Subject: Re: Egyptian Origins
From: rejohnsn@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1996 14:59:44 -0500
Just a few pedant points illustrating a need for some critical thought
here...being an amateur doesn't mean you can be atheoretical....
On 8 Oct 1996, Steve Whittet wrote:
> In article <325A0EB2.1FE6@primenet.com>, diinc@primenet.com says...
> >
> > (snip)
> >the origins of the ancient Egyptians. From what little I know, records
> >place there [sic]
> >cultural beginnings at about 3,000 BC.
>
> (snip)
>
> The presence of people
> goes back at least another 2000 years beyond that in the
> Paleolithic.
>
> >Is the 3,000 BC mark pretty well
> >established or is it debated? Is there any evidence of strong cultures
> >predating the
> >Egyptians?
>
> (snip)
>
> I would use a date of c 4,500 BC for the first real emergence
> of what we might call "cultures"...
Two issues: what is culture (and what is a strong culture)? And why did
people prior to 4,500 BC not have it?
This is the problem with the uncritical 'folk' use of technical terms.
"Culture", in the sense in which it is used in these posts, is a
technical term, invented by anthropologists in the late 19th century.
There is no formulaic definition, but most anthros would agree that it
encompasses all aspects of human life that do not follow from our
biological heritage.
Under this definition, people prior to 4,500 BC did in fact have
culture. Under this definition, it is culture which makes us people.
You have people, you have culture.
What seems to be going on in these two posts is the confusion of
"culture" and "civilization". This raises another problem: what is
civilization? I don't know that there is anything that might smell like
a consensus on this, certainly not among anthropologists. In a later
post, Whittet apparently suggests that civilization emerges with social
stratification. If so, why not just call it that? But many people seem
to think state formation and/or urbanism necessary to civilization. (Not
that there is any agreement on what constitues states or urbanism).
I am basically ignorant about Egyption pre/history. That is not my
point. My point is that there are terms being tossed about which have
great significance for the course and resolution of the issues, which are
not being defined. Basically, there are no universal definitions for
these terms (except maybe a loose one for culture), so you can't just
assume everyone knows what you mean. Define your terms, people.
My other point is that you cannot conflate culture and civilization.
PARTICULARLY when all you have is archaeological remains. Much of
culture is not material, and therefore won't preserve. Much of cultural
material often will not preserve, either. You cannot put a date on the
emergence of culture in a region, unless you can put a date on the
appearance of people in the region, and the dates cannot be different.
Culture emerged with human evolution; it is not an invention.
Finally -- what do you mean by the "first real emergence of what we
might call 'cultures'", Steve? Are you suggesting there were several fake
emergences, as well as subsequent real emergences? How would
you propose we distinguish between real and fake culture? Indeed, if the
"first real emergence" is of things we merely "might" call "'cultures'"
(apparently they were so ambiguously cultural that quotation marks were
necessary), how do you justify thinking of them as real rather than fake
cultures?
Just wondering.
Cheers,
Rebecca Lynn Johnson
Ph.D. student, Dept. of Anthropology, U Iowa
Subject: Re: Father=Creator=Pater=Ptah=Pitar...Craftah...krft
From: petrich@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1996 19:59:56 GMT
In article <53mv8e$f5k_003@news.cyberix.com>, wrote:
>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.
Then Bernal and his friends are just plain *wrong*.
Greek pate:r is cognate with Latin pater, Sanskrit pitar-,
English "father", and most of the other words for the male parent in the
Indo-European languages. This Ptah > Greek pater theory ignores the wide
distribution of this word form at the time that Ptah worship had gotten
big in Egypt.
>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. ...
The Old Testament God was viewed as a "father" of sorts, and Zeus
was called Zeus Pater, "Father Zeus" (and what a father he was! :-). In
fact, this full form of the name corresponds to some other deity names,
like Roman Iuppiter and Vedic Dyaus Pitar to give Indo-European *dye:us
p@te:r, which meant something like "Father Sky".
Now northern India is rather far away from Egypt, which is a
devastating blow to those Egyptocentric theories.
>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 --
That works well-enough for the Indo-European languages, and one
does not find *EXACT* phonetic matches, but rather, sound
correspondences, such as Latin, Greek, and Sanskrit p- with English f-.
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.
However, one does want very literal language for everyday
purposes, such as the question of what one's ancestry is.
Furthermore, this makes it *very* difficult to do serious
linguistics, because with enough phonological stretching and metaphorical
extension, one can relate *any* word to *any* word.
--
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: Seeking employment suggestions.
From: rejohnsn@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1996 15:33:16 -0500
On Fri, 11 Oct 1996, Janet Jubran wrote:
> Rather than be so ascerbic, why not give the man some advice. He's
> looking for a job. [Referring to my first post on this thread, which I
heartily regret doing at this point]
Lessee...the man is a recent Ph.D. I have four years to go. What advice
do you think I could give him?
> I find it sad that such an important field has so few openings and that
> there are so few departments in schools around the country. I live in San
> Diego, a black hole for archaeology. At least we have AIA in La Jolla,
> which is a ray of hope.
I find it sad, too, and I'm sure the original poster feels the same. Do
you really know how miserable job prospects are in archaeology? At least
Americanists have the possibility of public service archaeology. But the
prospects really are pathetic. You hear a great deal of grim humor on
the subject at conferences. Sometimes commiseration is all you can offer.
Of course, that isn't valued these days...I've certainly learned never to
do it again....
Cheers,
Rebecca Lynn Johnson
Ph.D. student, Dept. of Anthropology, U Iowa
Subject: Re: Advanced Machining in Ancient Egypt
From: August Matthusen
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1996 13:52:11 -0700
Rodney Small wrote:
> When you say "placing a weight on a drill bit and turning slowly will cut
> into rock" it rather matters what kind of rock one is talking about.
> Granite is not exactly easy to cut even with diamond, and Petrie finds no
> evidence that jewel was used, even though he states: "The character of
> the work would certainly point to diamond as being the cutting jewel..."
I'm not sure where you get the idea that "Granite is not exactly easy
to cut even with diamond". Granite is composed of quartz, feldspars,
and micas. Quartz is the hardest of these minerals with a Mohs hardness
of 7; feldspar 6; and micas 2 to 3, depending on the type of mica.
There
are several minerals harder which will cut quartz: topaz, corundum,
diamond, etc. Smooth or polish a chunk of granite and drag a topaz,
ruby, sapphire, or diamond accross it and you will scratch the granite.
Additionally, cutting into a rock with a harder mineral than
any of the constituent grains will scribe into the softer minerals
of the rock and can often pluck out grains of the harder minerals at
grain boundaries. Some mica rich granites can have the micas scratched
out with a fingernail (hardness 2.5) so that the other grains fall out.
> True, but if what you are hypothesizing about the core is accurate, it
> should be possible today to duplicate the marks found on this core by
> drilling a similar piece of granite using primitive tools. I would think
> if Egyptologists are truly interested in determining how this core was
> made, they would be interested in attempting such an experiment. After
> all, this is not a case of rebuilding the Great Pyramid, which might take
> a while. Anyone on this board care to look into this???
Yep, should be possible. Apparently, people aren't that interested
testing alternate hypotheses of how the marks were made or they just
accept what Petrie suggested.
Regards,
August Matthusen
Subject: Re: the silence of the naked egyptologists
From: Greg Reeder
Date: 12 Oct 1996 23:15:13 GMT
fmurray@pobox,com (frank murray) wrote:
>On 12 Oct 1996 16:37:57 GMT, Greg Reeder wrote:
>
>>Frank,
>>Why do you persist in this? Your questions and statements were NOT met
>>with silence.
>
>each time i asked for evidence (not interpretation, opinion, or
>argument) those questions have been met with silence...the sliving
>noise of otherword on otherthing is a ruse beneath you, greg...as a
>contributing editor of kmt, (an excellant pub) you are required to
>distinquish between fact and opinion...here, i demand that you make
>the same judgements on your own posts...when i ask what evidence you
>have for one of your opinions, and you have none, then intellectual
>integrity demands that you so state...
>
>and so: would you please state what evidence you have that a body was
>buried inside the coffer (or sarcophagus, if you prefer tha term -
>though you might want to think a bit about the implications of its
>derivation) at khufu??...
>
>>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.
>
>i do not pretend to know what those ancients were up to in building
>the pyramids...further, i believe that acceptance on faith, rather
>than on evidence, hampers inquiry into this mystery...if you have
>evidence that the khufu pyramid was built and used as a tomb for a
>physical body, please state that evidence??...
>
>in query,
>
>frank
You originally stated that silence would follow any one who asked that it
be openly defended that the pyramids were built and used as tombs.
Silence did not follow. I openly defended that pyramids were built for
and used as tombs. I presented evidence. Body parts in Djosers pyramid
and sarcophagi in various pyramids. Body parts and sarcophagi are
evidence. You might not like that evidence. You might want to change your
questions as you have done now to proove that a body was actually in the
sarcophagus in the King's Chamber. We cannot proove that. But I have
offered and openly defended the statement that the pyramids were built
for use as tombs. You have NOT been left with silence. Evidence is not
proof. It only points toward the truth. It takes reasonable people to
interpret that evidence. The challenge of your original statement
>>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...
has been met. Silence did not follow. I openly defended it.
__
_____
Greg Reeder
On the WWW
at Reeder's Egypt Page
---------------->http://www.sirius.com/~reeder/egypt.html
reeder@sirius.com
Subject: Re: Question about new discoveries linking Knowth to Iberian peninsula
From: Craig Cockburn
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1996 22:39:42 +0100
Ann an sgriobhainn <53opcb$qsr@bell.maths.tcd.ie>, sgriobh Derek Bell
> A friend told me recently that there had been a discovery at Knowth
>(in the Boyne valley), linking it to the western part of the Iberian peninsula.
>I think she said there may be some evidence of a linguistic link, though my
>memory isn't 100% clear. Does anyone know of any references to this discovery?
>I've tried using search engines, but none of the sites I've checked have
>mentioned this discovery. Pointers of any kind would be welcome, especially to
>archaeological journals. (I'd have looked it up in the library here, but I
>haven't got a reader's ticket yet - I'm an ex-student.)
>
possibly someone in sci.lang might know
--
Craig Cockburn ("coburn"), Du\n E/ideann, Alba. (Edinburgh, Scotland)
http://www.smo.uhi.ac.uk/~craig/
Sgri\obh thugam 'sa Gha\idhlig ma 'se do thoil e.
Subject: Re: Viking Game played by the Cree and Chippewa Indians?
From: kalie@sn.no (Kaare Albert Lie)
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 00:18:11 GMT
Mike Yates wrote:
>Hi Kåre,
>before we get really bogged down in the "Hyperdiffusionist/Racist" debate
>here, doesn't non-biased diffusionism (less of the Hyper, please) mean that
>cultural exchanges are bilateral? I mean, have you any evidence that the
>Norse versions of these games predated the American ones, or might they
>have been passed to the East?
I have no cultural or racist axe to grind. I am just curious to
know more about what really happened, so I'll be very happy to
stay away from those -isms!
According to the Sagas, the game was played by the Norse (again:
in the wider meaning, not in the more narrow meaning of
'Norwegian') before Leif Eriksson went to Vinland. There is for
instance an episode in Egil Skallagrimsson Saga. Egil was twelve
years, and played knattleik against his father Skallagrim.
Tempers were so hot that Skallagrim almost killed his own son.
Judging from referances to other historical happenings, Egil may
have been born around 906 (P.A.Munch), so this game of knattleik
took place ca. 918 - and it was not described as a novelty then.
Leif Eriksson went to Vinland ca. 1000.
It is very reasonable to think that if influence went one way, it
also went the other way. You are quite right. But this exchange
must have taken place mainly among the Native Americans and the
Norse Greenlanders. Communications between Greenland and Norway
were not good, so apart from material objects as furs delivered
at Bergen and the large nut "from the other side of the ocean" -
the coconut that was made into a bowl with silver feet and handed
over to the representative of the Pope, I know no other
influences going east. If some could be found, it would be most
interesting to learn about them.
An Indian arrow point, and a piece of anthracite coal from Rhode
Island have been found in the Greenland settlements. Some
material finds, but not very much.
Still, there is another clear indication of nonmaterial influence
from the Native Americans to the Greenlanders in the report about
the people of the Western Settlement of Greenland, who left
Christianity and turned to the peoples of America - they
emigrated west. In going over to the native American culture, as
it seems, they must have learned a lot about that culture in
beforehand, and quite possibly even found it better than their
own.
Therefore, there are no indications of any cultural superiority
of the Norse, except for their ships and naval lore - and some
tools of iron, and if someone have read my notes to indicate
this, I apologize.
There are, however, indications and glimpses of forgotten
cultural contacts, that may have been far more widespread than
normally acknowledged today.
The kings of Norway in fact regarded Vinland and Markland (that
is: North America) as their territory for several hundred years -
of course, forgetting to ask the natives their opinion. (But -
how many kings asked the commoners their opinion in those days?)
And in fact this was no secret among the early European
"discoverers" of America. Pedro de Castaneda, the scribe of
Coronado, wrote: "I think from what we now know about the coasts
of the southern sea (Gulf of Mexico), what we have learned from
the explorations in the west (California), and what is known of
the seas to the north along Norway (Nuruega), whose borders begin
at Florida, is ..." (W.P.Cumming: "The discovery of North
America", London 1972, as cited by Prytz: "Lykkelige Vinland",
Oslo 1975).
By this quote, I am not going to claim North America for Norway
, but it gives clear indications that Norse activities in
these areas were well known.
And then, of course, the million-dollar question: How much did
Columbus really know before he set sail? Did he perhaps know
exactly where he was going?
Yours,
______________________________________________________________
Kåre Albert Lie
kalie@sn.no
Subject: Re: Question about new discoveries linking Knowth to Iberian peninsula
From: mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal)
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 00:11:17 GMT
Craig Cockburn wrote:
>Ann an sgriobhainn <53opcb$qsr@bell.maths.tcd.ie>, sgriobh Derek Bell
>
>> A friend told me recently that there had been a discovery at Knowth
>>(in the Boyne valley), linking it to the western part of the Iberian peninsula.
>>I think she said there may be some evidence of a linguistic link, though my
>>memory isn't 100% clear. Does anyone know of any references to this discovery?
>>I've tried using search engines, but none of the sites I've checked have
>>mentioned this discovery. Pointers of any kind would be welcome, especially to
>>archaeological journals. (I'd have looked it up in the library here, but I
>>haven't got a reader's ticket yet - I'm an ex-student.)
>>
>possibly someone in sci.lang might know
No, I don't. Still, I doubt a find in the Boyne Valley could be
*direct* evidence for a linguistic link to the Western Iberian
peninsula, unless it was some kind of locally made inscription or coin
in (a variant of) the Iberian syllabary/alphabet. But such
inscriptions are extremely rare (if they exist at all) in the Western
part of the Iberian peninsula (most are from the East, others from the
Center and the South, (almost) none from the West and the North).
I guess she was talking about circumstancial evidence. There's some
of that concerning Iberia and Ireland/Western Britain, whether it be
about Pixies, Megalith builders, Phoenicians, Celts or Armada sailors.
==
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: Sat, 12 Oct 1996 20:37:07 -0700
August Matthusen wrote:
>
> Rodney Small wrote:
>
> > When you say "placing a weight on a drill bit and turning slowly will cut
> > into rock" it rather matters what kind of rock one is talking about.
> > Granite is not exactly easy to cut even with diamond, and Petrie finds no
> > evidence that jewel was used, even though he states: "The character of
> > the work would certainly point to diamond as being the cutting jewel..."
>
> I'm not sure where you get the idea that "Granite is not exactly easy
> to cut even with diamond". Granite is composed of quartz, feldspars,
> and micas. Quartz is the hardest of these minerals with a Mohs hardness
> of 7; feldspar 6; and micas 2 to 3, depending on the type of mica.
> There
> are several minerals harder which will cut quartz: topaz, corundum,
> diamond, etc. Smooth or polish a chunk of granite and drag a topaz,
> ruby, sapphire, or diamond accross it and you will scratch the granite.
>
> Additionally, cutting into a rock with a harder mineral than
> any of the constituent grains will scribe into the softer minerals
> of the rock and can often pluck out grains of the harder minerals at
> grain boundaries. Some mica rich granites can have the micas scratched
> out with a fingernail (hardness 2.5) so that the other grains fall out.
Fine, but Petrie was astonished at the cutting rate used to drill this
core, and states that the grooves are deeper in the quartz than the
adjacent feldspar. I understand your hypothesis about the cutting rate,
but what about the deeper grooves in the quartz?
> > True, but if what you are hypothesizing about the core is accurate, it
> > should be possible today to duplicate the marks found on this core by
> > drilling a similar piece of granite using primitive tools. I would think
> > if Egyptologists are truly interested in determining how this core was
> > made, they would be interested in attempting such an experiment. After
> > all, this is not a case of rebuilding the Great Pyramid, which might take
> > a while. Anyone on this board care to look into this???
>
> Yep, should be possible. Apparently, people aren't that interested
> testing alternate hypotheses of how the marks were made or they just
> accept what Petrie suggested.
> Regards,
> August Matthusen
I'll make everyone on this board a deal. If someone can duplicate the
marks found on this granite core with primitive tools, I won't question
anymore the conventional wisdom about the machining methods used by the
builders of the core. I hope someone will take up the challenge, but
until then, I remain a "skeptic".
Subject: Re: the silence of the naked egyptologists
From: fmurray@pobox,com (frank murray)
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 02:13:39 GMT
On 12 Oct 1996 23:15:13 GMT, Greg Reeder wrote:
>
>You originally stated that silence would follow any one who asked that it
>be openly defended that the pyramids were built and used as tombs.
though my original statement was more precisly worded, i'll not argue
the point, as your rendering of it catches the gist of my taunt...
>Silence did not follow. I openly defended that pyramids were built for
>and used as tombs.
and i here openly applaud your courage in doing so...
>.....I presented evidence. Body parts in Djosers pyramid
if you've mentioned those body parts from djoser, before now, i missed
it...sorry...but what body parts are these??...of whom??...of what age
and how dated??...were they found within a sarcopghagus??...if so, a
sealed one??...
>and sarcophagi in various pyramids. Body parts and sarcophagi are
>evidence.
yes...but evidence of what??...the only example that you've given of a
sealed sarcophagus found inside of a pyramid was one that was found to
be empty...surely you're not trying to say that the fact that the
sarcophagus was empty proved that it wasn't empty??...i asked martin
to give us a list of all cases where sealed sarcophagi that did
contain bodies were found inside pyramids, but he disapppeared out the
back door and went running down the alley mumbling something about an
emergency call to save an eleven year old kid from taking too seriouly
something that he'd read in the national enquirer...hopefully he'll
soon return with that list and we'll be able to judge whether or not
we have adequate evidence to consider the sek sarcophagus an aberrant
case...
>You might not like that evidence. You might want to change your
>questions as you have done now to proove that a body was actually in the
>sarcophagus in the King's Chamber. We cannot proove that.
ah...i'd the feeling that you'd the integrity to state that, but let's
get it clearly stated...are you now saying that there is no evidence
that the coffer in khufu was ever used for the burial of a physical
body??...
>..............................................................But I have
>offered and openly defended the statement that the pyramids were built
>for use as tombs. You have NOT been left with silence.
again, no balk at pitching plaudits to you...i appreciate your
willingness to forthrightly answer...
>..................................................Evidence is not
>proof. It only points toward the truth. It takes reasonable people to
>interpret that evidence.
yes...but first the evidence, and then the interpretaions...
>The challenge of your original statement........
>...........
>has been met. Silence did not follow. I openly defended it.
a bit early for so perfected a tense...
frank
Subject: Re: Advanced Machining in Ancient Egypt
From: S.NEMETH@IX.NETCOM.COM (Stella Nemeth)
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 03:21:20 GMT
Rodney Small wrote:
>True, but if what you are hypothesizing about the core is accurate, it
>should be possible today to duplicate the marks found on this core by
>drilling a similar piece of granite using primitive tools. I would think
>if Egyptologists are truly interested in determining how this core was
>made, they would be interested in attempting such an experiment. After
>all, this is not a case of rebuilding the Great Pyramid, which might take
>a while. Anyone on this board care to look into this???
I find this to be an interesting question. This is the sort of thing
that reinactors do all of the time, and sometimes it turns out that
the "difficult" thing is easy, and what looks easy, turns out to be
difficult.
I listened in on the conversations of people who were into remaking
historical garments, frequently using the fabrics and techniques of
the past. It was amazing just how much it turns out we don't know if
we pay attention to the details.
Take this case, I doubt if any high-tech methods were used to drill
out these stone objects. The Egyptians made these for several
thousand years in many kinds of stone. I think we would have noticed
high-tech methods, if they had had them, pictured on the walls of
tombs where everything else seems to get pictured.
But reading the reports of people investigating what specific low tech
methods work to produce these results would be interesting. If anyone
knows of specific experiments in this area, I'd be interested in the
results.
Stella Nemeth
s.nemeth@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: the silence of the naked egyptologists
From: Doug or Kathy Lowry
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1996 23:50:32 -0400
fmurray@pobox, frank murray wrote:
>
> On 12 Oct 1996 23:15:13 GMT, Greg Reeder wrote:
>
> >
> >You originally stated that silence would follow any one who asked that it
> >be openly defended that the pyramids were built and used as tombs.
>
> though my original statement was more precisly worded, i'll not argue
> the point, as your rendering of it catches the gist of my taunt...
>
> >Silence did not follow. I openly defended that pyramids were built for
> >and used as tombs.
>
> and i here openly applaud your courage in doing so...
>
> >.....I presented evidence. Body parts in Djosers pyramid
>
> if you've mentioned those body parts from djoser, before now, i missed
> it...sorry...but what body parts are these??...of whom??...of what age
> and how dated??...were they found within a sarcopghagus??...if so, a
> sealed one??...
>
> >and sarcophagi in various pyramids. Body parts and sarcophagi are
> >evidence.
>
> yes...but evidence of what??...the only example that you've given of a
> sealed sarcophagus found inside of a pyramid was one that was found to
> be empty...surely you're not trying to say that the fact that the
> sarcophagus was empty proved that it wasn't empty??...i asked martin
> to give us a list of all cases where sealed sarcophagi that did
> contain bodies were found inside pyramids, but he disapppeared out the
> back door and went running down the alley mumbling something about an
> emergency call to save an eleven year old kid from taking too seriouly
> something that he'd read in the national enquirer...hopefully he'll
> soon return with that list and we'll be able to judge whether or not
> we have adequate evidence to consider the sek sarcophagus an aberrant
> case...
>
> >You might not like that evidence. You might want to change your
> >questions as you have done now to proove that a body was actually in the
> >sarcophagus in the King's Chamber. We cannot proove that.
>
> ah...i'd the feeling that you'd the integrity to state that, but let's
> get it clearly stated...are you now saying that there is no evidence
> that the coffer in khufu was ever used for the burial of a physical
> body??...
>
> >..............................................................But I have
> >offered and openly defended the statement that the pyramids were built
> >for use as tombs. You have NOT been left with silence.
>
> again, no balk at pitching plaudits to you...i appreciate your
> willingness to forthrightly answer...
>
> >..................................................Evidence is not
> >proof. It only points toward the truth. It takes reasonable people to
> >interpret that evidence.
>
> yes...but first the evidence, and then the interpretaions...
>
> >The challenge of your original statement........
> >...........
> >has been met. Silence did not follow. I openly defended it.
>
> a bit early for so perfected a tense...
>
> frankThe body part was a foot and a section of the backbone. These were
embalmed in third dynasty style. As mummification was just beginning
and they probably used the "wet natron" style seen in the tomb/cache/
whatever of Heteperes (empty, sealed sarcophagus), most of the flesh had
disappeared before body was wrapped in resin soaked bandages. The other
parts found found in a sealed sarcophagus were in the pyramid of
Menkaure. Though found in a later coffin the parts seemed to have been
contemporary with the pyramid. The Saite kings reguarded the pyramids
as tombs and they were much closer to the time period than we.
I've wondered what archaeologists will make of European cathedrals in
the future. Will they be regarded as tombs? There are all those dead
kings in the floor and stuck off in odd corners.
Subject: Re: Pictographs, was Re: Linguistic time depth
From: Marc Cooper
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 00:55:13 -0500
Steve Whittet wrote:
>
> I would say that if you can recognize pictorially what is being
> represented, the glyph remains a pictograph. When it becomes so
> abstracted that you cannot recognise what it represents, it is no
> longer a pictograph.
> In saying this you have to allow that someone who is familair
> with a wider range of symbols may recognize a symbol through
> several more transformations than someone who is not used to
> reading symbols.
So, for you, a character is pictographic or otherwise if you can
recognise an underlying picture? That is to say, some of us may see more
and find the individual signs pictographic while others with less
discerning vision may believe that the very same character is abstract?
I take it that if I can see an ox lurking in a capital A printed in the
morning news, that I could, in your terms, claim that the Roman alphabet
is pictographic. That is absurd, and unless I am very wrong about you, I
believe that you would agree with me.
Part of the problem lies in the development of scripts. Cuneiform did
develop from a pictographic script. At what point can we allow that it
became abstract? Consider that question carefully, because if you can
claim that cuneiform never became abstract, that is, you can always
discern the pictographic signs from which the cuneiform characters
developed, then you will have to admit that our own alphabet is
pictographic, indeed, that all alphabetic systems are pictographic
making the term meaningless.
Consider the following thought experiment: Instead of Roaf's table
showing the evolution of cuneiform characters, you found a book listing
the corpus of cuneiform characters from the time of Sargon of Akkad's
dynasty, maybe 324 or so signs in all. Let's further imagine that you
believed that these characters developed from pictographic signs, and
that you attempted to determine what those pictures might have been. How
many would you have to get right before you allowed yourself the liberty
of proclaiming Sargonic cuneiform pictographic? My own guess is that
neither of us, nor anyone reading this newsgroup, could correctly pick
more than a few dozen. Knowing full well that I would fail such a test,
I characterize Sargonic cuneiform as abstract rather than 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!
>
> Lets make this simple. Define the terms.
The issue here isn't definition of terms; rather, it is the misuse of
Kramer's table.
> >The issue really comes down to what terms such as pictopraph,
> >ideograph, and logograph mean. I follow Gelb in this.
> Whoah. That's too big a jump. Define the terms first,
> then tell everyone how you follow what Gelb says,
> then move on to writing systems.
Can't do it Steve, Gelb, I. J., _A Study of Writing_ defines such terms
in dozens of pages. The best I can do is refer you to my source.
> > 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.
>
> So characters which look like the items they represent are
> always considered pictographic, or just in protoliterate
> Sumerian? Are the same characters considered pictographic
> when they are found in Akkadian after the reign of Sargon
> for example?
The same characters could indeed be considered pictographic if we could
determine their origins without reference to an earlier set of tablets.
But my thought experiment suggests to me that we could not. Hence, I
maintain that Sargonic cuneiform is not pictographic.
> > 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.
>
> So the combination of several logographic glyphs to communicate
> a complex idea is considered a writing system. How is this different
> from the combination of several pictographs to communicate a complex
> idea as for example in Hieroglyphic Egyptian?
Uruk characters, in Gelb's terms, are pictographic. The system of
relating those signs to each other such that each trained reader
understands the same thing is called logographic.
> >As for the Phaistos Disk
Snip
> >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.
>
> I am not so much interested in the writing, as in the symbols.
> If the symbols remain they could be picked up and used in the
> form of logos to represent groups of people, places and functions.
Perhaps, but so far as I know there is only one other inscription which
uses the Phaistos Disk script. The issue here becomes one of
interpretation. A character on a kudurru, or a pylon at Karnak may look
like one of the P.D. signs, but how can we tell if the relationship is
accidental or a borrowing?
> >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.
>
> I think there is, some have the same sorts of transformations you see
> in Egyptian between Hieroglyphic and Hieratic forms.
You stand in fair company, Cyrus Gordon's for one, but attempts to
decipher the P.D. by tranforming its characters into Linear B, and then
using those values have not been well received.
> >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.
>
> Do the investigation first, then draw the conclusion.
Is there no speculation allowed here? More seriously, archaeologists
found the P.D. on the floor of the "new palace" at Phaistos together
with some charred material, pottery, and a couple of Linear A tablets.
This material came from a second storey, and fell down to the floor
during the earthquake(?) which destroyed the palace sometime during the
17th century. The P.D. was not seen again until our own century. Since
we have only two inscriptions written in the P.D. script, and no others,
and many earlier Linear A, and Hieroglyphic Minoan inscriptions, I think
that it's safe to conclude that the P.D. script is Minoan, that it was
not widely used, and that it disappeared with the destruction of
Phaistos. Why would the Minoans develop a hieratic form of a script they
rarely used?
Marc Cooper
mac566f@nic.smsu.edu
Subject: Re: Stop trashing Henry Lincoln!
From: Jiri Mruzek
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1996 22:01:58 -0700
Someone had written:
> If one restricts oneself to the three pyramids on the Giza plateau, then
> we have two lines,
Oops - we have three lines; A - B, A -C, and B - C..
> hence only two variables - the relative length, and
>the angle between them. Is it remarkable that three stars can be found
>satisfying the same relationship?
It is, if it strikes the target in the heart. Whatever the odds are -
they do not favor this result. So, it's as remarkable, as the odds are
unfavorable.
>I recall someone demonstrating that
>the same spatial relationship applies between three of the major cities
>in Texas.
When you search the multitude of city arrangements in the USA for this
one alignment, you are sure to succeed more than once.
If there were only three big cities in the USA, it would be remarkable,
but only in conjunction with the same motive appearing elsewhere as
well,
for instance, if the continent would be named Orion-ica.
>If we consider the apparent magnitude of the stars, these do
>not correspond to the sizes of the pyramids (except in diagrams drawn by
>proponents of the theory).
I see that you yern for statistically improbable alignments like
the proverbial starving masses pandering for bread. In my magnanimity,
I offer you cake! I offer you statistically miraculous alignments
in all of my research - time after time! Just take your pick.
To be helpful, monsieur, today's suggestion on the menu picks from
alignments between the twelve points of the so called Frame from a
Palaeolithic engraving I name Cinderella. It is 14,000 years old.
Browse to:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jiri_mruzek/frapent1.htm
Jiri
Subject: Re: Pyramids and Aliens
From: Jiri Mruzek
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 02:50:43 -0700
Martin Stower wrote:
> Greg Reeder wrote:
> [. . .]
> > Well Jiri you could be correct on that one. However if you are refering
> >to the picture of "Napoleon in the King's Chamber" reproduced in Pteter
> >Tomkins SECRETS OF THE GREAT PYRAMID (pg50) that is more propanda than
> >historical document and there is someone standing in front of the very
> >corner of which we speak.Tomkins does show a drawing (p104) " Measuring
> >the granite coffer before it was vandalized" but it is somewhat crude and
> >has no reference to who drew it or when or it the artist had ever even
> >been in the King's Chamber!. I tried finding a more scientific drawing of
> >the King's Chamber from my repro of the Description De L'Egypte but no
> >luck. There must be one in the original? [. . .]
> I have the Taschen reproduction of Le Description, which contains all the
> pictures (albeit on a much-reduced scale).
> The depiction of the sarcophagus - I'm not about to call it something else
> - occurs in the context of an imaginative reconstruction of the Arab entry
> into the pyramid; I dare say neither the artist nor the engraver witnessed
> that event. They depicted the sarcophagus as they imagined it was at the
> time: undamaged.
They imagined it so, because they had an occasion to see it with their
own
eyes as still being in good order, when accompanying Napoleon.
The very fact that Napoleon had brought a large number of savants to
Egypt
with him, communicates intent to study Egypt's architectural glories
seriously.
> Even as a reconstruction, the engraving is inaccurate: it omits the dovetail
> which would hold the lid. (This - in answer to an earlier question of Jiri's
> - is why Piazzi Smyth was `astonished' by this feature; he was misled in his
> expectations by `the French work'.
The dovetail is a detail, which it is possible to skip, and still depict
the coffer correctly in general outlines. However, if it were
extensively
damaged, their depiction would become misleading.
The dovetail does not set, nor dominate the coffer's shape the way large
missing pieces do.
> It's worth noting also that his preferred
> term `coffer' was coined before he'd even seen the sarcophagus - on the basis
> of exactly this misconception of its form.)
> In short, these depictions constitute no evidence at all of the state of the
> sarcophagus in 1798.
Disagreed, they are evidence with certain limitations.
> The pyramid was open for centuries before Napoleon got there, and was
> frequently entered by travellers.
Funny, I don't have that impression. It was a dark, spooky place of
owerpowering foul stench of dead vermin, dust, bats, etc.
Likewise, I don't imagine that under the Arab authority anyone was
at liberty to damage the Pyramid, nor had any compelling interest in
marring the empty coffer.
During the Christian era, it was forbidden to enter the pyramids.
Prior to the Christian era in Egypt, the Great Pyramid would be in
very little danger from vandalism.
So, I am really sorry to have to conclude that if someone has to
carry the blame for damaging the coffer in King's Chamber, it is
those frivolous American and European tourists from the quote of
Piazzi Smyth: ".. the painful thunder of the coffer being banged,
to close upon breaking, with a big stone swung by their Arab helps"
> That the sarcophagus was pristine
> before 1798, but extensively damaged after, is improbable.
To differ, I see it as the most likely version.
> Many travellers recorded their impressions of a visit to the pyramid, some
> - Greaves, for example - in great detail. I'll see if I can find any
> material on the state of the sarcophagus pre-Napoleon.
Back to Tompkins and Greaves - Page 27 of SOGP. Tompkins writes:
" In London Greaves had furnished himself with a special 10-foot
measuring rod based on a standard English foot deposited in Grand Hall,
finely divided into 10,000 equal parts.
With great care he measured the length, breadth and width of the King's
Chamber , commenting that "the structure of it hath been the labour of
an exquisite hand." He counted its tiers of granite, measured their
length and breadth, and did likewise to the empty coffer, even to the
thousandth part of a foot, finding it to be 6.488 English feet"
-end quote-
To maintain continuity of subject, you may want to skip from here to
the last paragraph, but I must digress, as I am amazed right now that
I have just checked this number 6488 for ratio against two other numbers
from my favorite collection of numbers - the so called Frame.
I did 6488/113, and no result. Next, I tried 6488/81 on my calculator;
It equals 80.0987654321..
! 80 and 81 happen to be two of the twelve values used by
the so called Frame of the Atlantean Mathematics fame. !
80/81 equals 0.987654320987..etc
1/81 equals 0.01234567..
Thus, the result in the fifth line above is rounded off.
Interestingly, Mario Stecchini mentions the pair 80/81 in his
discussion of ancient Egyptian weights.
Do we see the birth of more pyramidal numerology here? ;)
But did the coffer's plan include coding in feet units?
At any rate, I am more than proud to make my, however tiny, contribution
to this fascinating field of endeavor. It is a discipline per se,
IMO, intentionally implemented by the Egyptian priests/scientists.
It is something like Scientific numerology! :) :) :) :) :) :)
*
The IMPORTANT part of the quote above is the mention of measurements
of the coffer by Greaves to the accuracy of 1/1,000.
Would you agree that such measurements would be impossible if
the coffer were significantly damaged? Ergo, it was in good shape.
Thanks to both Martin and Greg,
Jiri Mruzek
********************
355/113=3.141592.. ( Now, that's what I call Numerology! )
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jiri_mruzek/trihex.htm
Subject: Re: ABC & racist pseudoscience
From: Jiri Mruzek
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1996 19:37:51 -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!
Never any work in progress caught on film. There is one photograph
I've seen from the scene. A huge boulder is suspended from a flimsy
looking tripod. I don't see how the tripod could not fall apart with
the slightest swaying of the stone. It's almost like taunting us.
> 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.
Even quite likely, IMHO. He would then be an inheritor of those, rather
than a discoverer. I say that, because I think that much experimentation
and thought must have gone into developing such technology - much more
than what Leedskalnin's resources were. His mysteriousness deepens, as
I think about it all. Even his name could be a sort of cryptic clue.
With regard to linguistics, (a debate rages on sci.archy at present)
Edward Leedskalnin: ..skal = scale ; lead scale = sweet 16 = Phi (1.6)
ward = guard, site
skalni in some Slavonian languages = of stone/rock
I am not going to expound on all the possible permutations of meaning
in this little play of words, anyone can do it for themselves.
But, Leedskalnin has "stone" in his name. Perhaps, just another coincidence..
> 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.
I thought that just by restating the idea in its nakedness - its absurdity
would become transparent. I can imagine this idea, but then it doesn't work!
> 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!
If you understood the intellectual level inherent in the design of
the Nasca Monkey, you would know forever that like in Egypt, there
were wardens of the same Ancient Science in Peru, and elsewhere in
America.
Does archaeological record clash with feasibility of Ancient Science?
It does. It indicates a much lower level of knowledge, and especially of
available technology. To resolve such apparent conflict, we must see
the Ancient Science as having a parallel exiwstence in being available
only to a tiny group of initiates.
What were the exact reasons for such a state of affairs? Well, that's
another question.
Jiri
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jiri_mruzek/
Subject: Re: 200 ton Blocks
From: Jiri Mruzek
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1996 05:02:58 -0700
Stella Nemeth wrote:
> 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?
What makes a skirt a mini-skirt?
> >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.
I may be right.. That's great. But, why am I arguing this point? :)
I lost track..
> 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?
Same thoughts had traversed my mind. Many accomplishments look great
on their own. But, yes, it would be all that much easier than the
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.
I have presented reasons for thinking this version more plausible.
Things do look like there never was any lid, and no mummy.
So, why should we think otherwise? Because of 'postecedents' passed
off as precedents?
> >> 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.
It used to be extremely difficult to access the pyramid through
cluttered passages and darkness, bats, dust. You don't just go
in and start breaking the hard granite lid. For the sake of what?
> > ...What is the value of a few broken up chunks
> >of granite?
> People collect the oddest things.
If they collected the lid - why did they not collect the coffer ?
Why break the lid, and not steal it? Why leave it up to a neat-freak?
> >> >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.
Flexible glass, non-rusting weapons, super-accurate maps, secrets
of magic - those are straightforward descriptions of things we possess
today. As ideas, they are eternally perfect.
> >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.
:) One of Stella's immutable Laws of the Pyramid says: Though shalt
never secrete a treasure in any pyramid, as then all pyramids would be
vandalized for loot. There is nothing behind the door in the way of
treasure. And, no technology is hidden there, at least, not in
the conventional sense.
Though I am psychic, I don't have to be one - to know this logically :)
> >> >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.
Weren't they conquered just a short while before the Pyramid was
opened?
Regards,
Jiri Mruzek
Subject: Re: 200 ton Blocks
From: Jiri Mruzek
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1996 17:19:09 -0700
Jim Rogers wrote:
> 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.
My defense of Egyptians begins with the observation that their
science, and technology were on a much higher level than westerners
generally (like you) are willing to admit. No wonder, our thoughts
differ radically. You think that I slight Egyptians, because I don't
see them as necessarily being willing tools of pharaoh's every whim.
Just the other day I saw a new film for school-age kids, which gave
credit to Erasthotenes for figuring out, how to measure the circum-
ference of our planet. Needless to say, this is just another flagrant
example of modern scholarly racism stealing the Egyptians achievements,
and ascribing them to the WHITE Greeks.
Erasthotenes merely copied information from the Alexandrian library,
information, which was established long prior to Erastothenes.
The fact is easily provable, because Erastothenes had accepted
this information in blind faith, without making allowances for
evolving observational data.
Do you think Imhotep was a religious fanatic, who considered the Pharaoh
a God, or one of the Gods? I would say that familiarity breeds contempt.
Of all the Egyptians, priests/scientists must have been the ones most
realistic as to a pharaoh's true nature.
> > > 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).
To the contrary, Jim! What is more trivial? Building a huge heap
of worked stones as a tomb requiring the services of an entire
nation for a lengthy era, or building a multi-function structure
serving the interests of Egypt in general, and even other countries,
by providing an exact reference point on a well measured planet, and
its stellar outdoors?
Just how well did the Egyptins measure everything? Let me be an
opportunist, and cite a Pyramidal reference to some of those
wholy fantastic, and yet real wonders of precise execution of
their obviously accurate blueprints. The Pyramid gives you a
statement written in stone: This is, just how good we were!
Thus, the Pyramid looms decisive in cases like Eratothenes',
whenever we debate Egyptian mathematics, measure system,
astronomy, map making, technology, etc.
The only problem with this model is that it existed almost
5,000 years ago. It seems impossible in view of the widely
established historical framework of progress in sci/tech.
My suggestion? If irreconciliable differences exist between
the two parties - let the two parties separate.
Jiri Mruzek
****************************
Just give me trees, some rope, and a lot of pyramidoits.
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jiri_mruzek/
Subject: Re: paramagnetism
From: root@Hitchiker.csun.edu (root)
Date: 13 Oct 1996 10:56:50 GMT
MA Lloyd (malloy00@io.com) wrote:
: Victor Reijs writes:
: >Hello There,
: >I am looking for more information about paramagetism. Can somebody help
: >me. I heard that Philip Callahan was doing work on this. But do people
: >have more info on this? It seems that stone (like stone rings,
: >menhirs, stone towers in Ireland) could be some sort of antenna,
: >depending on this paramagnetism.
: Excuse me a moment while I stop laughing.
: Paramagnetism is a property of certain materials in which the application
: of an external magnetic field causes the magnetic moments (of the atoms)
: to align parallel to the applied field. Its opposite is diamagnetism, the
: moments arrange antiparallel. It has absolutely nothing to do with antennas,
: unless you count the fact the conduction band electons in most metals make
: them paramagnetic. Most oxides, such as the minerals that make up stones,
: are diamagnetic.
: Why can't people who believe in things like this invent their own technical
: vocabulary rather than using existing terms in inappropriate ways that make
: them sound like frauds or idiots to the scientific community? Even if they
: had something, nobody will take them seriously.
With respect:
Probably because the existing technical terms were originally borrowed
(at least in part) from the vernacular, and the fact that
scientists/scholars gave them a specific meaning did not automatically
remove them from common usage. It is therefore quite understandable that
someone who is unfamiliar with the technical definition would misinterpret
the formal jargon into common terminology (which has probably changed
significantly after being borrowed) and thus sound like an idiot to the
initiated, when in fact they are intelligent and curious but (possibly)
somewhat underinformed.
I dislike being contentious about this sort of thing but I suspect that
your explanation of the difference between paramagnetism and diamagnetism
suffers from a similar type of inadequate understanding of terminology
that you object to in the original post. My impression of your posts in
the past leads me to believe that this form of hypocrisy is beneath you,
and although it would take some digging for me to demonstrate this point,
I couldn't let it pass.
Comments/rebuttals welcome (here or email) but please note that the email
address in the header is unreachable. Send email to hcmth019@huey.csun.edu
: --
: -- MA Lloyd (malloy00@io.com)
Brett K. Heath \ You only can see what you know how to look at
P.S. email is always a better bet if you want to be sure of getting
through, reading news is a luxury.
Subject: Pompeian Pineapples
From: Berlant@cyberix.com
Date: 13 Oct 1996 12:42:24 GMT
In article <53n9f8$4mu@news1.io.org>, yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>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.
As strange as it may initially seem, the fruits in these Pompeian frescoes
are, in all likelihood, stylized pomegranates. The pomegranate's smooth
surface differs significantly from the pineapple's rough, segmented surface.
However, the reason why the former came to be depicted like the latter can be
understood by considering that:
1) Pompeii was heavily influenced by ancient Greek culture;
2) The Pompeians are reported to have imported Greek artists to paint their
frescos; and,
3) It was particularly Persephone's eating of the seeds of the pomegranate
that caused her to die in the winter and be resurrected in the spring, in the
popular ancient Greek myth of Demeter.
Accordingly, Greek painters evidently began depicting pomegranates with a red,
seedy pulp which eventually became stylized to appear like the segmented
surface of a pineapple. Hence, the fruits are red ["Di colore rosso"] like
pomegranates, rather than yellow like pineapples.
When the early Christian Church incorporated and "reinterpreted" pagan themes
in its effort to attract followers, the pomegranate became the symbol of
Christ's resurrection. Pomegranates resembling pineapples, thus, also appear
on, for example, the Templar Church in London, about which Paul Gans wrote the
following message some time ago:
>In message <4a2sdr$g3c@cmcl2.NYU.EDU> Paul J. Gans wrote (with deletions)
". . . during my recent trip to London I managed to get to the Templar Church
in London. Over the portal to the Church (dedicated in 1185 if memory serves)
are some carvings. Two of them are round with striations and look for all the
world like hand grenades. A guide present assured everyone that they were
pineapples and that nobody had a clue as to how they had gotten on a 12th
century carving.
I had my doubts and indeed, when I got back home and consulted a medievalist
with some training in art history I was laughingly told that this was a common
misinterpretation. The carvings were pomegranates, a typical medieval symbol
of fertility and afterlife."
That is not to say, however, that these pomegranates were undoubtedly intended
as Christian symbols, for it is well-known that the Templars' many pagan
beliefs caused the church to regard them as heretics. It is, therefore, very
possible that pomegranates were put on the Templar Church to serve a dual
purpose: i.e., although they were outwardly Christian, they were regarded
otherwise by the Templars.
The history of the pomegranate as an esoteric symbol is actually far more
complex; for, as Friedreich Muthman, in the, perhaps, definitive work on the
subject, Der Granatapfel, pointed out: 1) What appear to be pomegranates were
depicted in Assyrian art long before they appeared in Greek art; and, 2) the
Phrygian god Attis was born of a virgin who conceived him by putting a ripe
almond or pomegranate in her bosom.
But, in either case, it is likely that these enigmatic Pompeian fruits are
indeed stylized pomegranates.
Regards,
Steve Berlant
Subject: A STUDY OF SCRIPT-LIKE PETROGLYPHS IN SOUTHEAST COLORADO
From: Twistory@gnn.com (Richard Flavin)
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 09:47:35
Received from the authors 10-12-96, Columbus Day.
Dear [ ],
The enclosed monograph has been prepared in the hope you will study
it and send us your comments on its content and advice for further
research on the subject. The report deals with our 15-year study
of a group of unusual petroglyphs in southeastern Colorado and the
possibility they may be a form of writing and may show an ancient
connection between that area and the Middle East. Evidence of
several types is shown in the report converging to support this
hypothesis of an epigraphic connection. This evidence may be
summarized as follows:
EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE EPIGRAPHIC HYPOTHESIS
ROCK ART FEATURES
Circular feet
"Phi signs" in back
Pitchfork heads and tails
Dots
"Ship" & "Camel"
Meanders, grids, etc.
REPEATED SIGN SEQUENCES
Colorado
Colorado & Old World
UTO-AZTECAN LINGUISTICS
LETTER-LIKE SIGNS
Form similarity
Form regularity
Full clusters
Arrangement
Rotation & grouping
Chronology
Style & hand
COMPOUNDS
Style & Form
Conjuction of signs
BLOOD ANTIGENS
All of the above are individually illustrated and explained in the
report, but we believe their significance is most appropriately
considered collectively. The importance and validity of each
aspect should be evaluated, and the evidential weight of each added
to reach a final judgment regarding our hypothesis.
We liken the judgment process to that used in determining the
probable identity of two fingerprints. Features of similarity are
compared until enough points of identity (usually 10) are found, at
which time the two are considered sufficiently the same that
conviction in even capital cases can result. We understand that in
our work the data base and acceptance point are not as easily
defined as for fingerprints, but in both cases the process should
be both progressive and additive. Each type of evidence
accumulates to the support of the hypothesis being tested.
As we say in the report, today the evidence for the epigraphic
hypothesis is strongly suggestive but lacks the "10-point" level of
certainty required for consensus acceptance. It is to that end,
the evaluation of what we have found, the addition of new data, and
the continuation of the research by others, that we are forwarding
this report to you. Please help us by sending your candid
opinions; any information, data or ideas that might advance the
research; and tell us of any others you think should see out work
or who might want to spearhead further efforts on the subject.
We appreciate your comments and will be happy to send any
additional information you require or show you the actual glyphs
here in Colorado if you sgould want to see them.
Sincerely yours,
Phillip M. Leonard
[801-783-4605]
William R. McGlone
[719-384-6657]
A STUDY OF SCRIPT-LIKE PETROGLYPHS IN SOUTHEAST COLORADO
By Phillip M. Leonard and William R. McGlone
70 pages with 23 Figures and 2 Appendices
This monograph describes the results of a 15-year study of numerous
script-like petroglyphs in southeast Colorado that shows remarkable
similarity to ancient South Semitic scripts of the Middle East.
More than 100 rows of letter-like signs are illustrated along with
rock art figures that are also similar between the two regions.
Some of the Colorado signs and letters of the Middle East are found
similarly combined into more complex symbol-like figures, and the
hypothesis of the Colorado signs being writing together with the
possibility of their being influenced by North Arabian writing are
examined. The presence of repeated sequences of signs and the
existence of the same sequences in both areas support these ideas,
but further research is needed for full acceptence. The authors
show the results of their work and offer data for others to use in
conducting the research.
Send Check for $10.00 + $2.00 (S&H;) each to:
Mithras, Inc
3520 N. SR 32
Kamas, UT 84036
NOTE: The previous is uncopyrighted, as is the monograph. This post
should not be regarded as an advertisement, but merely the sharing
of information. If interested parties have problems with the cost
of the monograph, they are encouraged to contact the authors.
10-13-96 RDF