Newsgroup sci.archaeology 48208

Directory

:
>Who is trying to rebuild dinosaurs from DNA? I thought that was Hollywood
>fiction. This inquiring mind would like to know.
    There is a Japanese scientist who is planning to try and recreate
mammoths, using elephants and mammoth genes (or mammoth sperm, at any
rate), since there are plenty of frozen mammoths around in good
condtion to provide material.  (How about, 'Mammoth Park'???) 

In article , petrich@netcom.com says...
>
>In article <53dfr4$nad@shore.shore.net>,
>Steve Whittet  wrote:
>
>>How about just putting the linquistics aside and looking at the
>>archaeology. This is after all an archaeological forum.
>
>        Steve Whittet Admits Defeat!
>
>        At Long Last!
Have at me all you want Loren, I don't agree with a word 
you say and you know it. What prize are you trying to win?
>-- 
>Loren Petrich 
steve

On Tue, 08 Oct 96 09:52:23 GMT, solos@enterprise.net (Adrian Gilbert)
wrote:
>Whether or not the corpse or mummy of the pharaoh was finally sealed inside 
>the pyramid is a mute point. 
a finely punned reference to certain silences...or mere
fingerslip??...
in cheer
frank

In article <53f712$bn@shore.shore.net>,
Steve Whittet  wrote:
>In article , petrich@netcom.com says...
>>In article <53dfr4$nad@shore.shore.net>,
>>Steve Whittet  wrote:
>>>How about just putting the linquistics aside and looking at the
>>>archaeology. This is after all an archaeological forum.
>>        Steve Whittet Admits Defeat!
>>        At Long Last!
>Have at me all you want Loren, I don't agree with a word 
>you say and you know it. What prize are you trying to win?
	Your desperation to change the subject manifested earlier I take 
as evidence of defeat, because you had not been willing to claim any sort 
of linguistic victory, as you have been so willing to do when you 
perceive what you think of as one.
-- 
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

1@2.3 (Hussein Essawy) wrote:
>In article <530dhg$aq9@bignews.shef.ac.uk>, Martin Stower  wrote:
>: If you have a better explanation for that sarcophagus, I'd be interested
>: to hear it.
>Frank thinks that is where the Kings had an afternoon nap!
>What can I say!
>Have a good day,
>Hussein
Now....these are the sort of responses that keep me coming back to
this newsgroup ;-). After wading through all the alien space ship,
conspiracy like clap trap on the group, occasionally, you get some
humour, and sometimes you even get some facts.......;-). Of course
sometimes I'm so busy rolling on the floor with hysteria I'm too busy
to notice either.....

On Wed, 9 Oct 1996 01:22:42 GMT, sphinx@world.std.com (SPHINX Technologies)
wrote:
>rational
>science in no way precludes alien visitations 
No, but it renders them unlikely in the extreme, to the point they're not
worth considering without direct evidence.
>and, by definition excludes
>any explanations of anything "supernatural", 
It excludes anything *truly* supernatural, especially since there don't seem
to be any such.  It does *not* exclude those things that are *claimed* to be
supernatural.
--
#include 
 _
Kevin D Quitt  USA 91351-4454           96.37% of all statistics are made up
Per the FCA, this email address may not be added to any commercial mail list

Baron Szabo wrote:
>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?
Appears to be only for the pit level and lower.  Gauri has a 
picture (figure 7) which shows the rounded morphology and the 
straight morphology in one of the buldings above the pit.  If 
Schoch's premise of the two types of Weathering was correct, 
this shouldn't happen.
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.
That's part of where things get confusing.  Trying to date things by
erosion rates (amount of material removed over time; always kind of 
tricky because you are attempting to study something that isn't 
there) can be highly imprecise.  While Schoch's argument for age 
is based on the weathering morphology (the shape of the rock left 
after degradation and his interpretation of how this morphology 
occurred) the TV show apparently also threw in this argument 
about not enough time for the amount of erosion.  Where the show 
got their figures from is questionable.
>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.
Sorry, that was not my intention (see below).
>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.
The high end of the range of rainfall there was less than half of what 
is the average in Vancouver and more than an order of magnitude less
than
extreme events in BC.  By pointing this out, I was just trying 
to demonstrate that the claim (by West et al.) that there was a *huge* 
amount of rainfall during the pluvial is not accurate (compared to many 
areas of the world and especially an area with which you are familiar) 
and to give you a feel for the relative amount.  Rainfall in Egypt 
did increase, in effect doubling, but when you double a small number, 
you still get a small result.  Additionally, the rock on the Giza
Plateau
has probably gone through several wetter periods during the Pleistocene
as the glaciers waxed and waned as well as periods when the water table 
was higher and ground water worked to dissolve out some caves along the 
joints.
>BTW, my news server (or somewhere) is stopping me from posting with too
>many old quotes...  Weird.  So their gone.
But they live on in cyberspace and dejanews.
Regards,
August Matthusen

On Oct 07, 1996 11:31:13 in article , 'Eliyehowah ' wrote: 
>Innocent huh? >So would you suggest Nazi archeological teams sent to
investigate >Aztec remains, while Aztec descendents can be sent to Germany
to investigate >supposed Jewish graves? 
> 
>How is then that you run to save or protect members of every 
>current christian religion, claiming they'll kill or commit suicide 
>if their End of the world date dont happen ! What makes you NOT 
>think that when the Aztec end didnt happen, that they too didnt 
>go to human sacrifice to claim they were preventing THAT end ! 
>And that when the Catholics came killing with guns, it was seen 
>as salvation from their own priests' delusions. 
(....AND ON AND ON AND ON AND ON AND ON.....) 
Ahem: 
Eliyehowah: 
It was a joke, son.   
Chill. 
Ye Olde Editor of the Von Berlitz Hour of Power Reading and Discussion List

cut
>No, there is a welsh village with a train station that has
>a name that is 52 letters long (if I remember correctly),
>and there is some Australian or New Zealand aboriginal place
>that is 82 letters long (or thereabouts).
>
>Thomas
The place here in New Zealand is: 
Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamatea(turipukakapikimaungahoronuku)pokaiwhenuak
itanatahu.
This is the name of a hill 1002 ft above sea level in south Hawkes Bay. (It's 
not much of a hill :-))  )
It means  "the hill where Tamatea who circumnavigated lands played upon his 
flute for his lady love"
Some people can stay longer in an hour than others can in a week
gblack@midland.co.nz

Steve Whittet wrote:
>  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?
I read this correctly the 1st time. :-) No, you did not write this verb
/iri/ right if you are claiming that somehow it is only /r/ (not the
case whatsoever). You have misunderstood what Gardiner is talking about.
A phonetic complement is a glyph tacked on to the end of bi- and
triliteral glyphs to help in reading. For example the word /b3/ is
written with the "ba" bird. If the scribe was nice, he would have added
the phonetic complement /3/ (the vulture) [and poss. the /b/ leg as
well, but that is less common], but no matter how /b3/ was spelt, it is
still only /b3/ and not /b33/ or /b3b3/ (assuming that someone might try
to read the phonetic complements as seperate phonemes, which they are
NOT). **All** Gardiner is saying is that the verb /iri/ (written with
the /ir/ eye) does NOT always have the phonetic complement (ie, helping
glyph) of the /r/  mouth. The verb however is the same (ie, /iri/ and
NOT /r/).
> >
> >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.
I'm sorry, I missed your cite to the BD. I have Budge, Faulkner, Allen's
translations and access to the hieroglyphic transcriptions. So please,
cite again. Where is "Ptah r"?? ("Father of Fathers" is irrelevant -- I
want to see where you got "Ptah r").
Cheers,
Troy

Victor Reijs  wrote:
>Hello There,
>
>I am looking for more information about paramagetism. Can somebody help
	Well there is already one post on the differences between
	para-, dia- and ferro-magnetism.
>me. I heard that Philip Callahan was doing work on this. But do people 
>have more info on this? It seems that stone (like stone rings, 
>menhirs, stone towers in Ireland) could be some sort of antenna, 
>depending on this paramagnetism.
	Therefore let's take it from a more phylosophical point of
	view.
	If you have got an antenna (aerial) then you want to
	extract a signal and to process it into some desired and
	controlled way. For example you do not make antenna 
	to receive and post-process frequency in the audio range
	(voices and so on) because you already hear them with
	your appropriate aerials (ears) that converts mechanical
	energy (air pressure, better, variation of ..) into
	a signal which could be transimitted by nerves
	and post-processed by the brain (and given that I am
	an engineer I do not remember if it is only electric or
	involves chemical reaction, I hope however that you understand
	the example). 
	So if you build an antenna you make it to receive frequency
	in some other range (say UHF, VHF etc..) and post-process
	them translating in the desired range, usually the audio
	range. Let's say that the first range is good for
	the purpouse of crossing big distances but the second one
	is the frequency domain in which you use the information.
	An image on the TV screen is what you want to see but
	in order to have it in your house maybe bounced back form
	a satellite you have to use other frequency domain.
	So a receiver has got, for sure, an antenna but has got,
	for sure, some part devoted to detecting and post-processing of
	the signal and, possibly, an energy source (this
	because the incoming energy is usually very low).
	Summarizing, a claim that a "menhir" is an antenna
	could be accepted if there are evidences of something
	else different from ground and other stones around.
	Actually there are also some sound physical objection
	to the use of a stone as a part of a receiver, for
	example the reason why a para-magnetic material is better,
	but I think that this is not the right forum to discuss it.
>
>Hope to hear from you.
>
 	Best Regards,
	Claudio

Frank Doernenburg wrote:
> Hello!
> I think its hopeless to argue further with you, since you seem not to be
> interested in solutions.
Mr. Doernenburg! 
This is the first post to anonymous adressee, I've seen in a long while.
My crystal ball tells me that the undetermined person you talk to is ME!
Do you hate me so much, you can't mention my name? But, why argue, if it
is hopeless?
> As before, you argue on irrelevant details, so the weight of the blocks. Its
> totally irrelevant if the blocks weight 10 tons, 30 tons or 80 tons, if it
> was possible to transport them. And if there is at least one possible way to
> do this, there is no need to argue about Atlanteans or UFO's.
What strange logic you employ. You were gone for weeks - suddenly,
you're back, telling me, I argue over irrelevant details regarding 
the weight of the blocks. Let's refresh our memories of my previous
post, from which you quote way too little. Here it is:
start quote
> Frank Doernenburg wrote:
> > What you write is, please forgive me, bloody utterly nonsense. 
Forgiven, on the spot. Bloody, utterly nonsense is bloody sporting!
> > All your mails
> > are based on wrong numbers. With these, I can prove anything.
You mean my numbers, if true would be so convincing? 
>>  Please stick to
> > the correct numbers, found by egyptologists in this century, and please don't
> > argue on fossiline sources.
Don't generalize. Shoot!
> > Lets start with your 70 ton blocks. Please show me where they are. They are
> > not in the roof of the king's chamber. Anyone with a pocket calculator could
> > prove this! I will show you.
They are not? Show us then..
> > When you are in the king's chamber next time, please look up to the ceiling.
> > What do you see? Oops, the ceiling is made up from 9 blocks, spanning it from
> > north to south. 
Why should I go "Oops"? But, otherwise you're doing fine. I am looking
at
the same on p.62 of Tompkins' Secrets of the Great Pyramid. It says that
it is a vertical section of the King's Chamber looking North. The third 
block from the west stands out for its height and breadth. 
> > The blocks are between 1.00 and 1.7 meters wide.
So let's carry 1.7 meter in mind, as the breadth of the big tall block..
> > Each block is about 8.50 meters long.
Alright, 1.7 times 8.50 equals 14.45 square meters. Go on.
> >  The largest block of the lower nine (the blocks of
> > the upper chambers are much smaller) is partially 2.60 meters high,but
> > because he is domed you can calculate with a medium height of 2 meters. 
14.45 times 2 equals 28.9 cubic meters, and we discounted the volume of
the dome. The dome seems to have less than a fifth, or sixth, of the
block's height. With the dome, the block should have at least 32 cubic
meters.
> > This *largest*  block has the volume of about 17 to 20 cubic meters.
So, where could the mistake be? 
You counted the largest block, as one of the narrowest at 1.18 meter!
1.18 x 8.5 x 2 = 20.06 cubic meters.
I won't ask, how you got as little as 17 cubic meters.
> > These blocks are from Aswan granite, the so called Syenit. And this material
> > has a specific weight of 2.6 g per cubic centimenter. So I get a weight of
> > about 44 to 52 tons for this block. 
28.9 times 2.6 equals 75.14 tons!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  
End of quote
You>  Anyone with a pocket calculator could  prove this! I will show you.
Do you have any comment on your gaffe? No? 
> Again: What are the sources for your million tons of casing blocks? 
What million tons of casing blocks? This is what I wrote in my last post
on this topic:
begin quote
[ The mantle stones were 100 inches thick and covered 22 acres. 
We have no reason to believe that the thickness of the mantle was 
less near the top.
22 acres equal 8.9 hectares, or 89,000 square meters. We multiply the
area by the thickness of the mantle of 2.54 meter, and the mantle's
volume
comes to around 226,000 cubic meters. 
A cubic meter of limestone should weigh over two tons, so the total
weight of the mantle should have been just under a half-million tons. 
But, the blocks narrow towards the top so Lauer's figure seems closer
to realistic than mine, although a bit of an underestimation..]
end quote 
So, what do you say? I am happy to correct my inaccuracies, in contrast
to some others..
> Goyon
> writes in "Die Cheops-Pyramide" exactly about 123.426 cubic meters of casing.
> Unless you can give another source I see no reason to think otherwise.
> Again, I can find weights for the ceiling blocks only in the 45 ton range.
> Give a source.
You - above.. Remember your "anyone with a pocket calculator"? Is
your memory really that short? Please, this isn't the propaganda
ministry. You sound less and less like a real-life person, and more
like a man obeying guidelines.
> But if. Lets assume they could not transport the blocks on a ramp.
Assume? I gave plenty of reasons to discredit the ramp theory
completely. You must give me more credit for my work.
> Let's see
> if my model could work. Please note: I don't say that they DID it this way, I
> show only one way it COULD have been done quite easily.
> 
> I would store the blocks in two rectangle areas, each one on its own sled. For
> the chambers you need about 80 blocks. I would store them so:
  | | | | | | | | | |  -
                      10 meters between tails of two sleds
  | | | | | | | | | |  -
  | | | | | | | | | |
  | | | | | | | | | |
        | |
        three meters between left sides of sleds
  | | | | | | | | | |
  | | | | | | | | | |
  | | | | | | | | | |
  | | | | | | | | | |
> So the blocks cover two squares with 1200 square meters each, this is about
> 4% of the whole building site (first level)
> To get them one level higher you wait until the next level is nearly
> finished. You build a wide ramp, 1:22 to this level. Its about 12 meters long.
  | | | | | | | | | |      ****
                           ****
  | | | | | | | | | |      ****
                           ****
  | | | | | | | | | |      ****
                           ****
  | | | | | | | | | |      ****
                           ****
                      /////**** <- next level, one meter higher
              Ramp -> /////****
                           ****
  | | | | | | | | | |      ****
                           ****
  | | | | | | | | | |      ****
                           ****
  | | | | | | | | | |      ****
                           ****
  | | | | | | | | | |      ****
                           ****
> Such a ramp could easily have been built in one day. Then you move the
> blocks. To ensure minimal ways I would transport them to these positions:
  | | | | | | | | | |      ****
                           ****
  | | | | | | | | | |      ****
                           ****
  | | | | | | | | | |      ****
                           ****
  | | | | | | | | | |      ****
                           ****
                      /////****
              Ramp -> /////****
                           ****
  1 5 9 d h l p t x B      ****   4'8'c'g'k'o's'w'A'E'
                           ****
  2 6 a e i m q u y C      ****   3'7'b'f'j'n'r'v'z'D'
                           ****
  3 7 b f j n r v z D      ****   2'6'a'e'i'm'q'u'y'C'
                           ****
  4 8 c g k o s w A E      ****   1'5'9'd'h'l'p't'x'B'
                           ****
> The transport way for each block would be about 100 meters. With 700 men you
> can drag (see some earlier mails) such a sled with 70 ton blocks with about
> 20 meters per minute, so one team would need five to ten minutes to transport
> one block. Lets give them 20 minutes (with breaks), so they could transport 3
> blocks per hour, 26 hours or three days for one level, without fuss. And only
> about 10% of the workcrew was needed to do this task!
> The blocks had to be transported to 50 to 66 meters height, average 55
> levels. 55 levels * 3 days = 165 total working days for about 10 percent of
> the workers. Or, calculated to the overall working capacity, about 21 man-
> days. At this height the pyramid was 2/3 finished, so they would have used
> about 2/3 of the total working time since then, or about 13 years. So the
> transport of these monoliths used up only about 0.4% of the total transport
> capacity!
> This is one model, and it works even with your presumed 70 ton blocks
> perfectly. So I see no reason to loose any mor thought to thos "no problem"-
> problem. Sorry.
You have eliminated the mantle stones from the "Heavy' category!
But, you have to store those with the other heavy blocks.
Here is a quote on, how we discussed this the last time. 
begin quote:
> > ramp, but on the pyramid itself! One theory says, that all the heavy blocks
> > were transported to the pyramid body itself at the beginning of the
> > construction. They were stored somewhere on the gigantic square and when
> > the most part of the first layer was finished, a short ramp was built to the
> > begun next level, and all the blocks were pulled up one meter to be stored
> > elsewhere. Then the lower level could be finished. After this, the second
> > level was started. After a while, the heavy blocks were transported to the
> > already finished parts of the next level, to be again stored somewhere. With
> > each transport, the blocks hat only to me lifted one meter and pulled over a
> > distance of a few meters. And so on. So what?
JM: This theory deserves one of my Atlantean Awards! 
JM: It is the most labor intensive proposition so far. Are you
JM: desperate, or what? Basically, you have a little mountain of blocks
JM: in the middle
JM: of the platform. Thus, to get a yard higher, you propose to carry
JM: these blocks sideways and then elevate them to their spot on the pile.
JM:Then you reverse the process to go a level higher. 
JM: Instead of carrying each stone horizontally only once - you repeat
JM: it twice (to and fro) on every course of the masonry
end quote
Do not forget that the inner core stones are cut roughly, and do
not present a level surface suitable for towing the heavy sleds.
Do not forget that wherever you want to go, you have to have
a long line of two-hundred men four abreast sweeping the space. 
You just don't have this kind of room for either storage, or free
movement. Just visualize it!
> To your granite in your second mail: I could give you an introduction into
> ancient quarry work, but I think it would be useless. 
You constantly underestimate me, though I crush your theories
regularly. Your insistence on treating me like a little kid is
pathetically rude.
> Read some good books
> about ancient techniques (you know these obscure, small Dolorite spheres found
> in the Aswan quarries? You know why they are there? No? Well, it has
> something to do with hammers) and learn the difference between "breaking
> through" something and "to work a surface". In a "Scientific American" from
> 1986 was a good story about a Prof. Prozzen who tried ancient technique on
> Andesit, but you wouldn't believe it, I guess.
Why don't you read excerpts on this NG about the granite working?
Everybody sees your limited concept of what is found on the Pyramid.
You just don't have any idea, do you? 
It's just no good talking to you, because you ignore my arguments,
and you don't provide references to your disinformative numbers.
I asked you: WHERE IS THIS 510-TON OBELISK IN ROME, you mentioned.
WHERE IS IT???  I demand that you answer this crucial question.
Otherwise you are a joke.
I demand that you go and learn about Stone-Age mathematics from my
Homepages. I demand that you attempt a criticism. These mathematics
prove that there was Palaeolithic Science. This is pivotal, because
the Egyptian civilisation could have been an inheritor of this older
civilisation. Verstehst?
End

Stephen Barnard wrote:
> 
> How can this topic receive so much interest?  It is total, unabridged,
> transparent claptrap.  It's worse than "creation science", if such a
> thing is possible.  Don't you people have anything better to do?  Just
> stop watching the the money-grubbing television shows.  Geez, Louise!
> 
>         Steve Barnard
Apparently, your feelings towards Danniken extend unjustly towards 
the mysterious monuments of the Ancients. Since the film gave
extensive coverage to interesting archaeological sites, you
will pardon us for watching it, rather than Simpson(s).
This is sci.archy, after all. Would you like to tell us something
relevant about any of the monuments presented in the film?
So Danniken goes to Nasca. Does that make Nasca less fantastic?
Jiri Mruzek
Visit the Nasca Monkey's Lair at:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jiri_mruzek/

Jim Rogers wrote:
> at least as sensible as those silly Europeans building memorials to the
> torture and death of their God, who doesn't even walk among them in
> physical form, contemporaneously, as Pharaoh did.
> Jim
You wrote: "SILLY Europeans"
            their God
What kind of an atheistic European-hater are you?
Mister, in all due respect, what kind of a silly goose are you anyway?
Your style of rudeness doesn't belong on sci.archy, and I just don't 
feel like wasting time on a racist.
Jiri

taranr wrote:
> 
> Martin Stower wrote:
> 
> > Steve_Graham@setanta.ac.ie (Steve Graham) wrote:
> 
>  [. . .]
> 
> > >I think that von Daniken's emphasis on non-European sites was more
> > >because he could only spin theories where facts were sparse and his
> > >readership was unfamiliar with the subject.
> > >By using examples remote from Europe and North America, he could sell
> > >his books in Europe and North America...
> 
> > >My opinion: Not a Nazi, just a buffoon.
> 
> > A vulgarian repeating vulgar prejudice, and recycling a genre stuffed with
> > vulgar prejudice.
 Jiri Mruzek wrote:
 Danniken's only semi-original idea is not that we were visited by
 Aliens, but that they had engineered us genetically. Such idea
 translates to a vulgarity from many a viewpoint. E.v.D also omits
 to include the Apes in the said gen. engineering to account for
 the tiny difference between the genes of humans and chimpanzees.
 Curiously, at the time of Daniken's going public, it was fashionable
 to discuss the inevitability of genetical engineering in order
 to "improve" one's populations to compete with other rival nations
 also "improving" their own standards.
 On the whole, such theories strike me by their introduction of
 artificial differences into humankind.
 Imagine that everyone believes  E.v.D.'s theory of "improvement
 through genetical ingineering": Then, how do you account for racial
 differences, and for differences between many other subgroups?
 Who is the "Latest Model"? Who was designed primarily as a slave?
 Such beliefs would indeed quickly lead to attitudes, which humanists
 don't see as pretty..
 IMO, Danniken's rise to stardom was due not so much to his books,
 as to his TV-film.
 Jiri
> ==============Bob Tarantino, 10/7/96=============
> What Von Danniken appeals to is our sense of a lost history.  
Bob!
Erich makes sure the lost history stays that way. He knows of my 
discovery since 1985. I have a 1985-form letter from him to prove
it.  Then our paths crossed again in 91, when he visited Prague,
and was apprised of my existence by a group of his fans, the AAA,
with which I had some dealings, and one of whose members (Mrs. 
Zdenka Hruba) had asked me to analyse the image of the Nasca Monkey.
This was a stroke of luck on the order of winning a lottery.
Danniken like Hancock, etc., insists on ignoring my discovery.
He is the enemy - the wolf in sheep's clothing. He is the grey
eminence behind the IAC(tm)..
In retrospect: How much did talk of Ancient Mathematics intensify
since 1985? Don't we hear a lot more of it now? What happens?
When these fellows check out my discovery at: 
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jiri_mruzek/
their suspicions on Lost Science are confirmed, and willy-nilly
they will strive to see the reflections of the same science in
relatively recent artifacts like the Great Pyramid. They try twice
as hard to find some proof, while they are in the spotlight,
knowing as they do that tomorrow my Science-Art will steal
the show.
> His opinions
> seem to upset some people, but it is without a doubt that previous cultures
> had knowledge that is beyond our own, while living a primitive lifestyle by
> our standards. 
By our standards of imagination. I tell you, there are images of
castles, and other structures like pyramids in Magdalenian art
of 14,000 years ago. No-one sees them, because no-one invests 
much effort into seeing through the complex-style of the engraver(s).
This is pure discrimination of course - age-discrimination..
So, when you next read of indecipherable tangles of engraved lines
by Magdalenian artists, remember not to believe the interpretation
that these tangles are formed by individual images without any
intended correspondence to each other. 
The truth is completely opposite. Whether it is stunning or not,
these tangles obey rules. Each tangle represents one single opus.
It is easy to tell a single work of art, no matter, how complex
it may be, from a chaotic agglomeration of separate images.
You may read more about this on my webpages.
I don't for a moment think that these people (or Aliens) lived in
caves, nor do I think that they lacked comfort. In scope, the complex-
style palaeolithic art requires elements, which are simply unthinkable
in a non-hi-tech environment. For one there was miniaturisation.
The accuracy of the Engraving of "Cinderella" at life-size exceeds
the normal limits of good human vision. Thus, there must have been
magnification, to say the least. 
Having detected a direct relation between Magdalenian La Marche,
and Peruvian Nasca, I have done something remarkable.
My discovery should be debunked, or it should be marveled at, but
in no case it should be ignored. Someone should open the book
of truth for me and show me my errors, or admit the validity of 
my ways of doing research.
> It may be true that the Egyptians and the Mayans were not
> helped by extraterrestials, but it is a possibility whether we think it is
> likely or not.  There are five caves in France with cigar shaped drawings on
> the ceilings, which could be interpreted to be flying saucers, one in which I
> have seen is quite disturbing since it shows two craft and one with a v-shaped
> formation of dots comming from the end as to signify flight or movement.
> These drawing are over 10,000 years old and resemble a UFO in a photograph
> taken in New Jersey in 1952 of a UFO.
If you like this, why don't you like my webpages? Because they back
the validity of Magdalenian sub-images by the presence of mathematics therein?
I am always amazed that people like you - potential backers of my discovery -
give up before the wrongly perceived complexity of it. 
> Also, it is not out of the question that the human race has been genetically
> altered based on our knowledge of evolution.  There are genetisists who agree
> with the theory and there is I believe a controversy in the scientific
> community concerning Lucy, which is the remains found by Dr. Leaky.  I would
> argue that we are involved in genetic engineering right now.  I have heard
> that human cells have been cloned in France and that people with certain
> disorders refrain from having children because of our predictions from
> technology is well known.  Are there no sperm banks with donor profiles?
That is all theoretically possible, but highly unlikely. We should
refrain from vouching for unlikely versions of history. For example,
odds of probability work for my discovery, and not otherwise.
Genetic engineering is stupid, as it will result in weakening the 
human race, by directing it into inferior artificial channels,
rather than running it through the Mills of God!
BTW, to refrain from having children is not genetical engineering, etc. 
Jiri

Loren Petrich wrote:
 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?
Maybe, that's why they use mathematical encoding..
So, were the shamans artists as well? What busybodies.
Jiri M.

Stella Nemeth wrote:
> petrich@netcom.com (Loren Petrich) wrote:
> >In article <5360f2$7cq@shore.shore.net>,
> >       And Greek mathematics advanced a heck of a lot farther than
> >Egyptian mathematics. Where was the Egyptian proto-Euclid?
> I've suddenly realized that the fight you are actually fighting is the
> one that says that if one has respect for the Egyptian culture, the
> Greek culture has lost something important as a result.
> Luckily for all of us, this is not the way the world actually runs.
> Egypt didn't need a proto-Euclid to have a worthwhile culture, or to
> have provided the world with the beginnings of math.  But if you
> really have to have one, we could start with the architect who was
> responsible for the Step Pyramid complex.  Imhotep.
Euclid had only restated geometry, rather than create it.
Similarly, IMHOtep didn't emerge out of vacuum. A priest, at his
top-level of initiation, he must have had access to secret knowledge
guarded in the temples. As Solon found out, it had been inherited,
and preserved in Egypt from the remote past. 
In due respect to Greeks, every time one of them went to Egypt,
he had come back with something new in mathematics. So, that well
never seemed to run dry until the tragic events, which Pythagoras,
who had been sojourning at the Sais temple, experienced directly.
Jiri Mruzek

Mary Beth Williams wrote:
> 
> 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
Heck that cuts both ways.  If Stephen was 'wrong' for suggesting a theory 
that put the emphasis of the epidemic on a fault in the Indians (not 
being tolerant to the diseases due to diet) then how can it be correct to 
say it was the fault of the Europeans just because they had such a 
tolerance to these diseases?!  
			Paul  
 ______________________________________________________________________
/ "As through this world you wander;      Paul G. Overend              \
|  As through this world you roam,        P.G.Overend@bath.ac.uk       |
|  You will never find an outlaw,         http://www.bath.ac.uk/~ccspgo|
|  Turn a family from its home."          +44 1225 826074              |
\______________________________________________________________________/

In <325BF2B0.20B3@bath.ac.uk> The Outlaw  writes: 
>
>Mary Beth Williams wrote:
>> 
>> 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
>
>Heck that cuts both ways.  If Stephen was 'wrong' for suggesting a
theory 
>that put the emphasis of the epidemic on a fault in the Indians (not 
>being tolerant to the diseases due to diet) then how can it be correct
to 
>say it was the fault of the Europeans just because they had such a 
>tolerance to these diseases?!  
>
>			Paul  
The point is, Europeans did NOT have a greater _natural_ or _genetic_
*tolerance* to these diseases than did non-Europeans, just that their
penchant for cohabitating with their domesticated animals, cows, sheep,
etc., led to transmission of such diseases early on with such diseases
becoming endemic within European populations.  
As domestication is a *choice*, i.e., animals don't domesticate
themselves, blaming *genetic* makeup or nutrition versus human
causality is highly problematic.
Its not my opinion that we should *blame* Europeans for the development
and transmission of epidemic diseases, however, there is a level of
historic accountability that cannot be placed upon one's DNA or diet.
MB Williams
Dept. of Anthro., UMass-Amherst

Steve Neeley  wrote:
> Bill Bedford wrote:
> > 
> > Is it also a coincidence that many of the men employed by the Hudson Bay
> > Company happened to come from Orkney and Shetland which kept in contact
> > with Scandinavia well into the 17th century?
> 
> yes, exactly.  But that is why I stressed that it was the most ancient
> form of Haltafl -- Fox and Geese.  13 Geese against on Fox, with the 13
> Geese having full movement.  This is an early, early form -- not what I
> would have expected from Europe in the 17th century.
> 
It is probally wrong to think of Europe as single entity. It would be
quite likely that old forms of the game were preserved longer in the
remoter comunities of the Northern Isles and the Scottish Islands. After
all Shetlanders still spoke Norse in the 17th century.
-- 
Bill Bedford      billb@mousa.demon.co.uk            Shetland
Brit_Rail-L list  autoshare@mousa.demon.co.uk
Looking forward to 2001 - 
When the world is due to start thinking about the future again.

KKMalCdeP--
In case you haven't heard from the moderators, just last week I sent a
protest to the sci.mod group about a post of yours where, on behalf of the
Red Man,  you flamed just about everybody. 
I mention this fact just for the record.
Now, as for the use of a dead language to discuss egghead topics (which I
have always advocated), and to turn things jolly, I cite Voltaire's
*Micromegas* where an Earthling savant has quoted Aristotle in Greek to
the extraterrestrial:
"I don't understand Greek very well," said the giant.
"Neither do I," said the diminutive philosopher.
"Why, then," said the inhabitant of Syrius, "do you cite this guy
Aristotle in Greek?"
"Because," said the savant, "it seems right to discuss things we don't
understand in a language we don't understand either."
vale
Mike Skupin

In article <533jh2$li2@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, armata@vms.cis.pitt.edu wrote:
--elided--
>  For regular words, there was the name of a disease in English that was 
>  ballyhooed as the longest word in English a few decades back.  If I 
>  remember right, it began with polio-, you might find it in a medical 
>  dictionary.
>  
>  But I'd guess the agglutinative languages would have the longest words.
>  
>  Joe
Well, there's:  floccinauchinihilipilification, which in in the OED. Means
something like "the habit of estimating the cost of items as nothing". I
suppose that could be considered a disease...
Isaac

You find a similar evolution in all the ideaographic writing systems-
Chinese, cunieform, mayan, deaf-signing, computer icons- first literal pictures
for concrete nouns and verbs, sound-alike borrowing for some abstract words,
to pure phonetic syllables to foreign borrowings.  The ideographs themselves
go from pictographs, to stylistic, to cursive.

In article <53f0jj$lm1@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.
>
>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.
>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"
You cannot even understand the simplest English--derived doe not mean 
recognizable.
>>
>> >When we compare the pictographic Akkadian cuneiform of c 2400 BC
>>with the glyphs of the Phaistos Disk the similarity is striking.
>>
>>No i
>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.
>"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.
much irrelevant and silly snipped.
Here I thought that were running out of steam, repeating the same old tired 
errors, and you still can raise to the occassion.  The only stage at which 
cuneiform was drawn rather than impressed with the stylus is the earliest 
phase, which is why some refer it as proto-cuneiform, as the word cuneiform, 
in Latin (another language you know so well) it meas wedge-shaped.  By 3000 or 
2900 it was no longer drawn.  This, with other graphic changes, as well as 
major changes in the structure of the system, which quickly becomes logo 
syllabic, led to a loss of al pictographic elements.  Yes, in early script and 
in monumental inscription the sign for DINGIR still could be reconignized as a 
"star," but that is but one sign with certain ideaological purpose, and in 
cursive it really no longer looked like a star.   The rest of your discoveries 
are quite precious.   Simply put, they are not writing.  You cannot 
distinguish what is writing on seals and kudurrus from what is ornament and 
symbol.  This is like a Martian walking into a cathedral and trying to 
identify the writing system and concentrating on the stations of the cross or 
the cross itself, rather than on the funny squiggles.  Of course, they are 
meaningful, but they are not writing.  The elements you point to on seals and 
kudurrus are not script.  But who am I, a narrow specialist, to question or 
put a damper on the important works of a grand generalist, who has based his 
innovative research on the methodological principle that only pure, 
unblemished ignorance can lead to new discoveries and that the actual 
knowledge of a language, a script, a pottery style, or of methodological 
principles, are a hinderance to progress in analysis, and evil to boot.  This 
is a really good one, Steve, and could be the basis of a good comedy routine, 
it is as good as earth being a huge laboratory and the white mice the ones 
running the experiment!
I am sure that you will not dissapoint and will further develop your novel 
idea of Akkadian pictographs, Phoenicians going to the Mediterranean for salt 
(although there is a large archeological and ethnographic literature on land 
sources of salt in Syria and elsewhere), lovely typos like Hatur, etc., but I 
would prefer to remember the pristine beauty of your original formulation, so 
others will have to enjoy the next installment.  I could not resist waiting 
for this one--you have outdone yourself--but that will have to suffice.  I 
will be back after I get some real work done, and I have no doubt that nothing 
will have changed, and you will have worn out some more people and will be 
doing the same old magic on some new members.   Good job! 

Caught that show last night on TLC about the supposed
site south of Mt. Ararat. Does anyone have a URL
for websites dealing with the facts about the site,
rather than some quack repeating "This is it, this
is obviously it"
Also, did anyone notice that in several shots, you could 
similar (but smaller) structures in the distance? Oh 
yeah, those must have been the life boats.
Thanks.
-- 
*****************************************************
Mark Frazier    "Train Hard, Eat Healthy, Die Anyway"
Internet Architect              Denver, Colorado, USA
GeoSystems Global Corp        http://www.mapquest.com
*****************************************************

In article <53f0jj$lm1@shore.shore.net>, Steve Whittet
 writes
>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
Give us one iota of evidence of the existence of 'Myceneans' trading
ANYTHING around 1700BC. They hadn't even reached Mycenai then.
-- 
Alan M. Dunsmuir

In article <537bec$gif@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>, Stella Nemeth
 writes
>
{Snip}
>  No one is
>having any problems with Lucy, as far as I know.  Not with her
>existance, nor with her dates. 
>{Snip}
>Stella Nemeth
>s.nemeth@ix.netcom.com
>
I did hear a little rumor that Lucy is really Lucien.
-- 
Kathy McIntosh

On re-reading "The Vanished Library" by Luciano Canfora, I found some 
references to this "Bactrian" business which, in the interest of 
fairness and balance, I think I ought to quote:
Page 79
"It was not a matter of chance, then, that Hecataeus devoted so much 
attention to Rameses' mausoleum.  His account is more than a 
description, for there are a number of references to the realities of 
the Ptolemaic period in which he lived.  We are told, for instance, that 
the king was shown fighting 'in Bactria', and here the pharaoh--who 
never fought in Bactria, and who appears in the bas-relief as the victor 
of the battle of Kadesh, in Syria--seems suddenly identified with the 
Ptolemaic kings (who claimed dominion as far afield as Bactria and the 
Indus) or even with Alexander, himself.  The priests references yo 
'unparalled bravery' mixed with an ignoble 'greed for praise' are 
applicable to Alexander, too..."
That is one way of looking at it, and then:
Page 166
"It is hard to believe that the priests who accompanied Hecataeus when 
he visited the Ramesseum really mentioned the rebellion in Bactria when 
they came to the bas-relief of the battle of Kadesh (Diodorus, I, 47,6). 
After all, the accompanying explanatory inscriptions made it even easier 
to identify the scene shown in the relief.  Jacoby, in his collection of 
Hecataeus's literary remains, pointed out the problems involved in the 
reference to the Bactrians (Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, 
No.264, F.25: p.33,I.32)"
It would be nice to see what Jacoby says.  Anyone?
"The temple of Ramses at Luxor carefully distinguishes, among the people 
shown, no les than 12 types or races (Semites, Bedouins, Hittites and so 
forth) all of them overcome by the invincible force of Rameses' arms.
None of this, of course, obliges us to believe the hyperbolical boasts 
of the XIX dynasty pharaohs, who claimed that their dominions extended 
as far as India and Bactria.  The texts which relate this claim are not 
altogether clear.  They are roughly of the same date, and derive from 
the Egyptian visits made by Strabo (25-20 B.C.) and Germanicus (19 
A.D.). The relevant passage in Strabo follows immediately after his 
description of the Memnonion...He then writes that 'above the Memnion 
are the tombs of the kings, carved out in caves, some 40 in 
number...(describes them some)...the manuscript reads'en de tais thekais 
(in the tombs) and the passage continues...'on certain obelisks, there 
are inscriptions proclaiming the wealth of the sovereigns of the time 
and the extent of their dominions--as far as the Scythians, Bactrians 
and Indians, and encompassing what is now Ionia; and the amount of 
tribute they received and the size of their armies, which numbered as 
many as a million men.'"

Troy Sagrillo wrote:
> 
> 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.
Troy, you are making a sweeping statement here which you really can't 
back up with evidence.  People with linguistic gifts are the ones who 
fund it easier, the same as anyone who is talented in any other area.
 >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?
No.  As I am sure you feel the Arabic was borrowed into English, Arabic 
is still Arabic and Semitic.  If all the Egyptian words in English were 
borrowed ones, then the same would go for this relationship, Egyptian 
remaining Egyptian, etc.  I think you really do misunderstand me, Troy. 
 While I have quoted from others who have considered and entertained (or 
were wholly convinced of the fact) that Egyptian was in part an IE 
language, I am not sure at all about this and it is really not my *line 
of reasoning*.  I am not qualified to classify Egyptian or any other 
language, not being a linguist or philologist.  All I can do is make 
observations as an independent student of Egyptian and this I have done.
> 
> > 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).
Troy, I have been making up the list for a couple of months.  Many are 
already in Deja News.  As for the "nature/netjer" comparison, that is 
not mine and represents a line of thinking that I, personally, have not 
been able to follow.
> 
> > 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.
Budge, page 3 of "The Mummy":  "The language of the Egyptian as known to 
us by the inscriptions which he left behind him belongs wholly neither 
to the Indo-European nor to the Semitic family of languages.  The only 
known language which it resembles is Coptic, and this is now pretty well 
understood to be a dialect of the language of the hieroglyphics."
I guess this sums up what Budge thought Egyptian was at the time.  
> 
> 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
Yet they could hardly deny Egypt is in Africa.  Troy, you are doing some 
rather unfair speculating here.  Please try to keep in mind that these 
scholars may have seen something along the lines of what I am seeing and 
called it as they saw it with no axes to grind.

Piotyr wrote:
(a big snip of personal attack)
>  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.
Piotyr, it is you who ought to "blush with shame" for writing such 
words.  Why is it you boys in here have such a penchant for personal 
attacks?  Too much testosterone?  As I know you lump me with the 
"patients" to which you refer and that "we are running" the institution, 
let me give you a little medical advice for the sake of your own mental 
health:  Open up the windows of your mind and let in a little fresh air! 
This is not your internet.  You do not have the right to determine who 
can or cannot voice his or her opinions here.  What you can do (and 
obviously do not choose to do) is, when you see someone's name on a post 
whose ideas you have in the past found repugnant or otherwise contrary 
to the opinions you, yourself, hold dear, JUST DON'T READ THE POST.  Or, 
if you cannot contain your curiosity and must take a look, just sigh 
deeply and go on to the next.  It's as easy as that.  On the other hand, 
Piotyr, can't you just view us all as one big family, "patients" and 
whatnot?  Come on, it's all kind of interesting and what would you guys 
do without the excitement of getting riled by people like Steve or 
myself?

> 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
> 
> 
Good point. I'm not saying I will dismiss this hypothesis out of hand, but
I will say my current belief is that the two writing styles are similar,
but not derived from each other. What must be remembered is that if we go
looking for something, we will find it if we want to, no matter if what we
found is what we think it is or not. (ex. The whole Pacal sarcophagus lid
being a Mayan in a spaceship thing.)
Robert J. Whitney
rjwhitne@acs.ucalgary.ca

Jiri Mruzek wrote:
> Jim Rogers wrote:
> 
> > at least as sensible as those silly Europeans building memorials to the
> > torture and death of their God, who doesn't even walk among them in
> > physical form, contemporaneously, as Pharaoh did.
> 
> You wrote: "SILLY Europeans"
>             their God
> 
> What kind of an atheistic European-hater are you?
Atheist, yes; hater, no (I am of mostly European descent). Just
reflecting your own arguments from a different angle.
> Mister, in all due respect, what kind of a silly goose are you anyway?
> Your style of rudeness doesn't belong on sci.archy, and I just don't
> feel like wasting time on a racist.
Rudeness? You disparage the "sensibility" and question the motives of
ancient Egyptians, and call me rude? I submit that you have ilttle
imagination for theistic thought and ways of life other than your own,
if you can't grasp the analogy I was offering. And as for what belongs
where, I advise you to consider the newsgroup list you're spamming with
this discussion.
Jim

As part of an effort to have the Park declared a world heritage site,
the Natal Parks Board and the Natal Museum are putting together a rock
art management plan for the Natal Drakensberg Park.
Does anybody have or know of any management plan formats for rock art
or other archaeological sites ? 
Please send to:
Stephen Roberts, Natal Parks Board, P.O. Box 662, Pietermaritzburg
3200, South Africa.
e-mail:  sroberts@npb.co.za
Thanks
Stephen

In article <325BA2F5.7ED@PioneerPlanet.infi.net>, Saida
 writes
>I think you really do misunderstand me, Troy. 
> While I have quoted from others who have considered and entertained (or 
>were wholly convinced of the fact) that Egyptian was in part an IE 
>language, 
AFAIAA, Saida, you have produced absolutely no quotes which indicate
that ANYBODY - other than yourself (and perhaps Steve on one of his bad
days, and perhaps also Stella, since she seems driven to support any
claim, provided that it is stupid and anti-establishment enough) - has
ever considered Egyptian to be in any way a member of the IE family of
languages.
The one quote I saw you produce which you claimed said this actually
said nothing of the kind.
-- 
Alan M. Dunsmuir

mrami@cep.yale.edu (Marc Ramirez) wrote:
>I've always heard that "true" is related to "tree" in the sense of
>being firm, steady, sound (true to form, true navigation, etc.)
>Truth, then would be "true" plus noun suffix "th" (filth, death,
>breadth, etc).
True.
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal                     ~ ~
Amsterdam                   _____________  ~ ~
mcv@pi.net                 |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig

whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>In article <53b7cn$rr9@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>, rg10003@cus.cam.ac.uk says...
>>
>>Steve Whittet (whittet@shore.net) wrote:
>>[...]
>>: The question is why would people from Cental Asia want to
>>: migrate to Turkey in the first place? Once you realise that
>>
>>I don't think this question appropriate for any half educated adult. Why 
>would 
>>the Turks start migrating? For exactly the same reasons that caused all 
>>migartions: Hunger!
>It might help if you took a fast look at "Migration in Archaeology"
>by David W. Anthony, which looks in particular at the Black Sea region
>in the 4th millenium BC. His study does not support your hypothesis
>and indeed has resulted in a new paridigm in migration theory.
Which is?
>Care to discuss the expansion of Christianity c 600 to 1500 AD?
Not really a migration, was it?
But yes, saying that all migrations were due to Hunger is as
simplistic as saying they were all due to Trade.  Every event has
unique features and needs to be studied separately.  There can be
little doubt that climatological factors did play a role in shaping
the great epoch of steppe empires and steppe invadors (very roughly AD
300-1300), and it almost seems as if trade (the revival of the Silk
Road by the Mongols after 1300) played a role in putting an end to it
all.
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal                     ~ ~
Amsterdam                   _____________  ~ ~
mcv@pi.net                 |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig

On Mon, 7 Oct 1996, Stephen P Ryder wrote:
> I am a college student focusing on archaeology and would like to know if there 
> are any specific ways I can get in touch with people who need fieldworkers on 
> excavations -- I am interested in working anywhere around the globe and 
If you're interested in classical-type archaeology, you might check out 
the annual list of excavations that *Archaeology* magazine publishes.  
Otherwise, you might contact some anthropology departments at 
universities and see if they have anything going on.  UPenn (not Penn 
State) might have some classical-type stuff, Tulane probably has some 
Mesoamerican activity, Chicago and New Mexico both have pretty regular 
North American field schools (as does, I think, Indiana).  Most state U 
anthro depts. should have field schools.  Is there an archaeologist in 
the anthro dept. at your school?  If so, s/he probably both knows about 
field schools and gets flyers to put up on the bulletin board.
> payment is not necessary (but appreciated!) 
BWAAAHAHAHAHAHA!  Payment!  You'll be lucky if YOU don't have to pay.  
Most field schools are just that -- school situations.  You have to pay 
tuition.  That, in part, is how they fund themselves.  At the very least, 
you'll have to pay to get there.  To GET paid, you have to have 
experience, which usually translates as at least one field school, which 
you have to pay for.  
Cheers,
Rebecca Lynn Johnson
Ph.D. student, Dept. of Anthropology, U Iowa

Ethnoscience, a CRM firm located in Billings, Montana is currently looking
for a temporary prehistoric archaeologist to supervise fieldwork and
assist with report writing.  Fieldwork will take place in Montana and
possibly North Dakota.  Fieldwork may include survey, testing and
excavation, and monitoring of pipeline related activities.  A Master's
degree is preferred.  Map reading skills are essential.  Work will begin
immediately and will last at least 6 months.  Pay is $13 an hour.
Please contact Lynn M. Peterson of Ethnoscience
Telephone: (406) 252-9163
FAX: (406) 252-9483
E-Mail: ethno@wtp.net

There is absolutely no relationship between the word Ptah and "father" in
Egyptian. The word for the deity Ptah was rendered by the p+t+dotted h
alphabetic hieroglyphs, followed by divine determinative. "Father" was
written i+t+f, again all alphabetic signs plus male determinative. The
f is considered a defective spelling sign, as the Coptic form for "father"
is eiot, that fits the first two glyphs, reedleaf plus t-loaf, but not
the f-horned viper. So, the spellings are utterly different, and there
is no realtionship between the two words. For that mater, Ptah was a
late addition to the creation myths. The original creator, Re-Atum is
credited by Middle Kingdom texts, with creating humans, "in his own image
and likeness", a reference found in Merykare, the Teaching for, and in
a Coffin Text, both in Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, vol 1,
Berkeley-Los Angeles, University of California, 1973. 
Most sincerely,
Frank J. Yurco
University of Chicago
-- 
Frank Joseph Yurco                           fjyurco@midway.uchicago.edu

On 8 Oct 1996, William Belcher wrote:
> I'm a little disturbed by your joking about such a tragedy that affected
> the lives of so many families. Of course, I'm the first one to jump in with
> a crude and disgusting reference to some incident - but take a little care
> in your jokes. Some of us know parents who lost children in that incident.
And some of us don't.  To some of us the "tragedy" was abstract: a 
horrible thing, to be sure, but not something which affected me directly 
in any way.  As an anthropologist (correct me if I'm wrong about that -- 
but I have no doubt you would), you should be aware that not everyone has 
the same experience of the same event.  My experience is no less valid 
than yours or the parents of whom you speak.  
Would you have preferred I said "pull a World Trade Center"?  I suspect 
that any reference to a building blown up would have disturbed you.
But, in the immortal words of I-can't-remember-who, "Tragedy is when I 
get a hangnail.  Comedy is when you walk into an open sewer and die."  
All humor is at someone else's expense.
Cheers,
Rebecca Lynn Johnson
Ph.D. student, Dept. of Anthropology, U Iowa