Subject: Re: Father=Creator=Pater=Ptah=Pitar
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 10 Oct 1996 15:41:31 GMT
In article <325ADB12.7E0C@utoronto.ca>, t.sagrillo@utoronto.ca says...
>
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.
Does he say, yes or no, that it is usually written without the
phonetic compliment (he shows it as the single glyph D21)
>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).
Look at the page I cited, this is a special case of one particular
verb. You can probably get a copy of Gardiner if you don't have one
through your inter library loan program.
**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/).
No, you need to read the whole passage. As I quoted Gardiner does
not say "does NOT always", what he says is
>> Gardiner page 214 Section 281 Tetiae Infirmae verbs
>> "(iri) make; do; *is usually written without the expected phonetic
> complent (r)"*
"Is usually" and "does not always" are not exactly cognate.
>
>
>> >
>> >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.
Ok, you need to begin by adding Gardiner to that list, and I would
appreciate your agreement that Budge does translate at least one
of Ptah's titles as "father of all fathers"
So please,
>cite again. Where is "Ptah r"?? ("Father of Fathers" is irrelevant -- I
>want to see where you got "Ptah r").
BD Page 438 rubric 7 "The house of Ptah makes or creates knowledge"
(House of Ptah place determinative, "r h papyrus determinative" knows,
is aware of, learns, inquires about knowledge, wisdom) Faulkner 151
Ptah (his school) is the creator or father of wisdom
>
>Cheers,
>
>Troy
>
>
steve
Subject: Re: A State of Denial, or finding it hard to accept the facts: was Re: Linguistic diffusion: was Re: Egyptian Tree Words
From: mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal)
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 18:31:54 GMT
Saida wrote:
>What I maintain,
>knowing full well that there has always been dissent on the topic (and I
>have no reason to think things have become unanymous now) that somewhere
>between early impressions and current beliefs lies the truth.
I would venture that the truth lies beyond current beliefs.
Those early impressions you quote have more to do with the status
of comparative linguistics at the time than with Ancient Egyptian
itself. In the 19th c., a group of mainly German scholars had
elucidated some of the relationships between the Indo-European
languages (basically Greek, Latin and Sanskrit, with less emphasis on
Germanic, Celtic, Balto-Slavic, Albanian, Armenian and Iranian).
At the same time, the long recognized relationship of the Semitic
languages was investigated using these new methods developed by the
Indo-Europeanists ("Neo-Grammarians"). Some scholars even went beyond
that, and applied the same methods to establish the Finno-Ugric group
of languages (Finnish, Hungarian). Nobody had yet investigated the
languages of Africa, Asia (bar Semitic and Indo-Iranian), America or
Oceania in this way, or in any way at all, for that matter. Nobody
really thought these "primitive" languages, most of them without any
kind of written tradition [Chinese the big exception], were of much
relevance to "civilization" and its languages. So when Ancient
Egyptian was deciphered, scholars found, to their amazement, that it
was neither fish nor fowl, neither "wholly" IE nor "wholly" Semitic.
If all you know is oranges and apples, you start comparing oranges
with apples. But now we know that there are also mangoes and bananas
and coconuts and kiwi-fruits. The position of Ancient Egyptian in
relation to Semitic and the African languages has been sorted out to
satisfaction a long time ago (Afro-Asiatic = Semitic, Ancient
Egyptian, Berber, Chadic, Cushitic and Omotic, the other African
languages fall into three other separate groups: Niger-Kordofanian,
Nilo-Saharan and Khoisan). Can we go beyond Afro-Asiatic,
Indo-European, Uralic (as Finno-Ugrian and Samoyed are now called),
etc.? Some linguists think we can, and have proposed a "Nostratic"
group, linking Afro-Asiatic with Indo-European, with Dravidian, with
Uralic, and with many other language groups of Eurasia. These
theories are not very well established yet, but who is to say where
these investigations will lead? Beyond current beliefs, and possibly
linking Ancient Egyptian and Indo-European in a way, but certainly not
in the way the 19th. century scholars imagined!
==
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: piotrm@umich.edu (Piotr Michalowski)
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 17:02:44
In article <53iubi$k6p@shore.shore.net> whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) writes:
>
>Let's take a specific instance and see if your perceptions
>are accurate.
>I, an amateur, make a reference to "pictographic script"
>citing a published source.
>You, a great and renowned scholar, claiming to be knowledgable
>about all such scripts say there is no such thing, absolutely
>not one instance.
>I then cite a few instances again refering to and citing
>several published sources.
>You then say there are no pictographs later than Sargon.
>I cite an example of a number of pictographic scripts
>later than Sargon.
>Those are not Akkadian scripts you say.
>I cite the published source which refers to them as Akkadian.
>You can't tell the difference between Sumerian and Akkadian
>you charge.
>I cite a published source which says that it is difficult if
>not impossible to make that distinction
>"In the Early Dynastic period it is difficult to distinguish Sumerians
>from Akkadians. For centuries they were in close contact and words
>borrowed from Akkadian have been recognized in early Sumerian texts.
>The Akkadians to the north adopted the Sumerian script for their
>inscriptions, but as logograms (signs representing 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. A few Akkadian suffixes in the inscriptions from Mari
>suggest that they were read in Akkadian" Micahel Roaf, CAM p 96
>So here we have Akkadian pictographic scripts in use later
>than Sargon and I cite a few such.
Very nice, but you do not understand what Roaf is speaking about. The texts
he describes are the earliest adaptations of cuneiform and antidate (as do the
Mari inscriptions he is describing) the reign of Sargon.
>You then claim that cylinder seals have no
writing and that>Kudurra are not readable.
>I point out that the same symbols found on the kudurra show
>up on the Phastos Disk, reference the limestone kudurra of
>Melishipak II, found at Susa; CAM p 142
>Now I have suggested that to decide whether or not that is true,
>someone in possession of both CAM and an image of the Phaistos
>Disk can look for themselves and tell us what they see.
>On this kudurra most of the symbols sit on pedestals, perhaps
>representing the buildings of cities in a manner reminiscent
>of the Egyptian nome standards. It is therefore likely that
>where the function of the kudurra is to act as a boundary stela,
>these represent the places being bounded.
>On the bottom row the two glyphs on the left are found on the
>Phaistos Disk, One of which is Gardiner F13, and the other
>Gardiner U27. With them are a heifer and a lamb.
>On the second row the cedar tree on the far left probably
>represents a country known for its wood. With it are two ibex.
>The central glyph on this row is Gardiner O18 meaning "shrine"
>On the second row down the glyph on the far left shows a boat
>and probably represents a country known for its sea trade.
>With it are a griffin, a camel, an eagle, a horse and
>another griffin.
>On the top row on the far left there are two beehives with
>the symbols for the sun and moon and the stars, a camel, an
>ibex and a glyph I don't recognise.
>What the stele is doing is using pictographs or logograms
>to communicate a message, that this is the boundary of these
>lands as represented by the symbols of their cities and trade.
Thank you for hellping me make my point. This kudurru is from the 12th
century, way after the Phaistos disk. If you read the book carefully, you
would have learned that these "boundary stones" (actually they are land
donations set up in temples) mostly come from between the 14th and 12th
centuries. Actually, the side that is illustrated has NO WRITING on it.
These are not "AKkadian pictograms" but symbols of the major deities of the
time. The top row has Nanna (the moon), Ishtar (Venus), and Shamash (the
sun), the next row, Anu, Enlil, Ea, and Ninhursag, and on it goes. None of
this has anything to do with cities, trade, or anything of the sort, nor does
it have anything to do with Egypt. For you all is the same. In fact the star
symbol here is not related at all to the cuneiform sign DINGIR (originally a
star), which is also used to write the name of the god Anu, but is a
non-writing symbol of Ishtar. ALl of this is very well known, and I can post
sources for it, but you would only ridicule them. Kudurrus, like seals,
incorporate both symbols and writing (although you happened on a photo of the
side of one that shows no writing), much like modern coins do. You would not
take the eagle for an element of the English alphabet. would you, even though
it has a rich symbolism all of its own. Different semiotic systems. If you
are going to discuss writing systems, the least you could do is study them a
bit first so that you know what is writing and what is not.
snip insults
>Sociologically this phenomenon is known as cognitive dissonance.
>The very strong reaction indicates that what I have said bothers
>you, which would probably not be the case were my comments as trivial
>as you pretend.
>Hatur: I suggested a river named Habur could have been called
>Hatur. If it were called Hatur, reference to it could have been
>confused with reference to Hittites. The people of the Hatur
>(Hurrians) might thus have attacked Babylon instead of the
>people of the Hatur (reference to Hittites). Just a thought.
>Piotr finds it amusing.
This is indeed a perfect example of what you call dissonance. I posted some
information about new texts from Terqa that had some bearing on your
insistance that all sources concerning the fall of Babylon were false. We
could have discussed the veracity of these sources, which is indeed an
interesting issue, but you dismissed them without wondering what they were,
just as you dismissed with ridicule the new data, without reading the article.
I cited mention of Hittites (ha-at-ti) at Terqa on the Euphrates. This
became, in some incomprehensible way, your Hatur and became a name for the
Habur. You simply misread a map and now it is a strange now concoction. How
does Hatti become Hatur and that becomes the real name of the Habur? You
claimed that there is no evidence for the ancient name of the Habur, even
though I cited the fact that in Mari texts the ha-bu-ur is mentioned a good
number of times. So the Hittites become unexplainably Hatur etc. Then you
say that we do not know how ancient procounced it, so why not Hatur. Why not
Ivan Ivanovich?
>Akkadian pictographs: see above
>phantom naval empire: Ocean empire larger than Libya and Asia
>combined, Platos reference to the territory gained by Phoenicia
>in circumnavigating Africa for Neco I. What territory is larger
>than Libya and Asia combined? The ocean which surrounds them.
I will not debate that one again, except to point out that Plato never
discusses any of this. The source of that is Herodotus, but the veracity of
the statement has been questioned by almost all Phoenician specialists and
even had they gone around Africa, that hardly means that they controled all
that territory!
>Phoenician Greek: The Greeks reoport that they got their language
>from the Phoenicians. Certainly they got their script from them.
>In the process they may well have borrowed a few words. Additionaly
>Mycenean Greeks have a presence in Palestine c 1200 BC, indeed
>throughout the eastern Mediterranean as evidenced by pottery and
>archaeology. Were these Greeks the sea people who combined with the
>Canaanites and other peoples of the Levant to become the Phoenicians?
This has nothing to do with your claim that the Greek language was Phoenician.
The Greeks were perfectly aware of where their letters (Phoinikea grammata)
came from, but that has no bearing on the language. I will not bother with
the rest of this statement.
>...sound of jackhammer replaced by noisy screetch
>of pencil across paper... laying out the next area to
>be demolished and the new structure to arise in its place...
If this is how the new structure is to be elevated, it might need a better
architect. You seem to have a great sense of importance, but I doubt that
knowledge based on ignoranace and an inability to precisely read even a
popular atlas (and a good one at that) will endanger standard works. Since you
are a fan of Arabic (remember your lovely "etymologies" of basic Arabic
greetings and other concepts?) I might cite for you the Middle Eastern
proverb: "the dogs bark, but the caravan goes on."
Subject: Re: Pictographs, was Re: Linguistic time depth
From: Marc Cooper
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 1996 14:55:48 -0500
Steve Whittet wrote:
>
> 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.
>
These tables, which I think derive from the one published in S. Kramer's
_The Sumerians_ (he borrowed the idea from Poebel), are the source of a
great deal of misunderstanding about cuneiform writing. For one thing,
they suggest a linear development of signs from Protoliterate line
drawings to Neo-Assyrian cuneiform. While this is generally true, some
kinds of inscriptions, particularly seals and stamped bricks, often use
linear forms of the signs. This does not mean that those inscriptions
are *pictographic.* A table in the most popular Western Civilizations
textbook actually labels Protoliterate characters as pictographs, ED III
signs as ideograms, and Neo-Assyrian signs as phonetic characters!
The issue really comes down to what terms such as pictopraph, ideograph,
and logograph mean. I follow Gelb in this. Writing systems, for
instance, Protoliterate Sumerian, which are composed of characters which
look like the items they represent are called pictographic. This term
merely speaks to the outward form of the writing, not its system for
representing ideas. Even the earliest Uruk texts show complete ideas, on
the order of "Personal-Name (has) 10 sheep." Gelb calls the internal
system of this writing logographic. In later Sumerian and Akkadian
writing, linear forms of cuneiform characters for writing in stone or
stamping in bricks were based on the contemporary form of the cuneiform
sign. Even if the dingir sign still looks starlike (Real stars look like
points to me, not asterrisks - the ancients needed glasses.) the rest of
the linear corpus is anything but pictographic. Cuneiform scripts are
not pictographic.
As for the Phaistos Disk which you have written about several times: The
characters look like pictures, but probably represent syllables. Gelb
calls such writing outwardly pictographic, though the inner system is
syllabic. Though the writing may look to you to be similar to early
Sumerian, not only is the inner system completely different, but the
character forms are divorced from the values which they represent. Also,
there may be some resemblance between some disk signs and Linear A
signs, but there is not enough resemblance to show any connection
between them. And why should there be? The Linear A characters seem to
have been developed from hieroglyphic Minoan. More likely the Phaistos
Disk is evidence of an independent Minoan script which was replaced by
Linear A, just as Elamite writing was replaced by cuneiform.
Marc Cooper
mac566f@nic.smsu.edu
Subject: Re: A State of Denial, or finding it hard to accept the facts: was Re: Linguistic diffusion: was Re: Egyptian Tree Words
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 11 Oct 1996 00:34:17 GMT
In article , piotrm@umich.edu says...
>
>In article <53iubi$k6p@shore.shore.net> whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
writes:
>>
...snip...
>>"In the Early Dynastic period it is difficult to distinguish Sumerians
>>from Akkadians. For centuries they were in close contact and words
>>borrowed from Akkadian have been recognized in early Sumerian texts.
>
>>The Akkadians to the north adopted the Sumerian script for their
>>inscriptions, but as logograms (signs representing 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. A few Akkadian suffixes in the inscriptions from Mari
>>suggest that they were read in Akkadian" Micahel Roaf, CAM p 96
>
>>So here we have Akkadian pictographic scripts in use later
>>than Sargon and I cite a few such.
>
>Very nice, but you do not understand what Roaf is speaking about.
>The texts he describes are the earliest adaptations of cuneiform and
>antidate (as do the Mari inscriptions he is describing) the reign
>of Sargon.
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.
>
On page 77 impression of a greenstone cylinder seal
of the Akkadian period c 2200 BC
>>You then claim that cylinder seals have no
>>writing and that Kudurra are not readable.
>
>>I point out that the same symbols found on the kudurra show
>>up on the Phastos Disk, reference the limestone kudurra of
>>Melishipak II, found at Susa; CAM p 142
>
>>Now I have suggested that to decide whether or not that is true,
>>someone in possession of both CAM and an image of the Phaistos
>>Disk can look for themselves and tell us what they see.
>
>>On this kudurra most of the symbols sit on pedestals, perhaps
>>representing the buildings of cities in a manner reminiscent
>>of the Egyptian nome standards. It is therefore likely that
>>where the function of the kudurra is to act as a boundary stela,
>>these represent the places being bounded.
>
>>On the bottom row the two glyphs on the left are found on the
>>Phaistos Disk, One of which is Gardiner F13, and the other
>>Gardiner U27. With them are a heifer and a lamb.
>
>>On the second row the cedar tree on the far left probably
>>represents a country known for its wood. With it are two ibex.
>>The central glyph on this row is Gardiner O18 meaning "shrine"
>
>>On the second row down the glyph on the far left shows a boat
>>and probably represents a country known for its sea trade.
>>With it are a griffin, a camel, an eagle, a horse and
>>another griffin.
>
>>On the top row on the far left there are two beehives with
>>the symbols for the sun and moon and the stars, a camel, an
>>ibex and a glyph I don't recognise.
>
>>What the stele is doing is using pictographs or logograms
>>to communicate a message, that this is the boundary of these
>>lands as represented by the symbols of their cities and trade.
>
>Thank you for hellping me make my point. This kudurru is from the 12th
>century, way after the Phaistos disk.
And the cylinder seals and other artifacts with pictographs
I mentiond predate the Phaistos Disk thus including it in the
group.
>If you read the book carefully, you
>would have learned that these "boundary stones" (actually they are land
>donations set up in temples) mostly come from between the 14th and 12th
>centuries.
They are typical of the Kasite occupation levels,yes. Roaf says
"The Kassites also introduced a new type of document called
a kudurru to commemorate Royal Grants of land"
"kudurru, sometimes called boundary stones"...
>Actually, the side that is illustrated has NO WRITING on it.
>These are not "AKkadian pictograms" but symbols of the major
>deities of the time.
Yes, that is true. The major deities of the time were associated with
individual cities, as Marduk, city god of Babylon. This in essence
makes the symbol of Marduk a symbol of Babylon. Now the gods could
be placed on the "boundary stele" of the grant of land to witness
the transaction, or they could stand for the interested parties,
The point I wished to make was that the same symbol shows up
among the symbols of the Akkadians and Egyptians and on the
Phaistos Disk.
All that means to me is that whatever it communicates to the
person who sees it on a kudurru, cylinder seal, statue, vase,
or inscription it is likely to have communicated to the person
who saw it on a disk.
> The top row has Nanna (the moon), Ishtar (Venus), and Shamash (the
>sun), the next row, Anu, Enlil, Ea, and Ninhursag, and on it goes.
I would be interested to know which gods you assign to the bottom row.
Let me phrase this as a question. Were any of these deities
associated with cities, as the god of the city?
>None of this has anything to do with cities, trade, or anything
>of the sort, nor does it have anything to do with Egypt.
Egypt is among the places using some of the glyphs. That really
isn't too suprising.
>For you all is the same. In fact the star symbol here is not
>related at all to the cuneiform sign DINGIR (originally a
>star), which is also used to write the name of the god Anu, but is a
>non-writing symbol of Ishtar.
Maybe we should just call them logos. I don't think I did relate
this star glyph to the "dingar, an" glyph, but I am curious. Are the
symbols of the gods always shown on pedastals or is this something
we might associate with the kudurru?
>ALl of this is very well known, and I can post
>sources for it, but you would only ridicule them.
No, I would like to see your sources,... and to know why you
chose to reply to the questions I raised about kudurrus but
not the questions I raised about the pictographs on vases,
statues, cylinder seals and the stele of Enatum, ruler of
Lagash c 2440 BC...?
>Kudurrus, like seals, incorporate both symbols and writing
>(although you happened on a photo of the side of one that
>shows no writing), much like modern coins do. You would not
>take the eagle for an element of the English alphabet.
>would you, even though it has a rich symbolism all of its own.
Do you allow that the eagle and other birds in Egyptian
Hieroglyphics are a part of a system of writing? Why do
you differentiate between symbols and glyphs? What's the
difference? I would also like your comments on the vase
of Entemena.
>Different semiotic systems.
Different systems for the study and analysis of signs and symbols
as a part of communication? Why isn't what is true for one system
true for the other?
>snip insults
>
>>Sociologically this phenomenon is known as cognitive dissonance.
>>The very strong reaction indicates that what I have said bothers
>>you, which would probably not be the case were my comments as trivial
>>as you pretend.
>>Hatur: I suggested a river named Habur could have been called
>>Hatur. If it were called Hatur, reference to it could have been
>>confused with reference to Hittites. The people of the Hatur
>>(Hurrians) might thus have attacked Babylon instead of the
>>people of the Hatur (reference to Hittites). Just a thought.
>>Piotr finds it amusing.
>
>This is indeed a perfect example of what you call dissonance.
>I posted some information about new texts from Terqa that had
>some bearing on your insistance that all sources concerning
>the fall of Babylon were false.
I raised the question of what Hittites are doing sacking
Babylon through the territory of the Hurrians and then
if the Hittites were sucessful in their mission why is
it the Hurrians who take over afterward?
>We could have discussed the veracity of these sources,
>which is indeed an interesting issue,
I agree it is an interesting issue,
but you dismissed them without wondering what they were,
When I asked what the sources for it were, you blew me off with
"Oh, I thought you had all those"
>just as you dismissed with ridicule the new data, without
>reading the article.
I do sometimes make an effort to keep my sense of humour
about all this...:) You may be assured if I had access to
any information I have not found yet I would indeed devour
it rapaciously and then let you know about it.
> I cited mention of Hittites (ha-at-ti) at Terqa on the
>Euphrates. This became, in some incomprehensible way,
>your Hatur and became a name for the Habur. You simply
>misread a map and now it is a strange now concoction.
>How does Hatti become Hatur and that becomes the real
name of the Habur?
How does the capital of the Hittites become Hattusas?
Isn't sas a suffix meaning place? Place of the Hattu?
Isn't Hattu reasonably close to Hatur/Habur?
Both of us should be so lucky as to never mispell anything,
how often did the scribes who went before us make a small
error in their topynyms?
>You claimed that there is no evidence for the ancient name
>of the Habur, even though I cited the fact that in Mari texts
>the ha-bu-ur is mentioned a good number of times.
Could you tell me what each of those glyphs is in the texts?
Are they always the same glyphs in each text? Do they have
any meaning? If so what? What does this tell us about the
Habur. If it were to read Hatur, what would change? What
would the meaning then be?
>So the Hittites become unexplainably Hatur etc. Then you
>say that we do not know how ancient procounced it, so why
>not Hatur. Why not Ivan Ivanovich?
You find it impossible that a single letter in the name
of a river could have changed in the last four millenia?
>
>
>>Akkadian pictographs: see above
>
>>phantom naval empire: Ocean empire larger than Libya and Asia
>>combined, Platos reference to the territory gained by Phoenicia
>>in circumnavigating Africa for Neco I. What territory is larger
>>than Libya and Asia combined? The ocean which surrounds them.
>
>I will not debate that one again, except to point out that Plato never
>discusses any of this.
Plato is the source of the phrase "An empire larger than Libya
and Asia combined" Herodotus is the source of the historical
fact that the Phoenicians circumnavigated Libya for Neco I.
When you put the two stories together they agree very well.
>The source of that is Herodotus, but the veracity of
>the statement has been questioned by almost all Phoenician
>specialists and even had they gone around Africa, that
>hardly means that they controled all that territory!
The fact though, is that they did.
In addition to circumnavigating Africa Neco I has the
Phoenicians build him a fleet in the Persian Gulf and
then has them circumnavigate Arabia.
They controlled the Meditteranean, the Persian Gulf, The Red Sea,
parts of the Black Sea, The North African and Iberian Atlantic,
the Cassites, the Canaries, their colony Carthage colonises the
North African coast as far south as the Gulf of Guinea, their
ships of Tarshish sail from Elat to Ophir. They are in the
Indian Ocean and perhaps the Bay of Bengal. In addition to
this they make their way up rivers like the Danube and the Po.
>
>>Phoenician Greek: The Greeks reoport that they got their language
>>from the Phoenicians. Certainly they got their script from them.
>>In the process they may well have borrowed a few words. Additionaly
>>Mycenean Greeks have a presence in Palestine c 1200 BC, indeed
>>throughout the eastern Mediterranean as evidenced by pottery and
>>archaeology. Were these Greeks the sea people who combined with the
>>Canaanites and other peoples of the Levant to become the Phoenicians?
>
>This has nothing to do with your claim that the Greek language was
Phoenician.
I never claimed that. What I claimed was that some Greeks may
have been Phoenician. The labels we use sometimes blind us to
the fact that these people were organized in families, households
and brotherhoods, not states. They owed alleigence to their cities,
but their cities could be any port in a storm.
> The Greeks were perfectly aware of where their letters
>(Phoinikea grammata) came from, but that has no bearing
>on the language. I will not bother with
>the rest of this statement.
>
>>...sound of jackhammer replaced by noisy screetch
>>of pencil across paper... laying out the next area to
>>be demolished and the new structure to arise in its place...
...insults snipped...
I might cite for you the Middle Eastern
>proverb: "the dogs bark, but the caravan goes on."
I used to have a friend who liked expressions like that.
He would describe the temperature in the desert as
"It's the kind of a day, the dogs lie down to bark"
I know the feeling
steve
>
Subject: Re: More monkey business (was: Re: Linguistic stabs-in-the-dark???)
From: Saida
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 19:35:59 -0500
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:
>
> Saida wrote:
>
> >). "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" ?
>
> >In ancient Egyptian, silver was sometimes known as "arq ur". Just
> >thought I'd toss that in the hat.
>
> Interesting. In what period does this occur? (My first guess would
> be a link with Greek argureios, argurion.)
>
> ==
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
Yes, O Learned One, my dictionary gives the Greek "arguros" with "arq
ur", but it does not say which is from which. "Arq" and "ur" are two
separate words, of course, the "arq" usually having the meaning, with
that glyph, of being the end of something, and "ur" is usually "great"
or "exalted". The other cite is "Sphinx 2, 8" which I take to mean
where the word is seen, but that's all I know. Another strange glyph
having to do with this word looks like either the top of an
old-fashioned radio or some sort of UFO encased in a croquet wicket.
Since I don't know how one gets "silver" from all this, you may well be
right that it comes from Greek. I would research this further, as it is
intriguing, but I'm going out of town first thing in the morning and
have to get busy packing.
Subject: Re: More monkey business (was: Re: Linguistic stabs-in-the-dark???)
From: mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal)
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 01:24:00 GMT
Saida wrote:
>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:
>>
>> Saida wrote:
>> >In ancient Egyptian, silver was sometimes known as "arq ur". Just
>> >thought I'd toss that in the hat.
>>
>> Interesting. In what period does this occur? (My first guess would
>> be a link with Greek argureios, argurion.)
>Yes, [Miguel], my dictionary gives the Greek "arguros" with "arq
>ur", but it does not say which is from which. "Arq" and "ur" are two
>separate words, of course,
Yes, that struck me as odd. Still, the Greek word is impeccably
Indo-European [*Harg-, just a different suffix added].
>the "arq" usually having the meaning, with
>that glyph, of being the end of something, and "ur" is usually "great"
>or "exalted". The other cite is "Sphinx 2, 8" which I take to mean
>where the word is seen, but that's all I know. Another strange glyph
>having to do with this word looks like either the top of an
>old-fashioned radio or some sort of UFO encased in a croquet wicket.
UFO? You mean a Krikkit wicket!
>Since I don't know how one gets "silver" from all this, you may well be
>right that it comes from Greek. I would research this further, as it is
>intriguing, but I'm going out of town first thing in the morning and
>have to get busy packing.
Bon voyage!
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal ~ ~
Amsterdam _____________ ~ ~
mcv@pi.net |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig
Subject: Re: Advanced Machining in Ancient Egypt
From: Rodney Small
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 21:10:09 -0700
August Matthusen wrote:
>
> Rodney Small wrote:
> [snip]
> > I'm not sure whether the hole and core were produced by
> > ultrasonic drilling, but I find your explanation as unconvincing
> > as Stella's. Bear in mind again the following characteristics of
> > the hole and core, in addition to the taper (which Petrie
> > explained by stating that "auxiliary cutting points were inserted
> > along the side, as well as around the edge of the tube drill"):
> > 1) A symmetrical helical groove following these tapers and cut at
> > the rate of 0.1 inch per revolution of the drill; and 2) A spiral
> > groove cut deeper through the harder quartz in the granite than
> > the softer feldspar. Petrie described the cutting rate as
> > "astonishing". What's the explanation of how it was achieved?
>
> What's wrong with how Petrie explained it was done?
>
> "On the granite core, broken from a drill-hole (No. 7),
> other features appear, which also can only be explained by the
> use of fixed jewel points. Firstly, the grooves which run around
> it form a regular spiral, with no more interruption or waviness
> than is necessarily produced by the variations in the component
> crystals; this spiral is truly symmetrical with the axis of the
> core. In one part a groove can be traced, with scarcely an
> interruption, for a length of four turns. Secondly, the grooves
> are as deep in the quartz as in the adjacent felspar, and even
> rather deeper. If these were in any way produced by loose powder,
> they would be shallower in the harder substance--quartz; whereas
> a fixed jewel point would be compelled to plough to the same
> depth in all the components; and further, inasmuch as the quartz
> stands out slightly beyond the felspar (owing to the latter being
> worn by general rubbing), the groove was thus left even less in
> depth on the felspar than on the quartz. Thus, even if specimens
> with similarly deep grooves would be produced by a loose powder,
> the special features of this core would still show that fixed
> cutting points were the means here employed."
>
> This seems to explain it all or was there more?
How does this "explain it all"? Petrie does a commendable jobe of ruling
out the use of loose powder, but his hypothesis of "a fixed jewel point"
is speculation, as you later acknowledge.
> Additionally although Petrie states:
> "The amount of pressure, shown by the rapidity with which
> the drills and saws pierced through the hard stones, is very
> surprising; probably a load of at least a ton or two was placed
> on the 4-inch drills cutting in granite. On the granite core, No.
> 7,the spiral of the cut sinks .1 inch in the circumference of 6
> inches, or 1 in 60, a rate of ploughing out of the quartz and
> felspar which is astonishing. Yet these grooves cannot be due to
> the mere scratching produced in withdrawing the drill, as has
> been suggested, since there would be about 1/10 inch thick of
> dust between the drill and the core at that part; thus there
> could be scarcely any pressure applied sideways, and the point of
> contact of the drill and granite could not travel around the
> granite however the drill might be turned about. Hence these
> rapid spiral grooves cannot be ascribed to anything but the
> descent of the drill into the granite under enormous pressure;
> unless, indeed, we suppose a separate rymering tool to have been
> employed alternately with the drill for enlarging the groove, for
> which there is no adequate evidence."
>
> His argument *against* the "rymering" tool [which I assume is
> some type of cylindrical reaming tool] seems a bit forced,
> as he has no evidence for the existence of the jeweled drill
> bit, either.
I couldn't agree with you more -- Petrie has no evidence of either a
rymering tool or jeweled drill bit -- he's simply attempting to come up
with the best explanation he can based on the state-of-the art in the
late 19th century. But he does not even attempt to explain the rate of
ploughing out of granite. Christopher Dunn cites a Mr. Donald Rahn of
Rahn Granite Surface Plate Co. in Dayton, Ohio as stating that in
drilling granite today, diamond drills penetrate at the rate of one inch
in 5 minutes at 900 revolutions per minute; i.e., today's drills
penetrate one inch per 4500 revolutions of the drill, or .1 inch per 450
revolutions. How was it, then, that the Egyptians were able to drill .1
inch per revolution?
> Regards,
> August Matthusen
Subject: Re: Ancient artwork is expressed in geometrical and mathematical terms.encoding images and messages
From: Jiri Mruzek
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 16:59:36 -0700
Luna wrote:
> Science in Ancient Artwork Series
> by Charles Johnson
Doc!
I don't have a 25 inch monitor! Please, shorten your lines, next time.
This time around, I did it for you.
> How much of ancient artwork is based on scientific knowledge ?
> That is a question that is explored in the Earth/matriX essays.
That is a question I am asking on the Internet for two years already.
As you no doubt know, I have answered some of the question already.
> All too often we view our ancient heritage as coming from nascent
> beings who did not really know what they were achieving with their works;
> or, we enjoy viewing them as being magicians of some kind.
> Whatever the particular viewpoint may be, there is another possibility
> of examining the ancient artwork: from the perspective of its internal logic.
That's what I have been saying for many years.
> The Earth/matriX series, written by Charles W. Johnson, represents
> an independent effort to examine the relationships of astronomical data,
> mathematical models, the laws of geometry, and how all of that possibly
> became interpreted and translated into the ancient artwork.
I hope, it's independent.. Unfortunately, I am not about to read your
works, as you demand money for access to your research.
My own research has been available gratis for some time now.
If you think that you have made any discoveries, you should present
them on the Net/Web - free of charge.
> Every culture, every piece of artwork is fair game for analysis.
That may be true, but just don't forget that the Magdalenian art, as
well as the art of the Nasca plain has already been identified as
containing scientific mathematics. So as long as you don't try to
appropriate my discoveries, you are fine.
The fact that you post to sci.archy tells me that you should be
familiar with my claims. Based on this, forgive me, but I must be
somewhat suspicious of your motives behind not acknowledging my work.
> The governing idea is simple: there is only one
> reality, and that reality exists as spacetime/movement. The laws of
> nature necessarily reflect spacetime coordinates and relations.
> The ancient artwork, no matter where it may have existed, would
> necessarily have reflected these same laws, those same coordinates.
> Some aspects of the artwork would be due to those unbending
> laws, other aspects would be due to individual expression and imagination.
> Those different levels of analysis
> and enquiry are approached in the writings of the Earth/matriX series.
Usually, I put this in simpler terms by saying:
IT IS POSSIBLE TO ENCODE EXACT IDEAS IN ART. That would of course
include mathematical/geometrical ideas as well.
> The essays are presented with more reasoning than with academic
> references in an effort to cut to the core of each particular subject.
> Each case study presents sufficient elements to decide whether to
> continue or reroute the analysis. Hopefully we may learn more from
> our ancient heritage than what has already been achieved by so many
> over the years.
This idea has been pioneered by me for quite some time..
> The Earth/matriX project is based upon the idea that the ancient knowledge
> may offer insight into reviewing our contemporary approach to science and
> knowledge about ourselves and our world.
That is my idea. You should have mentioned that.
> The accompanying materials are for you to consider acquiring the complete
> collection of essays, which is added
> to each month by new writings. You may acquire a single essay, or purchase
> the entire set of essays. Also,
> Earth/matriX is offering the Geo/metriX Collection of posters. Specific
> images that have been analyzed in the essays are being offered on stock
> paper (11x17), which are suitable for framing. Enquiries are encouraged and
> may be addressed to the author at the above address.
---------------
> Science in Ancient Artwork Series
>
> 1) The Integer (20) Calendar Reckoning and Astronomical Tables: Ancient Mexico.
snip
> 25) The Maya Long Count and the Alautun Cycle.
> 26) Pakal, The Maya Astronaut: A Study of Ancient Space Travel.
snip
> Price $8.50/ea. plus $1.50S&H;
> Contact person is Dr. Charles Johnson:
> Phone: 504/ 738-9372
> Price $8.50/ea. plus $1.50S&H;
How nice you are. At $10 a shot, you only want $ 700 for your loose-leaf
collection of papers. That's cheap!
If, somehow, you have never heard of me, I apologize for my stern
warnings, and you are welcome to get in touch with me.
If you have - be wary of lawsuits.
Jiri Mruzek - discoverer of Palaeolithic and Nascan (Nazcan)
scientific encodings in Art
****************
Regards from Nasca Monkey - Americas' Golden Mean champ
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jiri_mruzek/
Subject: Re: ABC & racist pseudoscience
From: Jiri Mruzek
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 19:57:02 -0700
taranr wrote:
> I do not pretend to be an expert on Von Danniken's claims and have not read
> all of his book. Also I could not really comment on your opinion of what is
> really going on here. But I have come to some conclusions based on what Von
> Danniken has pointed out. That is that the Mayans must have had an extensive
> knowledge of astronomy. Also, there were some stones found a few years ago
> with pictures on them clearly showing what appears to be a telescope being
> used and people performing brain surgury.
Yes, the Ica (read Ekha) stones. This is funny, but at two years old,
when
asked my name - I would answer - Ica (Ekha :) Maybe, one day, I willl
discover scientific mathematics encoded into the Ica stones. At this
time,
my working hypothesis is that this is indeed the case.
> I know that skulls have been found
> in I believe Peru showing that brain surgury was performed on live patients.
> These stones, which I think were found also in Peru, have been said to be a
> hoax, but that may have been done so that the person who found them could sell
> them without government intervention, which he did.
Yes, the fact looms significant. We get a complex connection here.
Firstly, the Seal of Atlantis joins La Marche/France, and Nasca/Peru.
Then we get an intensifier in that La Marche and Ica/Peru are both
engravings on stone. Plus, they are numerous. Plus, they are shocking..
> I would not say that such phenomena as the Nazca lines is for Alien landings
> strips, eventhough the top of one mountain there has been completely leveled
> off. These things are left for interpretation.
And my interpretation would tend to see Gods as invitees to the
table/mountain,
one way, or another.
> However, it is indisputible
> that many ancient cultures had knowledge beyond our own. Many of these
> ancient structures clearly show blocks weighing tons which fit so precisly
> that a piece of paper could not squeeze in between.
Hey! As our friends from the orthodox element would say: You take
two 20-ton blocks, and you RUB THEM BACK AND FORTH, till they fit..
A great advantage is that you don't have to be gentle. Please, accept
it.
> Today, even with the
> largest and most modern equipment, this would not be possible.
Don't say that. But, the very fact of such structures begging for
the question of possible Hi-Tech intervention - should tell us, how
discouragingly dear, and counter-productive such efforts would be.
We would not venture into Pyramid-construction, because someone like
the UN, or some countries would surely be ruined financially.
> There was a
> man who built a type of castle out of corel in I think Florida around the turn
> of the century in which a rocking chair was built weighing over a ton.
Edward Leedskalnin of the Corral Castle fame.
> Also,
> a revolving door of similar weight that could be pushed with a single finger,
> that it was balanced so perfectly on a rod going through it. He built the
> castle for someone he was in love with. Having been jilited, he died of a
> broken heart and took his secrets to the grave since he would never work
> around anyone else.
He starved to death. When building the castle, he weighed in at
90-pounds!
Clearly, the man had no brawn, just pure brains. He also must have had
brought
with him his arcane knowledge from.. Was it Estonia?.
He never said that he built the castle for his nostalgic love. Rather,
he said that he did it for "His Sweet Sixteen".
His expression can be interpreted differently, if you consider
that "sweet" can also mean the same as in "sweet spot".
Did I hit a 'sweet spot' there? :)
In conjunction with a number (16), we get other numerous possibilities,
or if you like 'remote likelihoods'. One of them is interpreting 16,
as originating from the first two digits of the Phi-ratio.
He did it to immortalize his secret knowledge, to celebrate the power
of the Dodecahedron, or something like that. I don't know.
But, I wonder - Could all this be connected to the brain power alone?
Through perfect concentration the imagination creates devices, which can
then influence the external world. Let's say that you can model the
Pyramid in your mind, will you then exercise the Pyramid Power in some
way? This alchemical experimentation might lead to something..
> Today, as far as genetic engineering goes, if we selectively breed, then it is
> race engineering. We are absolutely involved in genetic engineering today.
> Alterations made in a test tube are not necessary to accomplish this, despite
> this being done also. I agree. It is monsterous.
Unfortunately, you are right.
Jiri
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jiri_mruzek/
Subject: Re: Advanced Machining in Ancient Egypt?
From: gans@scholar.nyu.edu (Paul J. Gans)
Date: 10 Oct 1996 19:49:31 GMT
Steve Collins (eyeguy@digmo.org) wrote:
: I have been following the threads on this group for the past five or
: six months, and one of the things I've noticed is that many people find
: it impossible to credit many ancient achievements to ancient peoples.
:
: I think any discussion of extraterrestrial origins for things such as
: the pyramids of Egypt or the monumental works of the New World are
: patently ridiculous, especially in this group, which is, supposedly, a
: scientific group.
:
: One problem I have with the extraterrestrial origin is this: If ET's
: did indeed visit Earth in ancient times, why didn't they teach our
: ancestors useful skills, or leave useable technology (such as the
: wheel-and-axle or the pulley in the new world). If I, for instance,
: was going to direct a primitive people in the construction of sculpture
: or buildings, I would teach them mathematics and help them develop a
: written language. I would not teach them how to develop the quipu, or
: knotted string, as a method of passing on complex information.
:
: The Egyptian civilization was unbroken for thousands of years, far into
: historic times. They have always been a conservative and
: tradition-bound culture. If they had knowledge and technology far
: beyond that of modern civilizations ( or even then contemporary
: cultures), it is highly unlikely that such knowledge would be lost, and
: less likely that other cultures (e.g., the greeks, who actively sought
: knowledge, or the Romans, who were excellant engineers) would not have
: discovered this knowledge after centuries of trade and cultural
: exchange.
:
: Humans are extremely versatile, intelligent and flexible. Geniuses
: arise among every generation, and every culture, in any time and any
: place on Earth has left some incredible legacy, wrought by human hands
: and conceived of by human minds that even now is incomprehensible to
: us, but is still human in origin.
:
: Perhaps we should spend our energy in discovering how humans could do
: what has been done, instead of wasting time speculating about aliens,
: or mythical kingdoms (Atlantis and Mu).
:
: To refuse to give humans credit for human achievements is to deny the
: power of the human mind and belittle all our creative impulses.
What are you? Some sort of sane and logical guy?
What are you doing among this collection of nut cases?
Good grief. The next thing you'll be telling us is that
humans built the Panama Canal.
:-)
----- Paul J. Gans [gans@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]