATE STUDENTS
In our Five Books Feature, established archaeologists and authors John 
Barrett, Matthew Johnson, and Andrew Fleming tell us the first five books 
they would read as starting graduate students, if they knew then what 
they know now. Kevin Edwards, head of Sheffield�s Department of 
Archaeology and Prehistory, gives advice to budding authors on the ins 
and outs of publication, while redoubtable archaeologists Julian Thomas 
and Colin Richards get the third degree in Twenty Questions.
NOTES FROM THE FIELD
James Karbula tells us what it�s like to be digging a never-ending hole 
in Texas, and Jennie Hawcroft reports on an exciting new resource for 
researchers in anthropology and archaeology.
REVIEWS
assemblage�s able team of book reviewers go over some of this year�s 
finest with a fine toothed comb, and for good measure, check out two 
museums too.
WEB STUFF
A gentle introduction for Internet virgins, and links to particularly 
useful archaeological web sites and other electronic archaeology 
journals. 
THE ASSEMBLAGE FUN PAGE
Anagrams, fashion advice, an archaeology phrasebook, archaeological urban 
myths, a centrefold, and the most excellent game of Fantasy Academic. 
Pick your players now...
THE assemblage INFORMATION PAGES 
Your gateway to the archaeological resources on the Web, including handy 
sites, lists of online bibliographies, conference listings, and 
information on funding sources, and a selection of press clippings. And 
you thought the Yellow Pages were thorough!
IN THE NEXT ISSUE OF assemblage
Coming soon to a screen near you; watch this space for advance news of 
what�s planned for the next issue of assemblage!

Stella Nemeth (S.NEMETH@IX.NETCOM.COM) wrote:
: mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal) wrote:
: >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. 
: >Who is denying this?  
: I suggest you reread the threads.  It has been denied up, down and
: sidewise.
My reading of the threads is somewhat different. What people are objecting
to are the half-assed methodologies and spurious similarities that are
used to justify random associations of Egyptian and English words. In
fact, is has been noted over and over again that there clearly are words
that exist in English that may once have been Egyptian. What's absurd is
when these crackpot linguists draw up strings of free associations (like
ptah+r = father) loosely connected by some stream of consciousness
rorschach inkblotting and then assert that the cause of science has been
advanced. It hasn't, especially when they seem completely unaware of
anything previous research has had to say about the subject.
Ben

seagoat@primenet.com (John A. Halloran) wrote:
>In article  piotrm@umich.edu (Piotr Michalowski) writes:
>>In 
>>addition, your initial premise, that Sumerian is somehow a new, invented 
>>language, that is younger than any other,
>This is actually the opposite of what I believe.  Actually, I believe that 
>when its inventors created Sumerian over 10,000 years ago, they had no 
>exposure to other spoken languages, so it is likely to have been one of the 
>first spoken languages, if not the first.  I don't think that linguists can 
>prove any language family to be older than 10,000 years old.
Some linguists indeed believe that to be the case, and it is
undoubtedly true that the more time has elapsed, the more difficult it
becomes to reconstruct a "proto-language".  Even Proto-Indo-European,
the pride and joy of linguistics, can only be reconstructed
approximately.  Does this mean that there are no connections older
than 10,000 years?
The other day I was looking for a sci.lang article I saw a couple of
years ago.  I searched the Internet and was unable to find any
archived sci.lang articles older than 94-10-08.  Let's suppose, for
the sake of argument, that there are indeed no older articles archived
anywhere.  Must we conclude that sci.lang started in october of 1994?
By your logic, we must.  The only flaw in that logic is that the first
sentence uttered on sci.lang was:
>In article <3041up$7q1@netaxs.com> Brian Trosko, btrosko@netaxs.com
>writes:
>>I have no source with me at the time, but...
etc.
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal                     ~ ~
Amsterdam                   _____________  ~ ~
mcv@pi.net                 |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig