Subject: Re: ** Decimation of American Indians By European Disease **
From: agdndmc@mizzou1.missouri.edu (Domingo Martinez-Castilla)
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 96 20:39:49 GMT
During June and July there was a long, and often harsh, thread on
disease and immunity, which included most points of view on the matter,
and not so many references. The closest thing to your nutritional point
referred to a correlation between testosterone levels (yup, not making
this out) and decline of population.
As this topic shows up its head 2 or 3 times per year, I may end up
putting somewhere a list of references. For starters:
Crosby, Alfred W.
The Columbian exchange; biological and cultural consequences of 1492
Greenwood Pub. Co., Westport, Conn., c.1972
c1992
Verano, John W. and Douglas H. Ubelaker (editors)
Disease and demography in the Americas .
Washington : Smithsonian Institution Press
gopher://marauder.millersv.edu/00/otherMU/columbus/data/art/DIAMOND1.ART
Brothwell, Don
"On Biological Exchanges between the Two Worlds"
in
Bray, Warwick (editor)
The Meeting of Two Worlds. Europe and the Americas 1492-1650.
Oxford University Press, New York, 1993
pp. 233-246
Noble David Cook and W. George Lovell
Secret judgments of God : Old World disease in colonial Spanish America
Norman : University of Oklahoma Press, c1992.
1992
Denevan, William M. (editor)
The Native population of the Americas in 1492 (2nd edition)
University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wis.
Newson, Linda A.
"The Demographic Collapse of Native Peoples of the Americas, 1492-1650"
in
Bray, Warwick (editor), op. cit.
Hope this helps.
Domingo.
In article , spryder@sprynet.com
(Stephen P Ryder) wrote:
>I am doing research at the moment on how disease spread throughout North
>America eradicating hundreds of thousands of Indians whose immune systems
>could not combat European sicknesses.
+++
Domingo Martinez-Castilla
agdndmc@mizzou1.missouri.edu
+++
Subject: Re: Advanced Machining in Ancient Egypt
From: Rodney Small
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 19:02:58 -0700
August Matthusen wrote:
>
> Rodney Small wrote:
>
> > 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?
>
> We don't know that they were able to drill at that rate. We know that
> there are marks on a core which suggest the tool moved forwards at that
> rate. A reaming tool after the initial drilling could scribe the
> marks or if during the drilling of the hole the initial bit broke
> and was replaced by a new bit (which was slightly "tighter" against
> the core) the new bit may scribe such marks. As the material you quoted
> indicated that this was the only core that had such marks, it is not
> too out of line to consider that something aberrant happened when
> making it.
>
> Re the modern rates: we have drills capable of rapid revolutions and
> thus don't need to use high pressures. This helps preserve the diamond
> chips (drill bit). The egyptians didn't have rapidly revolving drills;
> it may have been more efficient for them to load the bit with a lot of
> pressure and turn it slowly.
>
> Regards,
> August Matthusen
Okay, now we may be making progress -- this is the first response that
makes a serious attempt to address Petrie's findings. If this core is
indeed the only one ever found with such marks, that would perhaps
indicate something aberrant having happened. However, I wonder if all
Giza cores have been as carefully examined as Petrie examined this one.
Also, I still think there is a major problem explaining the enormous
pressure that would have had to have been used to drill a core out of
granite at the rate of .1 inch per revolution of the drill. Is there any
evidence suggesting how such pressure could have been achieved with a
primitive technique? Again, I appreciate the well thought-out reply.
Subject: Re: Sumerian etymology of the word Lugal
From: petrich@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 23:12:07 GMT
In article <53lc7q$d3r@shore.shore.net>,
Steve Whittet wrote:
>In article , piotrm@umich.edu says...
... but in a few
>>cases, where no syllabic variant has been preserved, apparently
>Hittitologists
>>have not been able to reconstruct the word.
>What we are talking about ...
[a whole lot of squirted ink deleted...]
Let's consider an English analogy. The "Arabic numerals" are a way
of writing numbers ideographically, 1 instead of "one", 2 instead of
"two"; this is also done for mathematical expressions in general (I note
in passing that 0, 1, 2, and 3 have a distant pictographic origin of a dot
(meaning nothing), one line, two lines, and three lines).
So if one only saw the Arabic-numeral representations of numbers
and not the spelled-out ones, one would have a hard time finding out how
they were pronounced, at least if one assumes that English spelling is
perfectly phonetic. I note in passing that it is not, and unphonetic
spelling can be interpreted as ideographic writing.
And these students of Hittite have the same problem with words
only written ideographically or in their Akkadian or Sumerian phonetic
spellings (an English equivalent of the latter would be to write the Latin
or Greek names of the numbers instead of native English ones).
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
petrich@netcom.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html
Subject: Re: Father=Creator=Pater=Ptah=Pitar...Craftah...krft
From: petrich@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 23:29:18 GMT
In article <53ltjv$kmp@shore.shore.net>,
Steve Whittet wrote:
>In article , petrich@netcom.com says...
>>In article <53jm2a$6ho@shore.shore.net>,
>>Steve Whittet wrote:
>>>I always appreciate your careful Research Frank. Thank you for your
>>>efforts. What I am looking for is not what the Coptic Christians said
>>>but whether or not as Budge claims the Egyptian god Ptah had the
>>>title "father of all fathers".
>> You know very well that that is absolutely irrelevant to the
>>question of whether the words for "father" in many Indo-European
>>languages are derived from e name of the Egyptian god Ptah.
>No, I don't think it is irrelevant. First of all a good deal
>of ancient language is concerned with dedications to and
>observations of deities. ...
Again, Mr. Whittet, you obfuscate like a squid.
If people wanted to borrow a word for "father" from Egyptian,
they would most likely borrow the usual word, iti, and NOT the name of
some god, regardless of whether he was called a "father".
Furthermore, how did "Ptah r" get into far-away places like
northern India? And why didn't it get into the much-closer Semitic
languages? And why didn't any of the people who supposedly borrowed "Ptah
r" also worship Ptah? And I mean worship him under the explicit name
"Ptah", and not under the name of some deity later identified with him.
--
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
Subject: Re: 200 ton Blocks
From: Jim Rogers <"jfr"@[RemoveThis/NoJunkMail]fc.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 13:47:32 -0600
Jiri Mruzek wrote:
> Jim Rogers wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Firstly, I don't evoke someone else's God, and say that he can't
> even do something any pharaoh could.
I'm not "evoking" anyone; it's not a question of what he could or could
not do, it's a matter of Pharaoh actually being among them in physical
form, which represents a far more immediate "presence" than the god(s)
of modern religions.
....
> > Rudeness? You disparage the "sensibility" and question the motives of
> > ancient Egyptians, and call me rude?
>
> No, I call you rude, but I defend the Egyptians, and Ancients
> in general, as I think that they had a lot more class than you do.
First, no actual offense was intended; I was simply putting a proposed
"Ancient Egyptian" spin on the question of what's "sensible" to do to
honor one's deities. Your "defense" of them amounted to questioning the
sensibility of extremely ambitious public works projects as tombs,
which implies you think that's an idiotic thing to do. You seem trapped
in modern Western ideology.
> > 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.
>
> I grasped it alright, but it was like smelling mental miasma.
> There are only a few well behaved atheists, when it comes to
> discussing religion in general, and you ain't one of them.
I'd've said about the same thing in my theistic days; my philosophical
choices are irrelevant, and I was not impugning yours (just your
trivializing of ancient Egyptians' motivations).
Jim
Subject: the silence of the naked egyptologists
From: fmurray@pobox,com (frank murray)
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1996 00:58:52 GMT
On 29 Sep 1996 17:46:00 GMT, Greg Reeder wrote:
>fmurray@pobox.com (frank murray) wrote:
>>but there are magic words that can be used against such
>>nuisance...for example: you can ask them if they believe and
>>are willing to openly defend the statement that "the
>>pyramids were built and used as tombs"...silence usually
>>follows...watch...
>
> I really do not understand how you can say that?
but now greg, having embraced that silence as defense against one who
persists in asking for the evidence from which are sewn the theories
of pyramids as tombs, perhaps you have come to understand...
further, perhaps yourself and others who pretend themselves clothed in
firm understanding of what those ancient peoples were up to in
building the pyramids, will realize how bare of fact your position
is...
and still further, perhaps a few of those on sci.arch who so delight
in spewing venom on those exploring non-standard views, will, after
seeing the party line exposed as naked conjecture, gain a bit of
modesty...
if any of the above, my time was not wasted, though i'd have preferred
that the questions been answered and the inquiry continued...
in cheer
frank
Subject: Re: 200 ton Blocks
From: S.NEMETH@IX.NETCOM.COM (Stella Nemeth)
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1996 01:28:06 GMT
Jiri Mruzek wrote:
>Stella Nemeth wrote:
>> Jiri Mruzek wrote:
>Sorry, Stella, but I'm not interested in later mini-pyramids.
Mini-pyramids?? What makes a pyramid a mini-pyramid?
>While the historical background was hardly changing over quite
>some time, all the pyramids should look the same. But - they don't!
>So from what period are the ration lists? Aren't they much younger?
Actually, you might be right. I know we've got evidence of a worker's
village in the Valley of the Kings. That is later. We certainly do
have ration lists for that place. I believe we've got evidence of a
worker's village for the Giza pyramids. I think there are ration
lists for that place as well, but I may be mistaken.
Do you really see the carving of tombs out of solid rock, which was
done in Dynasty 2 as well as in Dynasty 18 all that much easier than
building a pyramid?
>> The material evidence for what? I'm afraid your paragraph above has
>> lost me.
>Al Mamun's tunnel shows us how the Arabs got in.
>Aside from the plugged ascending passage, there is only the well shaft,
>which could have allowed someone to gain access to the King's chamber.
>This tunnel is too small to allow removal of the coffer's lid.
>If there were no lid, it follows that there was no body, because
>there wasn't any sarcophagus there.
You have presented no evidence that there was no lid originally.
>> Just because the lid is missing today doesn't mean there never was
>> one. (If it is missing. I'll admit I don't know if this particular
>> lid is missing or not.) It is easy enough to remove anything from
>> anyplace. Just break it up and take it away. Why would anyone have to
>> remove it in one piece?
>If it's legit to ask that question - then why would anyone want
>to steal a 2-ton lid?
I said the removal of the lid. I said nothing about stealing the lid.
It could have been cleaned up by a neat freak sometime in the last few
centuries. It could have been broken up and taken as momentos of a
visit to the pyramid by dozens of people one piece at a time.
> ...What is the value of a few broken up chunks
>of granite?
People collect the oddest things.
>> >Where is the secret chamber containing flexible glass, non-rusting
>> >weapons, super-accurate maps, secrets of magic (science), etc? So said
>> >rumours collected on the streets of 8th century Cairo by Al Mamoun's
>> >informers.
>
>> I don't know. Where is it?
>
>It is all around us today. Just look at all the flexible clear
>plastic (glass), non-rusting weapons, super-accurate maps, and
>secrets of magic (science). It is all out there today.
>Yet, the ideas were there yesterday. Were they just a strange
>premonition of things to come, a proof of Platonic ideas having
>a precedence on reality?
Where is your evidence that the ideas about high technology were there
in the days of low technology? I am unaware of such ideas. What I am
aware of is a modern interpretation of ancient words. Wait 20 or 30
years and those "modern" interpretations sound pretty funny.
>The legend might have been the result of a conjecture. Someone knew
>these things existed, but weren't around anymore.. Why not presume
>that they were secreted away with the pharaoh in the fathomless
>depth of the Pyramid?
What legend? Why persume that anything was secreted away with
pharaoh? The pyramids were wonder enough in themselves for people to
want to enter them. What got burried with a pharaoh (we got samples
of that with Tutankhamon's tomb) was certainly enough for any treasure
hunter.
>> >Isn't this amazing? It means that there were "pyramidiots" on the
>> >streets of Cairo in 800's A.D.! Can this be the same Christian population,
>> >which had burned down the Alexandrian library, led by fanatics? Did some
>> >actually read the books while burning them?
>
>> You've got a problem with time warp here. Two different populations
>> in two different centuries.
>No, they were different generations of the same population, and
>inheritors of the same folklore.
They may have been the same population, but they certainly were
several centuries apart. And quite different cultures.
Stella Nemeth
s.nemeth@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: Egyptian Origins
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 12 Oct 1996 03:17:16 GMT
In article <53mbgd$d3e@news.ycc.yale.edu>, bdiebold@pantheon.yale.edu"
says...
>
>Stella Nemeth (S.NEMETH@IX.NETCOM.COM) wrote:
>: bdiebold@pantheon.yale.edu (Benjamin H. Diebold) wrote:
>
>: >: Did I claim that there were any such sites in the Near east?
>
>: >Yes, you did. You even requoted yourself saying that in this post:
A poster asked:
"
ello experts,
...ancient archeology ...the intersecting
timelines of the ancient cultures...the origins of the ancient Egyptians.
...cultural beginnings at about 3,000 BC.
In comparison to later cultures ...very little is known about Egyptian
origin. ...the 3,000 BC mark ...Is there any evidence of strong cultures
predating the Egyptians?
...
Thanks,
R. Wey"
So as evidence of strong cultures predating the Egyptians I listed...
>
>: >: "Catyal Hyuk[sic], Turkey goes back to the 7th millenium,
>: >: Jehrico [sic] in Palestine,
>: >: sites with pottery go back to c 10,000 BC
>: >: and sites with plaster floors go back into the Neolithic."
>
>: ....[sigh]...
>
>: We've got a grammer problem here. And a badly written sentence. But,
>: as far as I can see you aren't in disagreement about the facts.
>
>: Steve said:
>
>: 1. Catyal Hyuk, Turkey goes back to the 7th millenium.
>
>: 2. Jehrico in Palestine.
>
>: 3. Sites with pottery go back to c 10,000 BC.
>
>: 4. Sites with plaster floors go back into the Neolitic.
>
>: Although I also originally read the statement about the pottery as
>: referring to Jerico, it is obvious from what Steve said later that
>: they were two different statements in a series of four.
>
>: This is Usenet guys. No one does four drafts of every message before
>: they post it.
>
>Naturally not. But a brief instant of reflection on draft #1 might be
>nice.
>
>Decent try to rehabilitate Steve, Stella, but I don't think it works. In a
>part of the post you ellided, it's clear that his conception is that
>pottery in the Near East dates back to 10,000 BC.
Where does it say pottery in the Near East?
What it says is "Sites with pottery go back to c 10,000 BC."
You have been told this several times, are you being deliberately obtuse?
You made an assumption. The assumption was wrong. Deal with it.
...
>Anyway, by this account, we have, in a thread on "Egyptian origins" a
>sentence which is supposed to be construed as [claim about the Near East],
>[non sequitor situated in Near East], [wildly out of context, very
>indirect, and inaccurate claim about Japan], [claim about the Near East].
Settle down... the poster asked for and recieved a list of
"evidence of strong cultures predating the Egyptians"
>
>If this is so, then Steve has reached a new level of incomprehensibility,
>one that places anything he might say out of reach of examination, even if
>one were willing to make the effort (which grows increasingly unlikely).
>
>Or, he could just admit he made a mistake.
I must admit I am impressed by your zeal ...:)
>
>Ben
>
steve
Subject: Re: Chinese ideograms and Mayan characters
From: yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky)
Date: 12 Oct 1996 04:18:16 GMT
SkupinM (skupinm@aol.com) wrote:
: Yuri--
: Relevant to the Chinese/Mayan question is the work of Knorozov, whose
: books I don't know firsthand (and even if I did, my Russian's pretty
: limited). He's a shadow-figure in Maya studies, I gather, because many of
: his ideas were subsumed (or lifted, if you will) by later,
: English-speaking scholars. If you're familiar with his work, that might
: be an important element in the question, or at least a source of insights.
: fsevo khoroshevo
Sounds interesting, Mike. My Russian is pretty adequate, I'd say, but
getting his stuff might not be easy. Do you know when he was writing?
He's not the same Russian guy who was supposed to have cracked the Mayan
script first around 1950?
fsevo dobrovo,
Yuri.
--
** Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto **
-- a webpage like any other... http://www.io.org/~yuku --
Most of the evils of life arise from man's being
unable to sit still in a room || B. Pascal
Subject: pineapple in Pompeii
From: yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky)
Date: 12 Oct 1996 05:14:16 GMT
Yuri Kuchinsky (yuku@io.org) wrote:
: George Black (gblack@midland.co.nz) wrote:
: : I've gone through most of my reference but I find nothing about
: pineapples in : Pompei.
: Yesterday I actually tried to look it up, but the volume I needed was in
: another library at the U of T. I have to make another trip sometime later.
Here's a follow-up to the pineapple discussion. Elmer Drew Merrill
discusses it in a book about Cooks's voyages published in '54. In this
book he admits that the Pompeii fresco looks very much like pineapple.
There's also another American plant that is apparently portrayed on the
same fresco (sap-apple?).
U of Toronto doesn't have the Italian book where this info was published,
in '50. But the following info arrived by e-mail. I remove the name of
the person from whom it arrived, as they apparently don't want to post in
Usenet.
-------- begin quote ------
>> The reference in the _Man across the sea_ is slightly garbled (quite
>>apart from my imperfect memory). The correct reference is
>> D. Casello, La frutta nelle pitture Pompeiane
>>
>> in
>> Pompeiana : raccolta di studi per il secondo centenario degli scavi
>>di Pompei / [edited by Amedeo Maiuri]. Napoli : Gaetano Macchiaroli
>>Editore, 1950.
>>
>>
>>It discusses the fruit appearing in the paintings. There's only a
>>couple of paragraphs about the supposed pineapple, with one poor
>>quality illustration. Quote from p. 367:
>>"sul larario a destra entrando nella Casa dell'Efebo, si trova
>>dipinta una infruttescenza di Ananasso (fig. 46) di medie dimensioni,
>>di colore rosso, provvista del caratteristico ciuffo di foglie, la
>>quale dimostra che questa specie tropicale e anche orginaria
>>dell'Asia o dall'Africa e che conosciuta dai nostra avi prima della
>>scoperta dell'America."
>>--with no further supporting argument.
--------- end quote --------
I think the Italian text makes a mistake. Pineapple is now known to be a
native American plant.
All the best,
Yuri.
--
** Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto **
-- a webpage like any other... http://www.io.org/~yuku --
Most of the evils of life arise from man's being
unable to sit still in a room || B. Pascal
Subject: Re: Big concrete things - Construction and archaeology
From: brichter@jax.jaxnet.com
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1996 05:03:53 GMT
"margaret gowen" wrote:
>Does anyone have information, whether published or anecdotal, about the
>impact of piling on underlying archaeological deposits?
>Contact has been made with archaeologists in Scandinavia and Britain:
>wherever you are we would be very interested to hear of your experiences
>and if you have any knowlege to impart we in Dublin (Ireland) would be most
>grateful.
I have had only two experiences with this type of situation. The site
was a coastal shell midden on a Navy base in NE Florida. Portions of
an asphalt parking lot were removed in order for a concrete addition
to a drainage system. The parking lot itself consisted of a few
individual layers totalin ca. 1 foot thick. Beneath this was sand,
apparently fill used to level the area for the parking lot. The fill
layer varied from around 2 to 4 feet in thickness. The shell midden
was below this level. The parking lot had been constructed in the mid
to late 1940s. The midden seemed unaffected.
The second site is in a state park and is located on a bluff edge
adjacent to a river. Portions of the sloping bluff near the water's
edge were covered with 1 to 2 meters of fill. This varied from plain
sand to limestone gravel and blocks, to dredged clay (most of the fill
was dredged from the river). This midden seemed somewhat compacted,
but that may have been a combination of tidal inundation, poor
drainage, and the fact that the midden material was deposited directly
on top of coquina bedrock.
The third case is somewhat different, but if you are talking about
piling large quantities of heavy material (heavier than plain soil)
may be more applicable. This was another midden in NE Florida. The
midden was deposited on a sand substrate and subsequently (ca. 1500
years) covered naturally by ca. 20 cm of sand. Today, there is no
surface expression whatsoever. The site, however, is in an area which
has been subjected to logging and earth moving activity for many
years. While the immediate site vicinity has not been logged (its
currently treeless with a thick grass cover) a portion of the midden
is located directly beneath the path used by trucks, bulldozers and
other heavy equipment. This road remains grassed, but is clearly
evident as a depression compared to the surrounding land. The midden
itself was quite compact- more so than any other I have seen. There
did not, however, appear to be any noticable damage to artifacts or
faunal remains, including the snail shells that compose the bulk of
the midden. The one adverse affect that seems to be present is that
the compacting of the deposit may well have affected the vertical
thickness of the midden. This site is also scheduled to be covered by
as much as a couple of meters of fill and a large, paved parking lot
for a construction company built on top of it.
Subject: Re: Big concrete things - Construction and archaeology
From: brichter@jax.jaxnet.com
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1996 05:33:14 GMT
"margaret gowen" wrote:
>Does anyone have information, whether published or anecdotal, about the
>impact of piling on underlying archaeological deposits?
>Contact has been made with archaeologists in Scandinavia and Britain:
>wherever you are we would be very interested to hear of your experiences
>and if you have any knowlege to impart we in Dublin (Ireland) would be most
>grateful.
I have had only two experiences with this type of situation. The site
was a coastal shell midden on a Navy base in NE Florida. Portions of
an asphalt parking lot were removed in order for a concrete addition
to a drainage system. The parking lot itself consisted of a few
individual layers totalin ca. 1 foot thick. Beneath this was sand,
apparently fill used to level the area for the parking lot. The fill
layer varied from around 2 to 4 feet in thickness. The shell midden
was below this level. The parking lot had been constructed in the mid
to late 1940s. The midden seemed unaffected.
The second site is in a state park and is located on a bluff edge
adjacent to a river. Portions of the sloping bluff near the water's
edge were covered with 1 to 2 meters of fill. This varied from plain
sand to limestone gravel and blocks, to dredged clay (most of the fill
was dredged from the river). This midden seemed somewhat compacted,
but that may have been a combination of tidal inundation, poor
drainage, and the fact that the midden material was deposited directly
on top of coquina bedrock.
The third case is somewhat different, but if you are talking about
piling large quantities of heavy material (heavier than plain soil)
may be more applicable. This was another midden in NE Florida. The
midden was deposited on a sand substrate and subsequently (ca. 1500
years) covered naturally by ca. 20 cm of sand. Today, there is no
surface expression whatsoever. The site, however, is in an area which
has been subjected to logging and earth moving activity for many
years. While the immediate site vicinity has not been logged (its
currently treeless with a thick grass cover) a portion of the midden
is located directly beneath the path used by trucks, bulldozers and
other heavy equipment. This road remains grassed, but is clearly
evident as a depression compared to the surrounding land. The midden
itself was quite compact- more so than any other I have seen. There
did not, however, appear to be any noticable damage to artifacts or
faunal remains, including the snail shells that compose the bulk of
the midden. The one adverse affect that seems to be present is that
the compacting of the deposit may well have affected the vertical
thickness of the midden. This site is also scheduled to be covered by
as much as a couple of meters of fill and a large, paved parking lot
for a construction company built on top of it.
Subject: Re: ABC & racist pseudoscience
From: "Aurelius M."
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1996 01:58:43 -0700
taranr wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> taranr wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Jiri Mruzek wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> [snip]
>
> =============Bob Tarantino, 10/11/96============
>
> Is that his name? I haven't heard that in quite some time. I remember that
> people who lived near by said that whenever they would try to sneek by to see
> him working, he would always know they were there and stop. I also saw
> pictures of various gears, pullies and cable that were scattered about his
> place. I never had mechanical engineering courses, but it would seem amazing
> to me someone with what I would suppose a limited knowledge on this subject
> could accomplish with simple machines what would barely be possible with a
> multi-thousand dollar crane!
>
> I understand that Egyptologists believe that the sphinx was cut from an
> existing rock formation but It would seem possible that our Edward used the
> same methods as the Egyptians. But, can you imagin that for blocks to fit so
> perfectly, as can be seen in Egypt as well as Mexico, that blocks could have
> been rubbed together to create such a fit? The blocks would have to be
> manipulated like paperweights. What type of ginding method could have been
> employed by such a people as the Maya who from what I gather may have not yet
> invented the wheel and might possibly moved things as the Hawaiians did... on
> sleds!
>
> -bob.....................................................................
Aren't we stretching the word racist a bit here???
Subject: Re: Origins of Europeans..
From: "Aurelius M."
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1996 02:06:16 -0700
Claudio De Diana wrote:
>
> hvlcrt@axess.com (H.V) wrote:
> >In article <53b08e$pjf@sparcserver.lrz-muenchen.de>,
> >sniper@tep.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de says...
> > so for example we know for sure that the Celti were
> >> red-haired, pale white skin and very tall (this at least confirmed
> >>
> >Aren't those traits more characteristic of the germanic tribes of that
> >time ? For example. i read somewhere that the typical red hair of the
> >Irish isnt't a celtic trait, but rather a scandinavian one, from the
> >Viking invasions.
> Well, I am not an expert of the history of that area
> however if you allow me some time to dig out
> the original quote I'll show the phrase of a latin
> author speaking of "red-haired and pale Celts".
> What I want to point out that he was referring
> to the tribe of Celts --> the Roman were fighting at that
> time(*) <-- however it seems quite sure that these characteristic
> were quite spread.
> >
> >Another point is this :
> >France was known as Gaul, a celtic country. So, i assume that from the
> >earliest times, even with the various invasions that have happened,
> >most Frenchmen are of "celtic stock". Now, most of them do not have
> >red/blond hair with blue eyes. Why ?
> Actually because there are no more Celts.
> France was a Celtic country before the arrival of the Romans
> and we have to say that they made no attempt in "incorporating"
> the pre-existing Celtic population (I want to say that sometimes
> the Romans tried more to get an "ally" putting a "local king"
> in a position of control - a kind of protectorate. In the
> case of Gaul they preferred more to fight to gain direct control).
> Secondly, after the collapse of the WRE the German Tribes
> arrived and the tribe that took control of Gaul was known
> as "Franchi". Then in "Francia" developed a different CULTURE
> than in "Germania" or "Italia" but the genetic background
> was basically similar although with different percentage.
>
> This is an attempt of a brief and fair explanation,
> clearly if you consider nationalism then you will see,
> let's say, "different" views. In order to build up
> a nation first you have to find "your ancestors", possibly
> different from the ones of the neighbouring countries
> (Spain - Hiberi // Germany - Germans // Italy - Latins etc..)
> but if you look at history then you see that there were
> so many wars and migrations that it is IMPOSSIBLE(**) in Europe
> to pick up a "genetically pure" population (the only people who do
> this are, now and in the past, extreme right wing people),
> so I do understand why you put the disclaimer :=)
> >
> >disclaimer : i ask these question simply out of curiosity. I have NO
> >political or racialist goals at all. Also, i'm not a specialist of
> >anthropology orpopulation genetics, so please forgive any huge mistakes
> >i might have made in this post.
> >
> I hope that my post help but take care that I was referring
> to a particular tribe in a particular moment.
> Best Regards,
> Claudio De Diana
> >H.V
> >
> (*) Actually these tribes were located in the NW of Italy
> and along the Po river.
> (**) And you cannot imagine how happy I am when I think
> this, the differences are in the culture (and NOT in the genetic)
> unfortunately some of these cultures were not compatible but
> it is amazing to see the way in which the leader of aggresive countries
> used "genetical" arguments, eventually bullshitting about
> population that probably did not exist (or were not
> in the area they pretended, z.b. "Arians"), sometimes I
> wonder if a better knowledge of history could prevent the
> rise of Fascism .. but this I think is a little off-topic......................................................................
I doubt if there is a Pure anything left in Europe. The Romans
were in France/Gaul for atleast 800 years. No doubt there were
a great deal of "Roman Genes" left all over Europe, as well
as the entire known world at that time.
Subject: Re: The Grotte Chauvet
From: Jiri Mruzek
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1996 01:49:38 -0700
Philip Benz wrote:
> RE Paleolithic Climate at 32,000 BP:
> I'm writing about the Grotte Chauvet and need a few pointers concerning
> climate. All the material I've got on hand about climate goes no further
> back than the Solutreen (@20K BP), the period the Grotte Chauvet was
> originally assumed to fit into, so until I can get round to more
> research I thought I'd ask here. I assume 32K BP is also deep in the ice
> age, but anything more specific about the climate and vegetation in the
> Rhone river valley at that time would help.
I would check if the particular part of the valley is oriented south.
If so, it could have mild conditions, and distinct flora, in the midst
of much harsher environment.
The last Ice-Age had began around 80,000 BP after many millenia of
inter-
glacial warm period, during which dense, impassable forests covered
Europe .
With the cold, forests shrank into isolated sanctuaries in valleys, and
around rivers. Europe played host again to big roaming game like
mammoth,
horse, and bison. This cold spell lasted until about 40,000 BP, when
temperatures began to fluctuate into brief warmer periods.
By 36,000 BP, the Aurignacian culture, also known as Kostyonki-Avdeyevo
culture, had spread over Europe and Near East.
It was characterized by development of a whole set of bigger and better
tools. Microlithic tools were no longer dominant. Flint blocks were now
first expertly pounded into optimal shape for splitting into long, thin,
and narrow blades. These were adaptable into long scrapers, chisels,
drills, spear points, and arrow heads.
Division of labor is evident from flint workshops, where we find only
semi-finished products, meaning that these were delivered to the main
settlement for finishing.
Aurignacians produced necklaces, figurines, and engraved and painted
simple silhouettes onto flat stones.
> As long as I'm at it, here are a few other questions:
> 1) Nearly all of my sources are in French, so I'm a little uncertain
> what terms to use when refering to certain artifacts like stone tools.
> Could someone post a brief list of the predominant tool forms associated
> with Mousterian, Chatelperronien and Aurignacien culture? I'm also
> unsure just where the Levallois technique falls -- late Mousterian?
Chatelperronians had produced the first decorative objects, and had
engraved abstract motives on pebbles and bone.
The Aurignacians are best epitomized, as Mammoth Hunters. Mammoth was
a source of large bones and tusks for building the typical domed
dwellings
of the period. Its ivory was worked into beads, pendants, buttons, etc.
Its shoulder blades when pounded emit a drum-sound, and indeed, some
such bones show repeated pounding. Was this beat accompanied by other
musical instruments, which didn't survive due to their perishable
nature?
Did the hypnotic beat elicit guttural growling from the throats of the
gathered hunters, and spontaneous locomotion? Were these folks rock'n
rolling in their domed huts? Voila - a formally true disco :) I suppose,
it would have been perfectly natural.
Mammoth bones and tusks were also adaptable into shovels and spades, or
picks,
war-clubs, etc. Their hides covered the frames of dwellings.
> 2) The C14 dates for Chauvet are in the 30-32K BP range. Whether that
> places the site within the Aurignacien, Chatelperronien or even
> Mousterian cultural settings is open to question -- the paintings could
> concievably even be the work of Neanderthal!
But, then the Neanderthal would have made a leap of consciousness, which
would re-establish his competitiveness with the Cromagnon type just in
the nick of time. He wouldn't have been replaced. Besides, Cromagnon
must have been omnipresent by then. After all, modern human type has
been
predominant in Eastern Europe and Near East since ca. 60,000 BP.
Neanderthal didn't fall into extinction, because these new humans were
his offspring. IMO, the two kinds kept on mixing. There was no genocide.
Instead, carriers of a greater number of the new genes were perhaps
better
at simple survival facing the common perils. In this way the new genes
became ever more concentrated. Changes were slower in the western
regions, however, its tool technology had kept pace with eastern Europe.
> Either that, or Neanderthal
> and Cro-magnon cohabited the region, as in Qafzeh. Combier has proposed
> dates of 31K and 27K BP for two Mousterian sites in Ardeche.
> So the question is, could Neanderthal have been an artist too?
There are instances of Neanderthal burials with high concentrations
of flower pollen on the bodies. Stone tools over a hundred millenia
old show aesthetic feeling.
A quartzite slab sticking out of the south side of Sandy Hill near
Becov,
in western Bohemia, was adapted into a hut 6.60 X 4.25 meter in area,
200,000 years ago. The floor was dug out shallowly, and low stone walls
were built on the western and eastern sides. The rest of the structure
was probably completed by skins stretched between wooden poles. In the
middle of the floor was a shallow fire-pit.
Scattered on the floor were numerous small chunks of red, yellow, and
orange porcelanite. This type of clay is tough to pulverize, so it has
to be baked, or burned first, which is exactly what had been done here.
Where was this color porcelanite applied? Nothing survives to tell us.
Was it on organic materials, or was it for body-painting?
Were the decorations art? I would think so. Invoking esthetic
principles in a given medium is always art..
OTOH, indications of cannibalism are widespread in older Neanderthal
sites.
> Could
> Chauvet be the work of Neanderthal art at its summit, and the torch
> scrapings from some 5000 years later evidence of visits by Cro-magnon
> learning his technique?
You can't really learn a technique by staring at a complete work.
But you can imitate the style. The Chauvet art strikes us by its
maturity, by technical accomplishment. There must have been a
substantial earlier period of learning. No-one is born an academic
artist. (Hopefully, this post isn't a complete waste..)
Jiri Mruzek
Subject: Re: Linguistic time depth
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 12 Oct 1996 12:17:20 GMT
In article <325ECB94.560F@utoronto.ca>, t.sagrillo@utoronto.ca says...
>
>Steve Whittet wrote:
>>
>> In article , petrich@netcom.com says...
>[snip]
>> >That's bullshit! Compare Greek and Hittite some time -- they are
>> >just too damn different to diverge so fast.
>>
>> Compared to what? Both apparently have enough similarities to fall
>> in the same general category. They are Indo European as Arabic and
>> Hebrew are both Semitic. In the case of Arabic and Hebrew, how long
>> did that transition take?
>
>*BUT* Hebrew and Arabic are *both* in the Arabo-Canaanite family of West
>Semitic phylum, which is itself part of the larger Afroasiatic
>superfamily
This division of languages goes back to August Schleicher
(1821 - 1868) and his tree model.
-- in other words they are very closely related.
The more recent thinking on this as presented by Mallory,
begins with Joseph Smiths 1843-1901 wave model, which was
updated by Raimo Antila in 1972 to cluster languages by
the degree of shared isoglosses with other IE languages
and by Frencesco Adrados in 1982, to add phasing and by
Tomas Gamkrelidze and Vyacheslav Ivanov in 1985 to show
the chronological development.
> Greek and Hittite are, on the other hand, in seperate phyla
>all together,
What these models show is that somewhere between PIE and such
identifiable groups as Anatolian, Tocharian, Italo Celtic,
Balto/Slavo/Germanic and Arya/Graeco/Armenian, there is a
period with Armenian, Tocharo/Italic/Celtic, and a "B" group.
Before that there is a period with Armenian and an "A/B" group.
>all be it within Indoeuropean (though some have argued that
>Hittite and Indoeuropean are sisters within an Indo-Hittite family)
Before that there is an "A/B" group and before that there is PIE
-- in other words, not as closely related to one another
>as Arabic and Hebrew are toeach other.
There is a period such as with Sumerian and Akkadian when languages
ancestral to IE are virtually indistinguishable from languages
ancestral to Semitic (This predates any similarity to Berber)
> A better view would be to look at how closely Greek and
>Hittite are related to each other (with in IE) as
>Akkadian and Tawaraq (a Berber lang.) (within AA).
Where is the archaeological connection between Akkadian and Berber
in the period c 1600 BC -1200 BC?
A number of isoglosses, generally interperted as innovations
or perhaps borrowed words, link Greek/Iranian/Indic/Armenian
while Hittite and Tocharian tend to be on the conservative
side of most dialect developments.
Chronologically Hittite preceedes Tocharian, both precede Greek,
Archaeologically, the problem is that Mycenean Greeks are
contemporary with the Hittites. That tends to suggest a rather
rapid and sudden linguistic factionalization between c 1600 BC
and c 1200 BC
I think the Mycenean Greek, as preserved by the Phaistoes Disk,
may have been very close to Hurrian at a point when Hurrian was
closely linked culturally to Hatti. Calling this Luwian/Hittite
is a part of the confusion.
There is a real linguistic melting pot in Syrio/Anatolia
and the eastern Mediterranian from the Aegean to Palestine
and including Crete, Cyprus and Egypt between c 1600 and 1200 BC
That linguistic melting pot blurs a lot of this discussion.
How can you call a people "Greek" or "Hittite" or "Akkadian"
or "Hurrian" when
1.)The extent of their organization is by family, clan and
brotherhood.
2.)The families move around a lot independent of the clans.
3.)Most of the language speakers at the time are bi or multi lingual
as is common in border areas where there is a lot of shifting around
and juxtoposition of populations.
4.)Sea trade and the use of rivers provide links outside land based
adjacencies.
>Just my opinion.
>
>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: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 12 Oct 1996 12:43:59 GMT
In article , petrich@netcom.com says...
>
>In article <53k4m9$1p4@shore.shore.net>,
>Steve Whittet wrote:
>>In article , piotrm@umich.edu says...
>>>In article <53iubi$k6p@shore.shore.net> whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
>>writes:
>
>>Plato is the source of the phrase "An empire larger than Libya
>>and Asia combined"
>
> Quoting his story of Atlantis out of context.
The phrase is from his dialoge "Critias" which is a story of states
and statesmen
>
>Herodotus is the source of the historical
>>fact that the Phoenicians circumnavigated Libya for Neco I.
>
> So what? That does NOT make them the great culture bringers and
>language bringers of the world.
Don't be so sure. The references to ships of Tarshish and Phoenicians
generally show a virtual monopoly of sea trade.
Organized into families and spread thoughout the islands of the
Mediterranian with Sicily connecting Carthage to Rome, they
controlled the docks, construction and the garment industry.
They dealt in prostitution, supplied the arms trade of states
engaged in virtually constant warfare had a firm lock on finance
and the wealth which backed the power plays of land based governments,
supplied drugs, and exotic luxuries and were not above a little outright
piracy on the side.
They were quite literaly the offshore multinationals of their day.
>
>>>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.
>
> Controlled the entire landmass of Africa??? That's NEWS.
No, not the land, the oceans which surrounded the land. Get it?
Whatever people did on the land sooner or later they got around
to moving things by water. That is when the Phoenicians came in
to get their cut. It is really just an extention of landbased
predation schemes. You let the herd animals graze all they want,
then when they get fat you direct them into a narrow cull de sac
and slaughter them. Rivers and straits were just made for this.
>
>>>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.
>
> A squirt of the ink of irrelevance that would make a squid proud.
You can't find an argument which refutes anything I have said,
Deal with it,...why take it personally?
>
>--
>Loren Petrich
steve
Subject: Re: Great Pyramid Dimensions.
From: Rodney Small
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1996 10:02:45 -0700
Andy wrote:
>
> Does anyone, anywhere have a good set of dimensions for the
> Great Pyramid? I have had a robot running round the web for a week now
> to no avail.
>
> I have read 5 books to date, and some of them seem to round of data to
> the nearest half-foot.
>
> I hate to mention names, but the "The Egyptian Pyramids, A
> comprehensive Illustrated Ref." by J.P.Lepre states different figures
> to that of "Secrets of the Great Pyramid" by Peter Tompkins!!
>
> Which do I believe? Where can I find a complete set of figures that
> will let me create a 3d model?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Andy J Partridge.
> --
>
> | Personal: andy@andyland.demon.co.uk
> | Business: ajpartridge@geevax.com
> | PGP key: faq@andyland.demon.co.uk
> | Mobile: +44-976-205235
> |WWW Page: http://www.andyland.demon.co.uk
Livio Stechinni wrote an appendix to "Secrets of the Great Pyramid"
entitled "Notes on the Relation of Ancient Measures to the Great
Pyramid". In this appendix, Stechinni shows British surveyor J. H.
Cole's 1925 measurement of the four sides of the Pyramid as follows:
North, 230,253 mm; East, 230,391 mm; South, 230,454 mm; and West, 230,357
mm. These same measurements are shown in British inches (BI) by Somers
Clarke and R. Engelbach in "Ancient Egyptian Construction and
Architecture" (Dover, New York, 1990 reprint), p. 66. Specifically,
Clarke and Engelbach show Cole's measurements as 9065.1 BI North, 9070.5
BI East, 9073.0 BI South, and 9069.2 BI West.
Stechinni also says that Cole stated that there was a minor range of
uncertainty in locating each original corner position of the Pyramid, as
follows: North and East, +- 6 mm at each corner; South, +- 10 mm at the
southwest corner and +- 30 mm at the southeast corner; and West, +- 30 mm
at each corner.
Regarding the Great Pyramid's original height, see Vito Maragioglio and
Celeste Rinaldi, "L'Architettura Delle Piramide Menfite" (Tipographia
Canessa, Rapallo, 1965), Part IV, p. 12. According to Maragioglio and
Rinaldi, in a late 19th century survey, Flinders Petrie determined the
slope of the northern face of the Pyramid to be 51 degrees, 50 minutes,
and 40 seconds +- 1' 5". Maragioglio and Rinaldi state that Cole
concluded that 51 degrees, 50 minutes, and 40 seconds was the mean slope
of the other three faces as well. If this is correct, the original height
of the Pyramid can be calculated by taking the tangent of this slope,
which equals 1.2728, and multiplying it by the distance from the middle
of the average side to the center of the base. Because Cole measured the
average side as 230,363.75 mm, that distance would be 115,181.875 mm, and
multiplying that distance by 1.2728 yields 146,603 mm (480.98 feet).
However, because of the uncertainty of the slope, the original height of
the Pyramid could have been as little as about 146.51 meters (480.68
feet) or as great as about 146.70 meters (481.30 feet).
P.S. The perimeter of the Great Pyramid as measured by Cole is 921,455
mm. That distance is virtually the same as the distance in half a minute
of equatorial latitude, which equals 921,455.7 mm. Coincidence?
Subject: Re: Father=Creator=Pater=Ptah=Pitar...Craftah...krft
From: Berlant@cyberix.com
Date: 12 Oct 1996 14:29:48 GMT
In article ,
fjyurco@midway.uchicago.edu (Frank Joseph Yurco) wrote:
>Dear Steve,
>
>If father, in the sense of creator is meant, you are even further off
>base. For, when the Copts, who continued using the ancient Egyptian
>language, albeit in Greek script say the prayer, Our Father, they use
>the word eiot for "father". This derives from pharaonic itf, and not
>from Pth. If you don't take my word, e-mail any Coptic Egyptians, and
>they will set you straight.
>
>Sincerely,
>Frank J. Yurco
>University of Chicago
>
Sorry. But, I don't see how the adoption of a Pharaonic word for
"father" by what was originally a very small minority of Egyptians long after
"pater" was being used by the Greeks precludes the possibility that "pater"
originally came into Greece as Ptah millennia earlier along with elements of
ancient Egyptian religion, as Bernal and others have argued.
Morever, if i'm not mistaken "itf neter" was still another Egyptian "Divine
Father". It is well_known that Christianity evolved by incoporating into
itself the features, rituals, and names of previously pagan religions and
deities. Hence, the adoption of "itf" by the Copts could easily have been a
result of the conversion to Christianity of those Egyptians who worshipped as
supreme this particular Egyptian father God. But, this process would, again,
have had nothing whatsoever to do with the movement of "Ptah" into Greece long
before Christianity's Heavenly Father came back into Egypt clothed as the
Greek "theos pater".
Another point i wish to make is that those who insist that ancient Egyptian
and/or Greek words be analyzed so extremely "literally" -- i.e., in accord
with the words' now primary meanings and exact letters -- are seriously
neglecting the fact that such words were coined and used by magically minded,
mythopoetic wordsmiths long, long, before anything even resembling logic and
literal mindedness emerged to significantly alter and narrow the meanings of
words.
As prior to that time people were clearly figuratively, metaphorically, and
phonologically minded, ancient lexicons cannot, imo, be understood by anyone
who insists that: 1) such lexicons reflect logical/litteral principles;
and/or, 2) that ancient scribes, when they transposed words from one language
to another millennia later, adhered to strict recording rules. The linguisitic
record is quite clear that neither is true.
Finally, for what it may be worth, i believe that Mr. Whittet's tendency to
think figuratively, metaphorically, and phonologically about words and to view
them in light of the relevant mythology and history has allowed him to
understand far better than his detractors the "spirit" in which the words were
originally coined and used. In fact, these detractors hardly ever consider
mythology and history when they use strictly "literal" associations to deny as
even possible almost everything that Mr. Whittet put forth.
And, though these detractors are now in the majority, it is
hubristic for them to think that posterity will view them as having embodied
anything more than one school of thought during one particular period in the
history of a complex and rapidly changing subject.
Regards,
Steve Berlant
Subject: Re: the silence of the naked egyptologists
From: Greg Reeder
Date: 12 Oct 1996 16:37:57 GMT
fmurray@pobox,com (frank murray) wrote:
>On 29 Sep 1996 17:46:00 GMT, Greg Reeder wrote:
>
>>fmurray@pobox.com (frank murray) wrote:
>
>>>but there are magic words that can be used against such
>>>nuisance...for example: you can ask them if they believe and
>>>are willing to openly defend the statement that "the
>>>pyramids were built and used as tombs"...silence usually
>>>follows...watch...
>
>>
>> I really do not understand how you can say that?
>
>but now greg, having embraced that silence as defense against one who
>persists in asking for the evidence from which are sewn the theories
>of pyramids as tombs, perhaps you have come to understand...
>
>further, perhaps yourself and others who pretend themselves clothed in
>firm understanding of what those ancient peoples were up to in
>building the pyramids, will realize how bare of fact your position
>is...
>
>and still further, perhaps a few of those on sci.arch who so delight
>in spewing venom on those exploring non-standard views, will, after
>seeing the party line exposed as naked conjecture, gain a bit of
>modesty...
>
>if any of the above, my time was not wasted, though i'd have preferred
>that the questions been answered and the inquiry continued...
>
>in cheer
>
>frank
Frank,
Why do you persist in this? Your questions and statements were NOT met
with silence. It is YOU who are silent as to what you think the pyramids
were used for! You have "alternative" theories? Well lets hear them. Get
on with it.
__
_____
Greg Reeder
On the WWW
at Reeder's Egypt Page
---------------->http://www.sirius.com/~reeder/egypt.html
reeder@sirius.com
Subject: Re: Linguistic time depth
From: mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal)
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1996 16:53:55 GMT
whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>This division of languages goes back to August Schleicher
>(1821 - 1868) and his tree model.
>The more recent thinking on this as presented by Mallory,
>begins with Joseph Smiths 1843-1901 wave model, which was
>updated by Raimo Antila in 1972 to cluster languages by
>the degree of shared isoglosses with other IE languages
>and by Frencesco Adrados in 1982, to add phasing and by
Mallory says Francesco. It is in fact Francisco Adrados.
>Tomas Gamkrelidze and Vyacheslav Ivanov in 1985 to show
>the chronological development.
>What these models show is that somewhere between PIE and such
>identifiable groups as Anatolian, Tocharian, Italo Celtic,
>Balto/Slavo/Germanic and Arya/Graeco/Armenian, there is a
>period with Armenian, Tocharo/Italic/Celtic, and a "B" group.
Anatolian
>Before that there is a period with Armenian and an "A/B" group.
Anatolian
>Before that there is an "A/B" group and before that there is PIE
Is the English translation of Gamqrelidze and Ivanov out yet or is
this just from the "wave-tree" diagram as reproduced in Mallory?
For a better understanding, the diagram in full (not easy in ASCII):
Phase 1:
=======
Proto-Indo-European
Phase 2:
=======
Dialects A and B differentiate, but are still in contact [isogloss
waves can still cross the line]
Phase 3:
=======
Anatolian splits off [from A], the rest of A and B are still in
contact (this to explain features shared by A and B, but not by
Anatolian).
Phase 4:
=======
Dialects A [which can now be called "Tocharo-Italo-Celtic"] and B
split.
Phase 5:
=======
Dialect B splits into "Aryo-Graeco-Armenian" and
"Balto-Slavo-Germanic". Dialect A splits into "Italo-Celtic" and
Tocharian. There is also Anatolian (that split off in phase 3), of
course.
Phase 6:
=======
Greek splits off from "Armeno-Aryan", Germanic from Balto-Slavic,
Italic from Celtic...
Phase 7:
=======
Armenian splits off from Indo-Iranian.
We are left with:
[Dialect A]
Anatolian
=========
Tocharian
Celtic
Italic
[Dialect B]
Germanic
Balto-Slavic
Indo-Iranian
Armenian
Greek
Now this is just Gamqrelidze and Ivanov's opinion. Personally, I have
my doubts about the position of Tocharian in their diagram (I think it
split off from "Dialect B" at a very early stage), and I'm not at all
sure Germano-Balto-Slavic is closer to Indo-Greek than it is to
Italo-Celtic. I also think the current consensus would put Armenian
closer to Greek than to Indo-Iranian.
It's interesting to compare with Ringe's recent computer generated
model that was discussed on sci.lang some time ago:
PIE - > ANATOLIAN
|
x---- > CELTIC
|
x---- > ITALIC
|
x---- > TOCHARIAN
|
x---- > ARMENO-GREEK
|
x---- > GERMANO-BALTO-SLAVIC ---- > BALTO-SLAVIC
| |
| x--- > GERMANIC infl. by Ital., Celt.
INDO-IRANIAN
Yet another view...
If I may add my own:
PIE ---> Anataolian
|
| x --> Tocharian
| |
x--x---> Eastern (Greek-Armenian/Indo-Iranian)
|
x------> Central (Germanic, Balto-Slavic, Albanian)
|
x------> Western (Italo-Celtic)
In conclusion, there is little consensus over the exact sub-grouping
of Indo-European. The same, if not more so, can be said for
Afro-Asiatic.
>There is a period such as with Sumerian and Akkadian when languages
>ancestral to IE are virtually indistinguishable from languages
>ancestral to Semitic (This predates any similarity to Berber)
I suggest no such period ever existed.
>Where is the archaeological connection between Akkadian and Berber
>in the period c 1600 BC -1200 BC?
The connection between Akkadian and Berber is much much older than
that.
>Chronologically Hittite preceedes Tocharian, both precede Greek,
No, you're reading something into the diagrams that is not there.
Hittite split off from the main body of IE at an early date, Tocharian
did so later, Greek later still. That is not the same as "Hittite
preceeds Greek chronologically". Both are descended from PIE, where
and whenever that was spoken. Both have innovated, and both have
retained archaic features. It's just that Greek shares some
innovations with other IE languages (e.g. feminine gender) that
Hittite does not share.
>Archaeologically, the problem is that Mycenean Greeks are
>contemporary with the Hittites. That tends to suggest a rather
>rapid and sudden linguistic factionalization between c 1600 BC
>and c 1200 BC
No, that tends to suggest a considerable time-depth between
Proto-Indo-European and the the second millennium linguistic
situation.
>I think the Mycenean Greek, as preserved by the Phaistoes Disk,
>may have been very close to Hurrian at a point when Hurrian was
>closely linked culturally to Hatti. Calling this Luwian/Hittite
>is a part of the confusion.
It sure confuses me! That's why I prefer to call Mycenaean Greek
Mycenaean Greek, Hurrian Hurrian, Hattic Hattic, and Luwian/Hittite
Anatolian. The Phaistos Disk I'll leave to those more adventurous
spirits who think they stand a chance of deciphering a script of which
only a single instance is known....
>There is a real linguistic melting pot in Syrio/Anatolia
>and the eastern Mediterranian from the Aegean to Palestine
>and including Crete, Cyprus and Egypt between c 1600 and 1200 BC
>That linguistic melting pot blurs a lot of this discussion.
>How can you call a people "Greek" or "Hittite" or "Akkadian"
>or "Hurrian" when
>1.)The extent of their organization is by family, clan and
>brotherhood.
>2.)The families move around a lot independent of the clans.
>3.)Most of the language speakers at the time are bi or multi lingual
>as is common in border areas where there is a lot of shifting around
>and juxtoposition of populations.
>4.)Sea trade and the use of rivers provide links outside land based
>adjacencies.
All these factors sure make a gigantic melting pot. The funny thing
is that the expected result (a vast dialect continuum all over the
place, an Eastern Mediterranean Esperanto) is in fact quite the
opposite from what we see in practice: a plethora of distinct and
mutually unintelligible languages.
Sumerian,
Akkadian, Eblaite, Phoenician-Canaanite,
Egyptian,
Greek, Indo-Iranian, Anatolian,
Elamite,
Hurrian-Urartian,
Hattic,
Plus some others we cannot properly classify yet (Minoan, Cypriot,
Pelasgian, Kassite, Guti). The ancestors of the Georgians
(Kartvelians) must have been hiding out there somewhere as well, not
to mention the other Caucasian peoples (if they are not related to the
Hatti and the Hurrians).
That makes at least 6 independent language families (Afro-Asiatic,
Indo-European, Elamo-Dravidian, Caucasian, Sumerian and Kartvelian) in
the Eastern Mediterranean alone. (The whole of Sub-Saharan Africa is
considered to have 3). Melting pot? Yes, there was a lot of
borrowing of words and concepts going on, a very interesting thing to
trace in the different languages. Multilinguality? Yes, with so many
languages, there had to be, and there was. Linguistic blur? No. We
have the texts to prove it. The documents in the multilingual
Hattusas archives clearly state which language they are written in:
nesili, hattili, hurlili, palaumnili, luwili... If there really had
been such an enormous blur, it would all have been "esperantoli".
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal ~ ~
Amsterdam _____________ ~ ~
mcv@pi.net |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig