Subject: Re: Egyptian Origins
From: bdiebold@pantheon.yale.edu (Benjamin H. Diebold)
Date: 8 Oct 1996 15:50:43 GMT
Steve, your information is poor.
If you think that 3000 BC + 1500 + 2000 = paleolithic then you
need to go back and read Roaf a little more carefully. If you're only
going to use one source, you at least ought to check it. If you want to
know more about Egyptian prehistory you might want to check out Wendorf,
and the results from Wadi Kubaniyah and the Kharga Oasis. We're examining
some paleolithic flints from that area right now.
There are no sites in the Near East with pottery at 10,000 BC, and
certainly not Jericho, which is aceramic until the 7th, possibly early
8th millenium. Come to think of it, I'm not sure there is a PN level
at Jericho. I'm in the computer center and don't have my sources
handy. At any rate, your chronology is off about 3000 years. The plaster
floors as a technological innovation predate pottery, by perhaps a
substantial amount (1500 years?).
Don't know why you chose 4500 BC as your date for "culture", whatever you
mean by that. Did you pick this from a hat or is there some reason? I
suppose you like the late Ubaid, seeing what great seafarers they were,
but I wouldn't sell the Halafians or PNers short, either. Most people
think state formation doesn't begin until the Uruk, but who really knows.
Ben
: 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.
: >
: 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"...
: steve
Subject: Re: Mr. Whittet's Absurdities about Migrations...
From: rg10003@cus.cam.ac.uk (R. Gaenssmantel)
Date: 8 Oct 1996 16:36:53 GMT
Steve Whittet (whittet@shore.net) wrote:
[...]
: There is quite a bit of evidence actually.The center of Iran
: is a huge salt desert called the Dasht e Lut in Khorasan.
Yes, and we all know that the American Indian used to trade with the Egyptians
across the great salt desert around Salt Lake City.
Now really, do you really consider the existance of a salt desert proof for
ship based trade? You haven't even told us when it dried off, never mind of any
ships found and which periods they were from (possibly even what cargo wrecks
contained).
: Start with the routes taken by Alexander the Great and
: by Marco Polo.
: Note how they generally follow rivers around the periphery of this
: desert where possible.
I would consider that quite logical - and nothing to do with water based trade.
I - were I a comander - would rather have my forces march around than through a
desert. Also: all major roads follow the valeys rather than the peaks -
travelling from one rock to another is just far more inconvenient than
travelling along the sole of a valley which was washed reasonably smooth in the
course of millions of years. Most valleys have rivers running through, since
they were created by them. And: a valley with a river can provide an awful lot
more water for the forces than a dry desert.
: When Alexanders army reached the Persian Gulf he built a fleet.
[...]
: the Oxus leads to the Aral Sea.
It's quite nice of you to tell us the story of Alexanders conquests, but I'm
not sure it has anything to do with your original claim - the Turkic peoples in
central Asia got their language from the Turks and the Turk invaded Anatolia
for trade.
Also I would hope you could give us some indication how shipable these rivers
are. Most mountain rivers are quite unshipable. There are long patches of river
in the Euphrate which I certainly wouldn't put a boat on - they are classified
as class VI white water (limit of doability - virtually suicide). And the route
you propose for shipping is actually quite mountainous.
: Alexander then went as far north as the Jaxartes at Kokand
[...]
: forces without planing where they will meet back up again.
Again, an interesting story, and your conclusion that armies try not to venture
into unknown territory is something most people would agree with. This doesn't
proove the trade on the one hand, nor the water based silk road or the reason
for Uigurs and Kirgises to speak a Turkic language.
: This indicates some foreknowledge of the route the expedition
: was to take.
: Alexanders expedition is the point at which the silk road
: appears to connect to Europe.
Well, yes, since Alexander's empire is sandwiched inbetween Europe and the
slightly remoter parts of Asia, it would be covering the point of this
connection somewhere in its territorry. But this still doesn't proof your
point.
: Look at the Achaneid Empire at its greatest extent. Follow
[geograhic discription of central Asia deleted]
: stem from the same source.
Are you trying to claim that the headwaters of any of these rivers are
shipable? There are some people who I might want to put on a boat there and see
going down stream - unfortunately I guess I'd be persecuted for murder if I did
it. The waters in the Himalaya are waters which only very few white water
canoers would go down - and even they would only do it after good preparation
(including usually walking along the next stretch and discussing each single
rock, stopper, eddy, and waterfall). Remember: The largest - and quaintest -
stream start of in the mountains as quite bad tempered white waters.
: Likewise the Ghanges coming upstream from Calcutta in the Bay
[...]
: Calcutta is linked to Dehli by painted grey ware.
: Madagascar is settled from Indonesia c 2000 BC.
: 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?
Hmmm, no. You're trying to proof the silk road was water based. You give some
nice names and lokations of rivers, but you ignore whether or not they were
shipable at all. You most certainly don't give any other support than pure
imagination. I think that's decidedly weak.
Ralf
: steve
--
Subject: Re: Stop trashing Henry Lincoln!
From: Claudio De Diana
Date: 8 Oct 1996 17:16:48 GMT
>Thanks for your response Claudio which I have deleted for reasons of
>space.
Given that I am explictly cited I will give a late
answer although some people have already answered,
I do not want you to think that I do not want debate.
[snip]
>If you read Keeper of Genesis and also From Atlantis to the Sphinx by
>Colin Wilson you will see that the authors do raise many valid
>questions which do seem to be either ignored or unaddressed by more
>conventional scholars. The key questions in my opinion are:-
>
[the answer to question 1 is after question 2]
>
>2) Both the great civilisations of Central America and Egypt raised
>majestic pyramids, mere concidence?
Pyramid is a good shape and does not need pre-calculation
(I mean a statical analysis of the forces involved)
of the structure you are going to build, you can even manage
to build them with the bare ground as long
as you keep the "base" angle less than 45 degrees[*].
This is something which could be observed by a children
playing with sand (or by his parents looking at him)
also if you try to dig a hole or store
loose stones you will end up with "pyramidal shaped" objects.
So the idea and the structure is simple, what it is difficult
is to organize the huge amount of people necessary to move the stones;
if you decide to build them with appositely shaped concrete block
of rocks.
What I am trying to tell you that if the conditions are the same
different people can develop the same solution (or the same theory).
Basic example:
suppose that you want to have a wall with an opening, it is easy
to understand why the people tends to a solution like:
------------
---++++++--- with "+++++" a huge single piece of material
---- ---- otherwise the bricks "-" over the 'door' will fall
---- ----
all this kind of doors looks similar but this does not imply
any contacts or communication. Suppose now that you do not
have any long stone (or piece of woods) available but only bricks,
well, an arch of bricks (a vault?) is a good way to skip this
trouble as long as you manage to build a frame while you
are putting your bricks together...
Please do notice that I do not deny the role of the single
genius who first developed this idea what I say that maybe
two, three, maybe more people had the same idea. Take care
that I do not deny the fact that a traveller could see this
"arch"-door and try to copy in his homeland (or simply on its own),
what I am pointing out is that the "easier" is an object/structure
the "easier" is that different people in different place develop the
same WITHOUT communicating. As an example of "harder"
result take nuclear fission: it took a great effort and
only a group of scientist managed to develop it - there
were other people working on it but they had a great delay,
maybe they would never have been succesful due to some lacks.
>1) What explanation is there for the similarity between origin legends
>in Central America and Egypt - blue eyed 'gods' coming from the sea
>bringing civilisation - law, agriculture, construction skills etc?
Again, take care that in Myths the people projects their idea.
The simpler the idea (or the basic need) the easier is that
different Myths have got something in common. For example almost
all people in all time have a God related to war (or to fighting)
or a Female-God related to fertility, and so on..
I agree with you that some similarity could be an index
of contact but what I'm thinking of is something like
digging out two (almost) identical artifacts in two
different places, but beware, the fact that a lot of religions
use simple cups during cerimonies does not imply that they had contact..
imply that they need to use a liquid! A more elaborate and
peculiar cup could be indeed a clue of contact.
About your question, I am not an expert about the religion
in the two areas you cite ,although I have read some books
about them; you could e-mail me privately and exchange
your references with me because the information
I have - relating ONLY to Egypt - are different.. however
I think that the are people more expert than me that can answer.
>3) Ancient maps, themselves supposedly based on copies of even earlier
>maps show what appears to be part of the Antartic land mass free of
>ice. If this is so, when were the original maps made and by whom?
Seems to me that there's an expert in this newsgroup
that had prepared a long article on this topic so I pass
to the other question.
>
>4) Is it so unreasonable that a, at present undiscovered, civilisation
>was the genesis of both the great Central American and Egyption
>cultures considering how many similarities there appears to be between
>each?
Well, if you say Egypt and, let's say, Italy could
seem reasonable; after all the Mediterranean Sea is
a closed Sea, so basically if you do not sink you will
reach the land. Atlantic Ocean is much bigger, do we
have evidences of such a seamanship in that time (< 3,000 BC)?
Well we have to wait much longer for such kind of travel;
your idea, in principle, is NOT wrong the BIG trouble is
that there is a strong lack of evidences.
>
>5) Is it so unreasonable that, if maps were made of the Antartic at a
>time when it was free of ice, that that continent could have been the
>source of this civilisation?
Again, to find Antartic free of ice and civilized how
back should we go in time? To make it simpler, suppose
that - hypotesis - there were "men" at the time of the
great reptiles (dynosaurus), in this case I expect that
they should have evolved at the same pace of "us"
(i.e. exponentially) so I would expect to dig out,
somewhere, an airplane and not only sword and arrows.
I say this because mapping imply a lot of thing (trade,
political organization, mastery of materials and so on).
>
>I believe that the above are valid questions and that the authors
>concerned are entitled to speculate particularly as, from what I can
>see, they can make a strong case.
[skip] Whether they are right or wrong is too soon to say but they
>raise very interesting questions and if that stimulates the
>imagination of readers then I believe that can only be a good thing.
Well, maybe one day I will write a more serious post about
it but the fact that it seems that these books are basically
spread in English Speaking Countries, --> in my opinion <--, means something.
Don't take as a racist remark, I am talking about some kind
of influx of TV on book selling (it appears form the posts
that there are lot of TV shows on them).
Also I would like to know if they were ever translated into Arab and/or if
they found any support but "natural born Egyptian".
I am NOT jokeing, is a real question.
>
>I am no wide eyed space cadet who see alien conspiracies every where I
>look nor am I a New Age neophyte who is waitiing for the Age of
>Aquarius, I am just a layman with a great curiosity about our origins
>but wants any theories presented to be backed up with a decent level
>of evidence and research. I must say the above authors have so far
>given me no reason to disregard their theories even though I accept it
>would be unreasonable to expect them to be 100% correct.
I am happy of hear this.
If you are curious about history why don't you read
something that could really put you in touch with the
people of the past? Do you like story of adventure, travel,
sex and war? Take "Anabasi" or "Ciropedia" by Senofonte.
Are you more interested in politic?
Take "War in Peloponneso" by Tucidide.
Of almost all the sites/facts cited by these authors
(taken as example) archaelogist managed to find an evidence,
usually described in very long footpage notes, take them
as an example of cross-checking and make a comparison
with the authors you cite and then do communicate me your opinion.
>
>Thanks again for your kind response. Please accept my apologies for
>being a bit stroppy with you in my previous post.
Don't worry because I recognize that my first post was
badly written and could sound offensive, I post this
on sci.ar.. and also personally given the great delay (one week) in answering
Best Regards,
Claudio
Subject: Re: Egyptian Origins
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 8 Oct 1996 19:09:58 GMT
In article <53dt8j$ksj@news.ycc.yale.edu>, bdiebold@pantheon.yale.edu"
says...
>
>Steve, your information is poor.
>
>If you think that 3000 BC + 1500 + 2000 = paleolithic then you
>need to go back and read Roaf a little more carefully.
Actually that was from the "Atlas of Ancient Egypt" Baines and Ma'lek
chronological table page 9 "late Paleolithic c 6,500 BC"
> If you're only
>going to use one source, you at least ought to check it.
I use about forty with some frequency. If accuracy is important to
you you should note that.
> If you want to know more about Egyptian prehistory you might
>want to check out Wendorf,and the results from Wadi Kubaniyah
>and the Kharga Oasis. We're examining
>some paleolithic flints from that area right now.
Have you noted that Arabia also has an Al Kharg oasis at about
the same latitude?
>
>There are no sites in the Near East with pottery at 10,000 BC, and
>certainly not Jericho, which is aceramic until the 7th, possibly early
>8th millenium.
Did I claim that there were any such sites in the Near east?
The poster asked:
"Is there any evidence of strong cultures predating the Egyptians?
I replied
"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."
Here I had reference to another source. The presence of pottery
is one evidence of sedentism, nomads tend not to want to drag
a bunch of crockery around. The earliest pottery includes Jomon
Pottery dated to c 10,000 BC in Japan.
> Come to think of it, I'm not sure there is a PN level
>at Jericho. I'm in the computer center and don't have my sources
>handy. At any rate, your chronology is off about 3000 years. The plaster
>floors as a technological innovation predate pottery, by perhaps a
>substantial amount (1500 years?).
You have evidence of plaster floors dated c 11,500 BC?
>
>Don't know why you chose 4500 BC as your date for "culture", whatever you
>mean by that. Did you pick this from a hat or is there some reason?
Badarian in the Nile Valley dates from c 4500 BC, there is not a lot
of city building going on prior to then, Mesopotamia falls in that range,
so do the dates for European and Asian settlement. There are some earlier
and some later but I would put 4500 BC safely in the bell of the curve.
I
>suppose you like the late Ubaid, seeing what great seafarers they were,
>but I wouldn't sell the Halafians or PNers short, either. Most people
>think state formation doesn't begin until the Uruk, but who really knows.
I am not sure state formation is as good a criteria
as social stratification.
>
>Ben
>
>: 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.
>: >
>
>: 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"...
>
>: steve
>
steve
Subject: Re: The Exorcist
From: Saida
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 1996 14:43:24 -0500
Troy Sagrillo wrote:
>
> 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.
> I confess I have never seen a Ramesses XXII mentioned except in the
context of this stele. I did wonder about that.
>
> 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.
I have never read in Lichtheim, but the name Bekhten reminded me of
Hecataeus' account. Hmmm. What can we make of this? Perhaps Hecataeus
of Abdera was no fabulist, after all. In his "History of Egypt" he
seems to report that, when he toured the Ramesseum, the priests told him
that the bas-reliefs he saw represented the king's Bactrian campaign,
including some four-hundred thousand infantry and twenty-thousand
cavalry, divided into four contingents, each commanded by one of the
king's sons.
The reason I mention the size of Ramesses II's army is this: Hecataeus
could not read anything written in hieroglyphs but the priests,
presumably could (this was in the time of Ptolemy Soter). If, say, the
reliefs had actually commemorated some other skirmish, like the battle
of Kadesh, wouldn't the priests have known this and advised Hecataeus?
The numbers he would also have gotten from the priests--not that they
couldn't have been exaggerated by either him or them. 400,000! Quite a
mob, not to mention the charioteers!
If Lichtheim is correct and Bekhten is Bactria it means that, fake stele
or no, the priests of the late period put a pharaoh near enough there to
get both tribute and girls from the "people of Bekhten" and expected
people to know what the stele was talking about. Afganistan is a long
way from Egypt in terms of ancient travel, yet... It does make one
wonder about Ramesses II and what the Egyptians were up to in his long
rein.
> Troy
Subject: Re: Sumerian etymology of the word Lugal
From: mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal)
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 1996 19:50:29 GMT
piotrm@umich.edu (Piotr Michalowski) wrote:
>>See under: Hrozny', Bedr^ich
>Right. I am curious, since I know little about Hrozny's life, if he really
>was a professor at the University of Vienna (this is not a trick question).
>Hrozny was Czech, and I thought that he taught at Charles University in
>Prague. I could be wrong, however. Just as an aside, after he made a name
>for himself by figuring out Hittite, he bacame obsessed with it and tried to
>read every known unread script as Hittite, including the Cretan and Indus
>Valley texts. It was all rather sad. He wrote a history book that was based
>on such things which I once had and it was really quite crazy. We prefer to
>remember him for his excellent early work in Assyriology and Hittitology.
[From the E.B. article:]
"Hrozny', Bedr^ich (b. May 6, 1879, Lysa' nad Labem, Bohemia,
Austria-Hungary -- d. Dec. 18, 1952, Prague), Czech archaeologist and
language scholar who deciphered Cuneiform Hittite [...].
After taking part in exacvations in Northern Palestine (1904),
Hrozny' became professor at the University of Vienna (1905) and also
professor of cuneiform research and ancient Oriental history at
Charles University, Prague (1919-52).
Working with inscriptions from the Hittite royal archives discovered
at Bog^azko"y, Tur. (1906), he took the position that Hittite belonged
to the Indo-European family of languages [...] In 1925 he led a
Czechoslovak expedition to Ku"ltepe, Tur., recovered some 1,000 Old
Assyrian tablets nearby, and excavated the ancient city of Kanesh
[...] During the remainder of his career, he addressed himself to
problems of deciphering [:-)]."
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal ~ ~
Amsterdam _____________ ~ ~
mcv@pi.net |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig
Subject: Re: Egyptian Origins
From: bb089@scn.org (James Conway)
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 19:51:52 GMT
In a previous article, diinc@primenet.com (Robert Wey) 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.
The records of the first dynasty beginnings are few and far
between. The timeline is arived at by knowning that the length
of the 1-10th dynasties is about 955 years long and that the
Middle Kingdom began, the end of Ur III, and events in Abraham's
days occurred mid 21st century BCE. That gives a 31st century
start for the first dynasty which is the best that can be offered
at this time by the known data and there is no reason to doubt
its correctness. Other proofs have been offered as to the 12th
dynasty placement which agrees with the Middle kingdoms placement.
Of course, *culture* did not begin at the first dynasty, but that
is where records suggest first dynasty culture began. Egyptian
chronology is always debated as it is the system in the main
that all other are correlated to. but this is changing as a
new tree ring chronology is finally in the process replacing
this relationship. Times are going to be interesting.
>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
>
--
James Conway bb089@scn.org
Seattle Washington USA
Chronology: http://www.knowledge.co.uk/xxx/cat/kjh/
Subject: Re: More monkey business (was: Re: Linguistic stabs-in-the-dark???)
From: mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal)
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 1996 20:55:10 GMT
piotrm@umich.edu (Piotr Michalowski) wrote:
>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.
Reminds me of how the Hittites wrote the name of their land "Hatti".
The most common form is: {TOWN}SCEPTER-ti. One also finds
{TOWN}SILVER-ti. (Hittitologists write these as: {URU}GIDRU-ti and
{URU}KU`.BABBAR-ti). The "scepter" sign =|= (Sumerian g~idru, pa,
ugula) can be read in Akkadian as ba', sa`k, or HaT, hence the logic
of /HaT/-ti. I don't know the rationale for the "silver" spelling
(apart from the fact that "scepter" and "silver" are prestigious ways
of spelling your country's name). "Silver" was, as far as I know,
never written out syllabically in Hittite (they always used the
KUG.BABBAR Sumerogram), but it may have been something like harkant-
or harkat- (harki- = "white", cf. Lat. argentum, Arm. arcat'). An
abbreviation perhaps, "ha(rkan)t" ?
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal ~ ~
Amsterdam _____________ ~ ~
mcv@pi.net |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig
Subject: Re: A State of Denial, or finding it hard to accept the facts: was Re: Linguistic diffusion: was Re: Egyptian Tree Words
From: Troy Sagrillo
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 13:37:22 GMT
Saida wrote:
>
> >Egyptian is its own
> > branch percisely because there *are* significant differences between it
> > and Semitic, &c;, but still has *plenty* in common with them to be
> > closely related (certainly much more closely than IE).
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > Troy
>
> Well, Troy you certainly have given quite a list of Arabic contributions
> to English. I appreciate this and all your comments, but you really
> must read my posts more carefully. Of course Egyptian has a lot in
> common with Semitic. Again, I never said it didn't and I also didn't
> say there were more IE in it than Semitic.
I understood this. What I wanted to emphasise though was there is a VAST
number of similarilies between Egyptian and Semitic as compaired to
Egyptian and *any* Indoeuropean language (including) English. This goes
for vocabulary, morphology, and grammar. Students learning Egyptian with
a Hebrew or Arabic background have a vastly easier time learning the
grammar than students with any number of Indoeuropean languages. I also
wanted to emphasise that even a large number of **loan words** from
another language family does not change the fact that English is a North
Germanic Indoeuropean language. Why doesn't the presence of a large
number of Arabic words in English make it a "partly Arabo-Canaanite
Afroasiatic" language if we follow your line of reasoning with regard to
Egyptian?
> Still, I can come up with as
> big a list of Egyptian and Anglo-Saxon commonalities as you have done
> with Arabic and then some.
Then go for it. All I ask is that there be a *demonstratable* link
between Egyptian and Anglo-Saxon (or Modern English if you don't know
Anglo-Saxon), including any intermediary language(s) and not some
general speculation about words that sort of look the same and kind of
have the same meaning if you force it (the nature vs. netjer problem ;->
); and if you can, I would like to know what stage of Egyptian (Middle,
Late, Demotic, Coptic) the word might have been borrowed (and I have an
Anglo-Saxon dicitionary sitting on the self behind me so I can check in
there if you don't have access to one). With my short list of some
Arabic terms in English I can demonstrate the original Arabic word, the
intermediary language(s), and the general time period when the word was
borrowed into English for every single one of them without any semantic
word games, though some are not so obvious (Admiral, racket, ream,
etc.). You will also note that the vast majority of them come in via
French, Italian, or Spanish during the Middle Ages, and have to do with
only a few areas: Islam/Arabic life (calif, sheik, etc.), math,
chemistry, astronomy, the military/navy, food (some animal names and
music terms as well).
> And those are only the more obvious ones.
> And even if it could be admitted that Egyptian contributed as much to
> English as Arabic, that would satisfy me.
Good luck -- you have a loooooong road ahead. ;-)
> As far as Egyptian being partly IE--that is another matter than
> contributions and is not an impossibility. I would really like to see
> some more written by Budge on why he reached the conclusion of Egyptian
> being IE rather than Semitic "in its roots".
You not going to find this because Budge never said such a thing! He was
characterising *Schwarte's* comments; as far as I am aware, only
Schwarte (whoever that is) and Lepsius (in his yearly years) thought
such a thing. Budge wrote (The Mummy, p. 167):
"That the Egyptian Language contains Semitic words and forms of speech
there is no doubt whatever, but it seems to me that the indigenous
language of the Egyptians finds its true affinites in the Libyan [ie,
Libyco-Berber] languages of North Africa and in the Nuba languages of
East Africa."
BTW, I don't know what Budge meant by "Nuba languages" -- if he *meant*
Nubian, that language family is classified with the Nilo-Saharan
superfamily, not Afroasiatic, and has very little in common with
Egyptian. I suspect though he meant the languages that we now call
Cushitic and/or Chadic. (Sir Wallis got a bit confused sometimes -- he
calls Akkadian 'Sumerian' on the same page) So basically, Budge is
saying that Egyptian is related to Semitic, Libyco-Berber, and "Nuba
languages" (presumably Cushitic or Chadic): the exact same language
branchs of Afroasiatic that we have been discussing here. NO ONE since
the 19th century has seriously thought that Egyptian is related to any
Indoeuropean language, and certainly not English, even in part.
Again this comes down to the very old arguement I mentioned before as to
whether or not Egyptian is more "Semitic" or more "African" which raged
in the late 19th/early 20th century (and frankly for rather racist
reasons -- some scholars of the day could not stomach the notion that
Egyptian was related in any way to an "African" language of any sort).
Troy
Subject: Hurrian Mailing List
From: Ramosd@bitmailer.net (Diego Ramos)
Date: 8 Oct 1996 21:05:02 GMT
Dear Sci.Archaeology readers,
A number of months ago, ANE, the excellent mailing list on Ancient Near East
studies set up by the Oriental Institute in Chicago (the superb work of Chuck
Jones et alt.) was closed down. For people interested in Hurrian culture,
language and history, the (temporary, I hope) end of ANE has been even worse
than that. ANE was the only place in the Net where the names of Hurri and
Mittanni were (even scarcely) heard. Scholars and amateurs interest in
Ancient Egypt or Assyria have other sites where continue their
communication. We DO NOT (as far as I know. If we do, please accept my
apologies for neglecting it and tell me the subscription address!!!!).
Therefore, I have decided to set up a mailing list on Hurrian culture,
HurriNet. This is not a LML, so may send your subscription request (SUBSCRIBE
+ yourmailaddress) and your articles to the same
address:(Ramosd@bitmailer.net). Since this is not a LML, replication &
administration has to be done directly by me. Please understand possible
delays and/or errors, at least initially. The list will be not moderated,
therefore for the interest of the other members of the list, please try to
avoid articles on questions which have no relation at all with the Hurrians
(Urartians, Subarians and Hurrian-related people will be welcomed, of course).
Help, suggestions and articles, are encouraged.
Best Regards
Diego Ramos
Ramosd@bitmailer.net (HurriNet)
Subject: Re: On Egyptian as an Afroasiatic language
From: Saida
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 1996 17:44:08 -0500
Troy Sagrillo wrote:
>
> Saida wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Saida, *no one* is telling you that there are **no** words ultimately of
> Egyptian origin in English. Yes, there are *some*, and they all are loan
> words into Greek, Latin, Arabic, and Hebrew (pharaoh being the best
> example here), and then into English (and sometimes via yet another
> language such as French or Spanish (like adobe)). But those handful of
> words does not change the fact that English is an IE language and
> Egyptian is AA. The Lebanese dialect of Arabic is *filled* with French
> loan words, but French is still IE and Arabic is still AA.
>
> Regards,
>
> Troy
Well, Troy, I am not so sure of this. If Egyptian is made up of several
parts, having words from and characteristics of more than one
language--is it therefor impossible that IE is not one of them to some
extent? Anyway, not having the expertise to investigate this
possibility, all I can say is that I am happy to have you allow that
*some* Egyptian exists in English and other tongues because (in spite of
what they say now) when I first began to talk about this it looked as if
no one at all was prepared to allow even this much. And the posts hang
about in Deja News to prove it!
Subject: Re: Linguistic time depth
From: mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal)
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 1996 23:06:48 GMT
Steve Whittet writes:
>In article <53bdu0$5ok@halley.pi.net>, mcv@pi.net says...
>>
>>whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>>
>>>Why is the diffusion of language presumed to be something which
>>>happened slowly a long time ago rather than rapidly fairly recently?
>>
>>Let me try to explain with an example.
>>
>>Let's take Linear B. I think we're all agreed the language of the
>>Linear B tablets is Greek.
>
>Yes, But what is Greek at that point in time?
>Mycenean Greek? (With Myceneans spread all the way to Palestine)
>Minoan Greek? (Language of the Kretani)
>Minas Greek? (The town on the Phoenician coast where the earliest
>examples of Greek script are found)
>Classic Greek?
>Modern Greek?
Read some Linear B (or at least a book about Linear B) and judge for
yourself.
>>As a matter of fact, one could argue that the Linear B tablets are so
>>characteristically Greek, that in many ways they more closely resemble
>>Modern Greek than they do Hittite.
>
>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.
Could you stop babbling and listen to what I say?
>> Linguistics is not an exact
>>science, I'm afraid, so I cannot scientifically quantify this
>>assertion. All I can appeal to is the innate (or at least acquired
>>very early on) "feel" for language that humans have. And if I were to
>>compare an Athens newspaper [A] with a Linear B tablet [B] and a
>>Hittite Cuneiform tablet [C], I think I would be able to spot the
>>"Greekness" in the first two. Very few people would maintain that
>>Linear B is definitely closer to Hittite. Maybe about equally close.
>
>Here I think you are talking script as oposed to language
No. You must take me for you.
>>Now let's put it graphically:
>>
>> [A] ------------ [B] --------------- [C]
>>
>>We know that the distance between A and B is about 3500 years.
>>The distance between B and C can thus be estimated at 3500 to 4000
>>years.
>
>I don't know that this necessarily follows. Suppose that language
>changes at a decreasing rate as writing becomes more common
>locking in the grammar and vocabulary.
Finally, a sensible remark!
Yes, writing standards do have an effect on the rate (or at least the
perceived rate) of language change. But the effects are not nearly
large enough to account for the rates of change your theory would
require in pre-literate days (such speed would also seem to go against
Einstein's Special Relativity).
>>That takes us to approximately 5000 BC as the point where Greek and
>>Hittite "meet", give or take a thousand years (Renfrew argues for
>>7000/6500 BC, Mallory for 4000/3500 BC).
>
>Suppose that Greek and Hittite meet c 1500 BC. Suppose that at that
>time there is a great deal of liguistic flux like the chatter before a
>meeting is called to order but that later on things quiet down and
>after that point things proceed with but a single voice speaking.
Yours, no doubt. What's your estimate for when "man" will "invent"
the concept of "listening"? AD 2,500, 3,000?
[further verborrhoea snipped]
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal ~ ~
Amsterdam _____________ ~ ~
mcv@pi.net |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig
Subject: Re: Egyptian Origins
From: bdiebold@pantheon.yale.edu (Benjamin H. Diebold)
Date: 8 Oct 1996 23:30:07 GMT
Steve Whittet (whittet@shore.net) wrote:
: In article <53dt8j$ksj@news.ycc.yale.edu>, bdiebold@pantheon.yale.edu"
: says...
: >
: >Steve, your information is poor.
: >
: >If you think that 3000 BC + 1500 + 2000 = paleolithic then you
: >need to go back and read Roaf a little more carefully.
: Actually that was from the "Atlas of Ancient Egypt" Baines and Ma'lek
: chronological table page 9 "late Paleolithic c 6,500 BC"
Why do you insist on placing primary importance on secondary sources, and
secondary importance on primary sources?
: > If you're only
: >going to use one source, you at least ought to check it.
: I use about forty with some frequency. If accuracy is important to
: you you should note that.
I see little evidence of it, especially in your Mesopotamian dabblings.
: > If you want to know more about Egyptian prehistory you might
: >want to check out Wendorf,and the results from Wadi Kubaniyah
: >and the Kharga Oasis. We're examining
: >some paleolithic flints from that area right now.
: Have you noted that Arabia also has an Al Kharg oasis at about
: the same latitude?
I give up. So what?
: >There are no sites in the Near East with pottery at 10,000 BC, and
: >certainly not Jericho, which is aceramic until the 7th, possibly early
: >8th millenium.
: Did I claim that there were any such sites in the Near east?
Yes, you did. You even requoted yourself saying that in this post:
: "Catyal Hyuk[sic], Turkey goes back to the 7th millenium, Jehrico [sic]
: in Palestine, sites with pottery go back to c 10,000 BC and
: sites with plaster floors go back into the Neolithic."
I don't know about you, but to me this looks like a claim that there are
sites in Palestine with pottery that go back to c 10,000 BC. I repeat:
there are none. You are off about 3,000 years. And 10,000 BC is ordinarily
considered pre-neolithic in the Levant. Most would call it epipaleolithic.
Roaf is better than this: take a look at his pages 24-38 in the CAM.
Roaf, p. 38:"The earliest known pottery comes from Japan and dates to the
11th millennium BC [actually, even earlier, as recent AMS radiocarbon
dates make clear]. In the Near East pottery appeared about 3,000 years
later and was almost certainly an independent invention."
Just take a peak at his giant chronological table on page 8: He clearly
shows the epipaleolithic continuing until around 8500 BC, with an
indication that FOLLOWING that is the ACERAMIC neolithic.
If you insist on using a secondary source, at least check it out.
: Here I had reference to another source. The presence of pottery
: is one evidence of sedentism, nomads tend not to want to drag
: a bunch of crockery around. The earliest pottery includes Jomon
: Pottery dated to c 10,000 BC in Japan.
Pottery is not a necessary indicator of sedentism. The Jomon pottery
predates 10,000 BC (the earliest dates are actually over 12,000 years, so
you're at least 2,000 years off here), but as it is in Japan it is
utterly, entirely, completely irrelevant to this discussion. I probably
don't need to tell you this, but Japan is not in Palestine, nor yet in the
Near East. Anyway, the earliest pottery does not "include" Jomon pottery
-- it IS Jomon pottery, which predates anything in the Near East by around
4,000 years, at least.
(By the way, interested readers may want to check out sometime
sci.archaeology visitor John Hoopes' book on The Emergence of Pottery,
which he coedited with William Barnett. Published by the Smithsonian, it's
a great resource, and includes a nice survey of the Jomon data.)
: > Come to think of it, I'm not sure there is a PN level
: >at Jericho. I'm in the computer center and don't have my sources
: >handy. At any rate, your chronology is off about 3000 years. The plaster
: >floors as a technological innovation predate pottery, by perhaps a
: >substantial amount (1500 years?).
: You have evidence of plaster floors dated c 11,500 BC?
No, I don't. You only imagine this because you think pottery in the Near
East goes back to 10,000 BC. It doesn't. Check your Roaf again. Plastered
floors ca 8500 BC, pottery ca 7000 BC.
: >Don't know why you chose 4500 BC as your date for "culture", whatever you
: >mean by that. Did you pick this from a hat or is there some reason?
: Badarian in the Nile Valley dates from c 4500 BC, there is not a lot
: of city building going on prior to then, Mesopotamia falls in that range,
: so do the dates for European and Asian settlement. There are some earlier
: and some later but I would put 4500 BC safely in the bell of the curve.
The "bell of the curve"? Do you imagine there's some nice unilineal
cultural evolutionary path leading up to the Badarians (or the Ubaid,
etc)? And what "falls in that range"? What do you imagine was happening in
Mesopotamia at 4500 BC?
: I
: >suppose you like the late Ubaid, seeing what great seafarers they were,
: >but I wouldn't sell the Halafians or PNers short, either. Most people
: >think state formation doesn't begin until the Uruk, but who really knows.
: I am not sure state formation is as good a criteria
: as social stratification.
What evidence do you have for social stratification among the Badarians?
I'd say there's more at Catal Huyuk or Cayonu Tepesi, back in the PN, but
that would put us off our cultural evolutionary path. And what does social
stratification have to do with culture? Are egalitarian societies or
weakly stratified societies without "culture"?
Ben
Subject: Pictographs, was Re: Linguistic time depth
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 9 Oct 1996 01:53:55 GMT
In article , piotrm@umich.edu says...
>
>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.
Whoops... looks like Michael Roaf is in trouble with you again!
The above reference is a table with three rows of glyphs labled
3100, 2400 and 700 BC which he uses to show how the glyphs evolved.
Whether or not you understand this, it is very frustrating to try
to communicate with someone so stridently oposed to everyone else's
perspectives. Not everything you say is in agreement with other
source materials. Deal with it.
>This is not a matter of theory, it is documented information.
And yet Michael Roaf and others have come to a very different
conclusion. Next you will tell me that an architects plans
are not pictures because they are often drawn with straight
lines and you have no knowledge of what they represent.
>There are no Akkadian pictographs, as by the time Akkadian
>was written down the script has not pictorgraphic elements left.
That is not the way I see it when I look at the glyphs, sorry.
> SInce you do not know these languages, nor
>anything about the writing system, simply asserting rubbish
>is not getting us anywhere.
Anyone who has eyes can see that the glyphs represent pictures
of the thing they symbolise. Many are at least as pictographic
as Egyptian Hieroglyphics. Why are you so adamant that they do
not represent an object?
I am looking at a detail of the Stele of the vultures c 2450 BC
found at Girsu representing the helmeted warriors of Lagash.
CAM p 194. The names of the warriors are written in pictographs
inside cartouch like boxes with glyphs which are very similar to
those used on the Phastos Disk. This is written in Sumerian
not Akkadian I believe
An impression of a greenstone cylinder seal of the Akkadian period
shows the names of the gods in pictographic script CAM p77
is this pictographic script Akkadian also?
According to Roaf "in the Early Dynastic period the Akkadians
in the north adopted the Sumerian script for their inscriptions
but as logograms (signs containing words) can be read in either
Sumerian or Akkadian it has not always proved possible in short
inscriptions to tell which language was being used." CAM p 96
A kudurru or boundary stone of Nebuchadnezzar I c 1124-1103 BC
has some glyphs in the second row which are identical to the
observatory like glyphs of the Phastos Disk.
> 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.
The statue of Guida of Lagash c 2100 BC has its inscription
in pictographs and some of the lines are still curves. CAM p 100
How can they be completely abstract if they are still recognizably
pictures? One such glyph which seems to remain identifiable even
into cuneiform is the star, phonetic "dinga, an"
> 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.
If you think you know what you are talking about prove it and tell me
why the limestone kudurra of Melishpak II 1186-1182 found in Susa
has at least four identical glyphs with the Phaistos Disk.
Melishipak II is a Kassite. Indeed the Kassites introduced the Kudurru
to commemorate Royal grants of land.
>
>>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,
>
One of my pet peeves with you Piotr is that I say one thing:
"c 700 BC still referencing the original pictures in a recognizable way."
then you say something else quite different and attribute it to me:
" around 700 BC there were pictographs left in cuneiform"
and conclude "there is nothing to discuss."
This is just mudslinging, nothing more. When you engage in it it
becomes very difficult to take you seriously.
>I cannot demonstrate this on this forum, but it
>is complete nonsense.
I refer the reader to Michael Roaf's table CAM, p 70
>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.
"Examination of earlier inscriptions shows that most of the later
signs were derived from identifiable pictures of real objects"
>
> >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,
According to Roaf "in the Early Dynastic period the Akkadians
in the north adopted the Sumerian script for their inscriptions
but as logograms (signs containing words) can be read in either
Sumerian or Akkadian it has not always proved possible in short
inscriptions to tell which language was being used." CAM p 96
>nor can you show any 2400 BCE cuneiform that was pictographic.
There is a silver vase illustrated on p 89 of CAM the pictographs
at the top of the vase dedicated to Entemena ruler of Lagash
c 2400 BC is in pictographs similar to those on the Phaistos Disk.
What Piotr will probably tell me is that since its Lagash its Sumerian
and since its pictographic its not cuneiform.
The most transitional example I can find is an Akkadian cylinder seal
inscription c 2250 BC CAM p 73
> 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!
huh? where do you get 6000 years from?
The Phaistos Disk ties in to the period when the Myceneans and Minoans
were trading copper through Cyprus with the Anatolians, Egyptians,
Canaanites, Syrians and other inhabitants of Palestine, the Aegean
and the Tyrian and Black Seas c 1700 BC
The 13th Dynasty was in power in Egypt. Egyptians were present in
great numbers in Palestine. Byblos was engaged in sea trade with Egypt.
Objects with the name of Khyan have been excavated from
this period at Bogazkoy in Anatolia and at Knossos in Crete.
Baines and Ma'lek p 41
>If you were an epigrapher on an excavation you would misdate
>things by millennia with your ideas. Way to go!
Yeah, I'm the one who just claimed "That is 6000 years!"....
>
> >> By the time cuneiform was adapted to Semitic languages such
>>>as Eblaite and Akkadian, it had long lost any pictographic qualities.
I am sorry but that does not appear to be the case.
There is an Old Babylonian c 1750 BC cylinder seal where the
script is clearly wedge shaped cuneiformbut the star is still
quite recognizably a star with the text in vertical colums.
There is a Middle Assyrian cylinder seal inscription dated c 1300 BC
illustrated on page 73 of CAM and the star is still visible
text in horizontal columns.
>>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.
>
>
I am just telling it like it is man. I would like to see what
you have to say after you have looked at each of the inscriptions
I have cited.
>>> 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,
It contains three different scripts which was what you asked for.
Now the fact is that the scripts on the Rosetta stone represent
an evolution in writing just as the scripts we are discussing here.
> not a new writing system concocted out of disparate
>elements of other systems.
None of these was a new system. They were all products of a
gradual process of evolution from an older system. They didn't
take disparate elements of other systems they took they same
elements. That is what made the translation possible.
> What is the point of such argumentation?
There is little point in arguing, but we might try discussing
calmly and rationally, a point at a time, the issues.
> It is one thing to argue out of ignorance,
and it is another to purposefully distort arguments and
make your case against something other than what was said.
>but when elementary logical connections
>are missing, we really are left with nothing.
That is why you need to just stick to the facts. If you can't
add something interesting and informative to the discussion
then you are wasting my time.
You need to learn to ask the right questions, then you will get the
right answers.
>
>>> 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?
Deal with the inscriptions I cited case by case.
>
>>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?
They have nothing to do with the price of eggs. If you want to
discuss eggs you are in the wrong place. They have to do with the
evolution of cuneiform from pictographic to linear forms. If
you want to discuss that you can start by dealing with the specific
examples I cited.
>
>>> 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,
That is possible
>until you stop posting disinformation,
until you stop distorting the character of what I have said.
>and stick to some elementary logic in your postings.
I thought I had made it pretty simple,
which part is it that you do not understand?
>Just look back on this posting:
My premise is that systems of writing evolved from pictographs
Yours is that they did not.
I cited Michael Roaf
You claim that no one else but you knows anything
>Rubbish on rubbish--
most of your comments are indeed
>a question about the dating of Luwian
What's the question? I said that it evolved after 1700 BC
Do you dispute that?
>has resulted in completely randon quotes from an atlas
No, it has resulted in specific cites of specific inscriptions
which can be seen by anyone who happens to want to follow the
discussion and can if necessary be discussed glyph by glyph.
>and a net article,
No, a published cite.
>none of which answer the question at all.
What's the question? Have you asked one? All I see is some
strident posturing. my mental image of you begins and ends
with a Harumph.
Ask your questions plainly and I will answer them as best I can
>A second requst results in more unrelated citations.
What is your issue? That pictographs don't exist?
That they never did? That is patently false.
>Then you insist on inventing facts about a writing system
>you know nothing about.
What facts have I invented?
>I suggest that you look at just one Sargonic period
>cuneiform text,
"The first ruler of the dynasty of Agade was called Sharrum-kin
which in later times was pronounce Sharken and is preserved in
the Bible in the form Sargon" CAM p 96
"Lugalzagesi became the king of Uruk before he was overthrown
by Sargon of Agade in 2334 BC. Lugalzagesi's rule was recorded
in the inscriptions of fragments of more than fifty stone
vessels found in Nippur." CAM p 89
The inscription is translated but not shown. It serves to reference
the date of period of Sargon or the "Sargonic period"
I already mentioned the silver vase dedicated by Entema ruler of Lagash
c 2400 BC. It is clearly pictographic.
"Roaf illustrates a greenstone cylinder seal of the Akkadian period
c 2200 BC showing the water god Ea with his two faced Visier Usmu."
CAM p 77 the inscriptions are the most clearly pictographic in the book.
I guess the two of those fairly well bracket the "Sargonic period"
>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.
Maybe I am working you too hard, you are getting old I guess...
steve
>
>
Subject: Second Call for Papers - UPDATE
From: niaux@aol.com (Niaux)
Date: 8 Oct 1996 23:36:37 -0400
SECOND CALL FOR PAPERS
The Archaeology of Work:
An Open Forum For Graduate Students
Boston University * November 9, 1996
[submission deadline extended to October 11]
The Graduate Student Association of the Department of Archaeology at
Boston University is pleased to announce its Second Annual Open Forum,
entitled "The Archaeology of Work." The goal of the conference is to
bring together graduate students in the fields of archaeology,
anthropology, history, art history and classics to discuss their current
research as well as issues of concern in the field. The question of
"work", broadly defined to include such issues as food gathering, and
artifact production as well as larger questions of labor and economic
organization, has long been of interest to the archaeological community.
Recent theoretical and technical developments have brought both new data
and new perspectives to these issues. The sessions are loosely defined
around three topics, the social aspects of the production and labor,
technical aspects of production, and modern approaches to the study of
these issues. Each session will conclude with a moderated discussion.
Attendees may also submit posters for display throughout the day.
The fourth session will bring together distinguished scholars in a
moderated panel discussion of the role of economic, labor and subsistence
issues in archaeology. The panelists are Dr. Norman Hammond from Boston
University, Dr. Heather Lechtman of the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Dr. Curtis Runnels of Boston University, and Dr. Sheila Bonde
of Brown University. The discussion will be moderated by Dr. Clemency C.
Coggins of Boston University, who will invite comments and questions from
the audience.
The conference is sponsored jointly by the Archaeology Graduate Student
Association and the Department of Archaeology at Boston University.
Funding for the conference has been provided by The Humanities Foundation
of Boston University. There is no registration fee for the conference.
Session I
The Social Aspects of Labor and Production
Dr. Mary C. Beaudry, Moderator
Scientific techniques have illuminated our understanding of past tool
production and usage, bringing forth new avenues of archaeological study.
At the same time, more critical theoretical approaches, such as
post-processualism and feminism, have called into question long held
assumptions regarding both the social divisions of labor and the cultural
implications of work. This session is intended to explore both scientific
and theoretical approaches and their use in interpreting the impact of
social, political, and ideological systems on work.
Session II
Technical Aspects of Production
Dr. Julie Hansen, Moderator
While social relations have a crucial impact upon work, the reverse is
also true, that work and its products can have a tremendous impact upon
the creation and transformation of cultures. While looking at the
material remains of production, larger social issues can be examined. New
tool technology enabled early humans to migrate into new environments.
Iron plows revolutionized agriculture. The development of factories and
interchangeable parts radically altered social relations during the
industrial revolution. This session is designed to present new research
in areas such as tool typologies, organization of production, and
technological methods, and to place this information in a larger social
context.
Session III
Techniques of Archaeology
Dr. Kenneth Kvamme
The nineteenth century is gone, and the excavation techniques of men like
Pitt-Rivers have matured into a scientifically rigorous discipline. New
applications of computer technology, chemistry, physics, and geology have
had massive repercussions on our understanding of the archaeology of work.
The purpose of this session is to explore the interface between
archaeology and its allied disciplines. Papers should focus on current
research using innovative techniques and explain how this
interdisciplinary approach affects their results.
Session IV
Rethinking the Role of Work: A Panel Discussion
Dr. Norman Hammond, Dr. Heather Lechtman,
Dr. Curtis Runnels, Dr. Sheila Bonde
Dr. Clemency C. Coggins, Moderator
The panelists for this session are professional archaeologists drawn from
a variety of academic backgrounds, each bringing to the discussion their
own views of the role of work in past societies. The moderator will pose
questions to the panel and invite the audience to comment.
Please return this form (or equivalent) with abstract on a separate
sheet. Abstracts may be submitted on any of the first three session
topics. Papers should not exceed 20 minutes in length. Slide and overhead
projectors will be available. Abstracts should be typed and no longer than
150 words. Submissions on diskette or via email are encouraged. Deadline
for submission of abstracts is October 11, 1996. Abstracts will be
reviewed and based on their suitability for the sessions as described
above. Students will be notified of their acceptance by October 15, 1996.
Title
Author Affiliation
Address `
Telephone email
Submission Session I Session II Session III
Mail abstracts to Lee Payne, Graduate Conference Committee, Department of
Archaeology, Boston University, 675 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, MA 02215
(email: eepayne@bu.edu). Limited housing willl be available on a first
come, first serve basis. Questions? Call (617) 353-3415. There is no
registration fee for this conference.
Subject: Re: Egyptian Origins
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 9 Oct 1996 03:34:43 GMT
In article <53eo5v$4hr@news.ycc.yale.edu>, bdiebold@pantheon.yale.edu"
says...
>
>Steve Whittet (whittet@shore.net) wrote:
>: In article <53dt8j$ksj@news.ycc.yale.edu>, bdiebold@pantheon.yale.edu"
>: says...
>: >
>: >Steve, your information is poor.
>: >
>: >If you think that 3000 BC + 1500 + 2000 = paleolithic then you
>: >need to go back and read Roaf a little more carefully.
>
>: Actually that was from the "Atlas of Ancient Egypt" Baines and Ma'lek
>: chronological table page 9 "late Paleolithic c 6,500 BC"
>
>Why do you insist on placing primary importance on secondary sources, and
>secondary importance on primary sources?
The point is you are throwing a bunch of accusations around without
checking your facts first. If you don't know, ask.
>
>: > If you're only
>: >going to use one source, you at least ought to check it.
>
>: I use about forty with some frequency. If accuracy is important to
>: you you should note that.
>
>I see little evidence of it, especially in your Mesopotamian dabblings.
Anybody else remember ever seeing any of these cited?
Mathematics in the Time of the Pharoahs
Gillings MIT 1972 Cambridge
Secrets of the Great Pyramid Tompkins
Harper & Row 1971 New York
Mysteries of the Mexican Pyramids Tompkins
Harper & Row 1976 New York
Prodigious Builders Bernard Rudofsky
Harcourt Brace 1978 New York
Atlas of Ancient Egypt John Baines, Jaromir Malek
Equinox 1987 New York
Egyptian Mythology Paul Hamlyn
Westbook 1965 London
The Nile (1st edition leatherbound) E.A. Wallis Budge
Thos. Cook 1902 London
Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia Michael Roaf
Equinox London, 1990
Adventures in Archaeology Anne ward
John Wiley 1978 New York
Temples Tombs and Hieroglyphs Barbara Mertz
John Wiley 1977 New York
Red land Black Land Barbara Mertz
John Wiley 1977 New York
Middle Egyptian Faulkner
Harper & Row 1976 New York
Ten Books on Architecture Vitruvious
MIT 1978 Cambridge
The Dialouges Plato
MIT 1990 Cambridge
The History Herodotus
MIT 1972 Cambridge
The World of measurement H Arthur Klein
Walker & Co 1976 New York
The McGraw Hill Dictionary of Physics and Mathematics
McGraw Hill Walker & Co 1977 New York
The Gods of the Egyptians Vol I E.A. Wallis Budge
MIT 1972 Cambridge
The Gods of the Egyptians Vol II E.A. Wallis Budge
MIT 1971 Cambridge
Cleopatras Needle E.A. Wallis Budge
MIT 1976 Cambridge
The Jerusalem Bible
Harper & Row 1978 New York
The Phoenicians Gerard Herm
Harper & Row 1978 New York
Rivers in the Desert Nelson Glueck
Jewish Pub Soc 1967 New York
The Eternal Present S Gideon
Walker & Co 1972 New York
An Ancient World Preserved Fredric Andre Engles
MIT 1972 Cambridge
The New York Public Library Desk Reference Websters
John Wiley 1976 New York
History of Art Janson
CUP 1968 New York
Blacks Law Dictionary Black
Crown 1978 London
For seafarers and voyagers to strange places
Synergetics Buckminster Fuller
MIT 1976 Cambridge
A History of Seafaring Bass
Walker & Co 1972 New York
Bahrain through the Ages Mchael Rice
KEI London 1990
The European Discovery of America the Northern Voyages
Samuel Elliot Morrison Oxford 1967 London
The European Discovery of America the Southern Voyages
Samuel Elliot Morrison Oxford 1967 London
Climatic Change John Gribbin
CUP 1978 Cambridge
Prehistory and Protohistory of The Arabian Penninsula vol 1 Nayeem
Hyderabad 1990 Hyderabad
The Evolving Continents Brian Windley
John Wiley 1977 New York
Principles of Physical geology Doris Holmes
Crown 1976 New York
The Architectural History of Newport Rhode Island
Downing & Scully Newport Hist Soc 1972 New York
Ancient American Inscriptions Whippell
Harcourt Brace 1978 Cambridge
For Eco fans
The Medieval machine Jean Gimpel
Bonanza 1965 New York
Les Vitreaux Oliver Merson
John Wiley 1977 New York
The Playbook of Metals John Henry Pepper
George Routledge 1863 London
Witchcraft, Magic and Alchemy Grillot de Givry
Bonanza 1957 Rockport
The Atlas of the Crusades Johnathan Riley Smith
John Wiley 1990 New York
Not reccomended
America BC Barry Fell
John Wiley 1977 New York
Fingerprints of the Gods Grahm Hancock
Harper & Row 1987 New York
>
>: > If you want to know more about Egyptian prehistory you might
>: >want to check out Wendorf,and the results from Wadi Kubaniyah
>: >and the Kharga Oasis. We're examining
>: >some paleolithic flints from that area right now.
>
>: >There are no sites in the Near East with pottery at 10,000 BC, and
>: >certainly not Jericho, which is aceramic until the 7th, possibly early
>: >8th millenium.
>
>: Did I claim that there were any such sites in the Near east?
>
>Yes, you did. You even requoted yourself saying that in this post:
I said "sites with pottery", Not "Near Eastern sites with pottery"
the posters question was asking what's the oldest evidence for a
culture, not what's the oldest evidence for a culture in the Near East.
>
>: "Catyal Hyuk[sic], Turkey goes back to the 7th millenium, Jehrico [sic]
>: in Palestine, sites with pottery go back to c 10,000 BC and
>: sites with plaster floors go back into the Neolithic."
>
>I don't know about you, but to me this looks like a claim that there are
>sites in Palestine with pottery that go back to c 10,000 BC.
Then you need to read more carefully.
> I repeat:there are none. You are off about 3,000 years.
If you don't think I know my dates go back and peruse
Dejanews for a while, I have mentioned most of this stuff
a few hundred times anyway.
And 10,000 BC is ordinarily
>considered pre-neolithic in the Levant. Most would call it epipaleolithic.
>Roaf is better than this: take a look at his pages 24-38 in the CAM.
I know you got far enough down the page to see that I mentioned
Jomon pottery (11th millenium BC is c 10,000 BC - 11,000 BC) in
this thread, now go back to DejaNews and see how many times I
have mentioned it before.
>
>Roaf, p. 38:"The earliest known pottery comes from Japan and dates to the
>11th millennium BC [actually, even earlier, as recent AMS radiocarbon
>dates make clear]. In the Near East pottery appeared about 3,000 years
>later and was almost certainly an independent invention."
Pottery Cord wrapped Jomon pottery
in Japan goes back to c 10,500 BC.
>
>Just take a peak at his giant chronological table on page 8: He clearly
>shows the epipaleolithic continuing until around 8500 BC, with an
>indication that FOLLOWING that is the ACERAMIC neolithic.
I didn't associate pottery with
the Neolithic, or assign it a date. I said:
"sites with plaster floors go back into the Neolithic."
>
>If you insist on using a secondary source, at least check it out.
sheesh...
>
>: Here I had reference to another source. The presence of pottery
>: is one evidence of sedentism, nomads tend not to want to drag
>: a bunch of crockery around. The earliest pottery includes Jomon
>: Pottery dated to c 10,000 BC in Japan.
>
>Pottery is not a necessary indicator of sedentism. The Jomon pottery
>predates 10,000 BC (the earliest dates are actually over 12,000 years, so
>you're at least 2,000 years off here),
I believe if you check carefully you will find that the earliest
pottery in Japan spread throughout the islands from south western Kyushu to
northern Honshu finally reaching Hokkaido c 6,500 BC.
http://www.ict.co.jp/www-history/pre-agri.html
From Hunters to Rice Growers
...snip...
The inhabitants of the early communities had no metal as yet, but they had
artistic earthenware, lacquer
ware, cutting tools, like knives and axes, and sharp arrowheads made of
polished hard stones. The
findings suggest that the new stone age lasted for about eight thousand
years, until systematic
agriculture of rice, or the iron age started in the fourth or third century
BC.
This period, starting about 10,000 years ago, is known as "Jomon Period" as
their earthenware
typically had rope like patterns on the surface. Jomon means "pattern of
ropes". Archaeologists call the
people of this period as "Jomon-jin", meaning people of the Jomon Period.
(Fragment of Jomon Earthenware)
...snip...
For questions and comments, please mail to ICT, Inc.
Last Updated: March 26,1996
but as it is in Japan it is
>utterly, entirely, completely irrelevant to this discussion. I probably
>don't need to tell you this,
Yes, but you are anywhy, why is that?
but Japan is not in Palestine, nor yet in the Near East.
Thank you for enlightening me...:)
Anyway, the earliest pottery does not "include" Jomon pottery
>-- it IS Jomon pottery, which predates anything in the Near East by around
>4,000 years, at least.
how about that...:)
>
>(By the way, interested readers may want to check out sometime
>sci.archaeology visitor John Hoopes' book on The Emergence of Pottery,
>which he coedited with William Barnett. Published by the Smithsonian, it's
>a great resource, and includes a nice survey of the Jomon data.)
>
>: > Come to think of it, I'm not sure there is a PN level
>: >at Jericho. I'm in the computer center and don't have my sources
>: >handy. At any rate, your chronology is off about 3000 years. The plaster
>: >floors as a technological innovation predate pottery, by perhaps a
>: >substantial amount (1500 years?).
>
>: You have evidence of plaster floors dated c 11,500 BC?
>
>No, I don't. You only imagine this because you think pottery in the Near
>East goes back to 10,000 BC. It doesn't. Check your Roaf again. Plastered
>floors ca 8500 BC, pottery ca 7000 BC.
Read what you wrote.
You didn't say "*plaster floors in the Near East* predate *pottery in the
near East* by 1500 years", you said
"The *plaster floors* as a technological innovation predate *pottery*,
by perhaps a substantial amount (1500 years?)."
and this after you had just finished telling me how far back you
thought pottery went in Japan.
>
>: >Don't know why you chose 4500 BC as your date for "culture", whatever you
>: >mean by that. Did you pick this from a hat or is there some reason?
>
>: Badarian in the Nile Valley dates from c 4500 BC, there is not a lot
>: of city building going on prior to then, Mesopotamia falls in that range,
>: so do the dates for European and Asian settlement. There are some earlier
>: and some later but I would put 4500 BC safely in the bell of the curve.
>
>The "bell of the curve"? Do you imagine there's some nice unilineal
>cultural evolutionary path leading up to the Badarians (or the Ubaid,
>etc)? And what "falls in that range"? What do you imagine was happening in
>Mesopotamia at 4500 BC?
sigh...come on
>
>: I
>: >suppose you like the late Ubaid, seeing what great seafarers they were,
>: >but I wouldn't sell the Halafians or PNers short, either. Most people
>: >think state formation doesn't begin until the Uruk, but who really knows.
>
>: I am not sure state formation is as good a criteria
>: as social stratification.
>
>What evidence do you have for social stratification among the Badarians?
>I'd say there's more at Catal Huyuk or Cayonu Tepesi, back in the PN, but
>that would put us off our cultural evolutionary path. And what does social
>stratification have to do with culture? Are egalitarian societies or
>weakly stratified societies without "culture"?
>
>Ben
steve