Newsgroup sci.archaeology 48466

Directory

In article <53n668$21h@news1.io.org> yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
>SkupinM (skupinm@aol.com) wrote:
>: 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.
>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?
>Yuri.
I'm almost certain this is the same Yuri Knorozov who is widely accredited with
demonstrating the syllabic content of Mayan writing.  I've never read his 
primary work but I'm not aware that he ever claimed that the writing was of
Asiatic origins.  He was widely criticized in the 1950s, largely because his 
ideas ran counter to those of the many Mayanists of the day.  Also I 
understand he threw in a lot of contemporary Russian propaganda (i.e. claiming 
that he was able to make his discoveries due to the superiority of the 
Communist political system), this didn't endear him to Western scholars either.
I think this stuff is covered in "Cracking the Maya Code" by Michael Coe.
Peter van Rossum
PMV100@PSU.EDU

In article  pmv100@psu.edu (Peter Van Rossum) writes:
>
>I think this stuff is covered in "Cracking the Maya Code" by Michael Coe.
                                                     ^^^^^^^^^
Whoops, that should be "Breaking the Maya Code" 1992, by Michael Coe.
Peter van Rossum
PMV100@PSU.EDU

solos@enterprise.net (Adrian Gilbert) wrote:
>In article <325383A3.5581@lynx.bc.ca>,
>   Jiri Mruzek  wrote:
>>Adrian Gilbert wrote:
>> 
>> In article <3247e4bc.43620391@news.nwrain.net>,
>> fmurray@pobox.com (frank murray) wrote:
>>> >On Sat, 21 Sep 96 04:09:06 GMT, solos@enterprise.net (Adrian
>>> >Gilbert) wrote:
>   All of this is a long way from the cocaine mummies that this thread is 
>supposed to be about. Does anyone else out there agree with me that it is more 
>than likely that the Egyptians crossed the Atlantic and trade with the 
>indigenous peoples of the New World, leading to cross-cultural fertilization? 
>I have written about this in "The Mayan Prophecies" and apart from some 
>uninformed abuse have heard very little on the subject, most people being more 
>interested in the Mayan End-date or 2012
Unfortunately I seem to have missed the beginning of this thread,
however I'm assuming its association with Equinox's Cocaine Mummies
prog. recently shown on TV....  After having read your book May. Proph
a few months ago and Hancock's Fingerprints some months before, none
of the progs content came as any real suprise... it only added weight
to the arguement for "Transatlantic Traditions"!
However, there are such deep-seated similarities between the two
civilisations (Egyptian and Mayan) that I can't help but think that
they "re-discovered" each other - hence the travellers being welcomed
with open arms on reaching S.America... could it be that they knew
that there were "others" around the world because they knew of the
great exodus from Atlantis on its destruction and how its peoples
scattered globally?
Otto Muck's book "The Secret of Atlantis" sounds promising and I must
read it - his theories on the "missing land mass" could give more
impetus to the link between S.America and  Africa don't you think?
On another tack... I need to know about the Egyptians sea-going
abilities - can you recommend some sources?  What's the earliest known
record of this ability etc.....
Perhaps Adrian, you feel another book coming on???  I do hope so...
Helen Moorfield, UK
>Adrian G. Gilbert.

mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal) writes:
>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).
	Well, I don't recall the details well, but it seemed to be a
significant discovery she mentioned, so it could be a local inscription in
the Iberian alphabet.
	Thinking about the exact location, she may have said it was somewhere
to the west of the Basque country, so it may well have been a link to the
centre of the peninsula, or the northern part of the centre. (If I remember
my geography correctly.)
	Derek
-- 
Derek Bell  dbell@maths.tcd.ie  WWW: http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~dbell/index.html
	"Donuts - is there _anything_ they can't do?" - Homer Simpson

In article  taranr <> writes:
[deletions]
>=============Bob Tarantino, 10/11/96============
[deletions]
>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?  
You are a bit confused here.  While Egyptian pyramids may have a remarkable
fit, and certainly Incan stone walls were extremely well put together, this is 
not the case for Mesoamerican pyramids.  Go to any site and you'll see that the
pyramids tend to be made of relatively small stones, and they don't show
any incredible fit.  Mesoamericans covered their pyramids with lime plaster to 
give them a smooth finish, without the plaster lots of gaps are visible.  If 
you want to read something about how Mayan pyramids were built and an estimate 
of the labor involved see "How the Maya Built their World, Energetics and 
Ancient Architecture," 1995, Elliot Marc Abrams. Austin: Univ. of Texas Press.
>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
The wheel was  not unknown in Mesoamerican cultures.  Toys with wheels on them
have been recovered from sites such as Teotihuacan - proving that Mesoamerican
peoples were aware of the wheel.  They don't, however, appear to have used the 
wheel for daily transport.  It has been argued that the reasons for this lie
with the nature of the topography in Mesoamerica and the lack of beasts of 
burden that in general rendered the wheel of little utility.
Peter van Rossum
PMV100@PSU.EDU

On this subject, there is a book that may be of interest: _El Libro Maya
de Los Muertos_, by Paul Arnold (Mexico, D.F.: Editorial Diana, 1986, 3a
Impresion), 219 pages.  "Apendice II" (pp.135-138) is entitled, "La
escritura maya y la escritura china arcaica".  Additionally, there are
graphic presentations of both Mayan and Chinese characters.
Paul Newfield 

whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>The more I look at the different systems the more struck I am by
>the idea of there having been logos, much like modern corporate 
>logos, associated with different groups of people.
I don't know what you mean by "the different systems", but yes
logos were used, as they are used now, in isolation or mixed with
"text".
>>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 way the terms are usually illustrated is:
pictograph: O = "sun"
ideograph:  O = "day"
phonetic:   O = "son"
>> 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?
They are not pictographs!  The Egyptian inscriptions and texts are not
stories about a vulture that got kicked in the mouth by a horned
adder.  Most of the signs are phonetic and represent sounds/syllables,
others are ideographic/determiners, and only a few are pictographic.
>I am not so much interested in the writing, as in the symbols.
A legitimate interest.  But let's keep the two clearly separate.
Logos are logos and text is text.  There are areas where the two
overlap (e.g. the Hittites using the "logo" SCEPTER for their
country), but in general it's an easy distinction to make.
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal                     ~ ~
Amsterdam                   _____________  ~ ~
mcv@pi.net                 |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig

"Alan M. Dunsmuir"  wrote:
>In article <53llo0$5dp@shore.shore.net>, Steve Whittet
> writes
>>In that sense, architects like Michael Ventris who work with
>>drawings covered with symbols as a shorthand way of identifying
>>commonly used materials and components, have something of an
>>edge in following the development of glyphs.
>Michael Ventris' triumph lay in taking a set of symbols, treating them
>in an entirely abstract fashion unassociated with any visual indications
>(he actually referred to them by an arbitrary numeric code value, based
>on their location on his projected syllabary grid) and allocating
>syllabic sound values to them by means of inspired inductive reasoning,
>based primarily on his knowledge of the morphology and syntax of
>classical Greek.
I beg to differ.  This is not how John Chadwick tells the story.
"If we ask what were the special qualities that made possible his
achievement, we can point to his capacity for infinite pains, his
powers of concentration, his meticulous accuracy, his beautiful
draughtmanship [..] He himself layed stress on the visual approach to
the problem; he made himself so familiar with the visual aspect of the
texts that large sections were imprinted on his mind simply as visual
patterns, long before the decipherment gave them meaning.  But a
merely photographic memory was not enough, and it was here that his
architectural training came to his aid.  The architect's eyes see in a
building not a mere facade, a jumble of ornamental and structural
features; it looks beneath the appearance and distinguishes the
significant parts of the pattern [..]"
Now this is in Chapter I, where Chadwick pays tribute to the man
Ventris, and a litle exaggeration is quite acceptable.
As to the grids: "In the later Work Notes Ventris used in his
discussion the actual signs of the Linear B script, in a normalized
form and beautifully drawn in his on hand [..]  In this book, I have
reluctantly decided not to follow this practice [..] for two good
reasons: the difficulty of printing Minoan characters -- no
satisfactory fount of type yet exists for them [and other obsolete
technical reasons]; and also the difficulty that most readers would
find in identifying signs in a wholly unfamiliar script [..] I am
therefore going to substitute for the signs the numbers that are now
conventionally applied to them"
Chadwick further states that Ventris earlier had experimented
unsuccessfully with an "alphabetic" transcription.  He also remarks
that one of the errors in "Evidence" (the article by Ventris and
Chadwick where the decipherment was revealed) that hindered acceptance
of the discovery, was that in their samples of Linear B text they used
the syllabic values directly instead of the Minoan signs themselves
(again for technical and economic reasons).  
As to Ventris' knowledge of Classical Greek, Chadwick was initially
"hired" by him to make up for his own deficiencies in that area,
although, as Chadwick puts it: "This phase of our co-operation did not
last long, for in an amazingly short time Ventris had mastered the
details of Greek philology for himself". 
>His architectural training would have assisted him in drawing nice
>parallel lines for his grids
Yes, that too :-)
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal                     ~ ~
Amsterdam                   _____________  ~ ~
mcv@pi.net                 |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig

Jiri Mruzek  wrote:
>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 there were only three big pyramids in Egypt, any alignment would be
remarkable.  But there aren't only three big pyramids in Egypt.  And
nothing else seems to line up properly.
Stella Nemeth
s.nemeth@ix.netcom.com

Eliyehowah wrote:
> 
> Innocent huh?
> So would you suggest Nazi archeological teams sent to investigate
> Aztec remains, while Aztec descendents can be sent to Germany to investigate supposed Jewish graves?
> 
>
May I suggest that you guys read a book entitled, "Fingerprints of the
Gods" by Graham Hancock.

Greg Reeder  wrote:
>qa67@dial.pipex.com (Derek Gow) wrote:
>>A few months ago I read a book by Wilbur Smith called River God.
>>Without going into the story, It made reference to a Pharaoh called
>>Mamose. and scrolls discovered in the wall of a tomb.  Can anyone
>>tell if they have heard anything about this, or where there is
>>information about the scrolls.
>It is a novel. It is not true.
It is a novel and it is not true.  You stated that, and I agree with
it.  However, I've stood in the shoes of the original poster and I
know just how frustrating it is to read a novel and to wonder just how
much of it is based on fact.  I haven't read this book so I can't help
him.
So, a few questions, reposted in the original poster's behalf:
Was there a pharaoh who would have been called "Mamose"?  Pharaohs
tend to have all these extra names that only the experts can keep
track of.  
Is that book based on historical record at all?  Books about King
Henry VIII tend to stick to the historical record.  I'm currently
reading a series of novels about Tutankhamon's court, and although a
lot of the characters lived only in the mind of the author, the
details seem remarkably accurate to me.  I've had more than one flash
of "Oh, yes! That is how it must have looked when it was new!"
experience with the series I'm reading.  Is it true of "River God"
too?  (I doubt it.  I remember picking it up, reading a page or two
and putting it down again.  I just am not sure if it was the quality
of the writing that caused that or some historical glitch I couldn't
deal with on those couple of pages.)
One of the reasons I'm trying to get these questions answered is that
I spent more than a decade trying to find out if the theory in a novel
about Scotland, written by an author who's historical judgment I had
good reason to respect, was just her idea or a general theory held by
historians.  It turned out that it was just her idea (although a
pretty interesting one) and some kind soul on the Internet was my only
sourse for settling the issue.  Some sorts of kindness you can only
repay by passing it on to the next person who needs help.
Stella Nemeth
s.nemeth@ix.netcom.com

Thanks for visiting the site!

whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>In article <53lsqd$hn0@halley.pi.net>, mcv@pi.netÁ says...
>>
>>whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>>
>>>Now whats really interesting is that somewhere around the 1st 
>>>millenium BC people began putting their horses in their boats 
>>
>>Interesting.  I have never read anything about horses on boats [or
>>boats on horses], except indirectly, e.g. the Spanish bringing horses
>>to America.  Who started doing this, and what evidence is there for
>>it?
>It was a common practice of the Greeks who carved horses on the stems
>of their boats so frequently that they became known as Hipparion and
>of course the Vikings also took horses. 
The Greeks, of course.
>The Phoenicians and Carthagineans (who were into oneupmanship) 
>apparently preferred to take elephants.
It was my understanding that Hannibal took the elephants
across the Alps, by the land route, precisely because of the
difficulties of marine travel.
>>>so they could both trade and pillage...thus merging business
>>>and politics and inventing modern western civilization as we
>>>know it.
>>
>>A fine comment on western civilization.
>I was just trying to be polite...
No really, the Greeks are the inventors of Western civilization
precisely because they did merge politics (in the wider, von
Clausewitzan, sense) and trade in a neat package.  The polis serves
the interests of the merchant, the merchant serves the interests of
the polis, and everybody's happy (except the politely pillaged).
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal                     ~ ~
Amsterdam                   _____________  ~ ~
mcv@pi.net                 |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig

In addition to the backbone and foot mummified in the third dynasty style
found in the crypt sealed with the granite plug mentioned by Greg Reeder,
three other bodies were found, two women and a child, also of the third
dynasty mummification style. The women were disturbed burials while the
elaborately made "plywood" coffin of the child was sealed and intact in
one of the chambers sealed by the expansion of the the original mastaba.
Also the sixth dynasty pyramid of Merenre contained his body, the oldest
complete pharaonic mummy still in existence.
Just because the bodies have been looted from the burials hardly dismisses
the fact that pyramids were in fact tombs. The lower crypt of the Great
Pyramid, abandoned before it's construction was complete is just another
example burial crypts which have antecedents going back to the mastabas of
the second dynasty kings at Abydos.
Al Berens
Suredesign = Al Berens

piotrm@umich.edu (Piotr Michalowski) wrote:
>Right.  I am curious, since I know little about Hrozny's life, if he really 
>was a professor at the University of Vienna (this is not a trick question).  
>Hrozny was Czech, and I thought that he taught at Charles University in 
>Prague.
***That latter is what the book mentionned below says: "professor of
oriental languages and history" 
  I could be wrong, however.  Just as an aside, after he made a name 
>for himself by figuring out Hittite, he bacame obsessed with it and tried to 
>read every known unread script as Hittite, including the Cretan and Indus 
>Valley texts.  It was all rather sad.  He wrote a history book that was based 
>on such things which I once had and it was really quite crazy.  We prefer to 
>remember him for his excellent early work in Assyriology and Hittitology.
**Amen to the latter. The book you are refering to is "Ancient History
of Western Asia, India and Crete" (no date or ISBN given).
 'Crazy' is such a nasty word - I would prefer  'a bit peculiar', by
his obsession to see Hittites everywhere. Sad? Perhaps.
I bought the book in a second hand sale; still, for the price it's
nice to have, as it is loaded with nice fotographs of archeological 
items. But yes, do not buy it for the text :)
Aayko

Saida  wrote:
Troy answered most of your questions (names etc)
The point is:  all scolars after Budge unquestionally  go for Ramses
II. So my post merely wanted  to warn you for basing opinions on
outdated literature.
Next to Lichtheim and the references she gives, I was basing myself on
an article of a Dutch archaeological magazine (Ex Oriente Lux,
Jaarbericht 10), which has a whole article about the stele -
unfortunately in Dutch.  It says that after the discovery, the idea
of 'a histroical stele of the time of Ramses XII' was held for some
time, untill 'unquestionally proven' to be a  forgery of late date, by
Erman "Die Bentreschstele" in ZäS 21, 1883, page 55 e.v.
>> ***A person with the name Thotemheb actually really lived during
>> Ramses ii 's reign - fact 2
>Interesting.  Where is it attested and what was this person's function?
I don't know;  he is a mere footnote in Lichtheim's translation of the
text, without further reference.
>> ***You are quoting the tradition of Hecataeus, which as said is no
>> history. But his text is interesting, as it shows a contemporous clue
>> as to the origin of the name Bechten, like you say below. Of course
>> Bactria was a toponym not known in Ramses' time, only after the
>> Persian time. Thus showing the forgery again. The scribe just picked
>> the farest location he had heard of in HIS time - some eastern Perzian
>> province; even messing up the name -  fiction 5
>Hecataeus is no more liar than Herodotus.  Or maybe even less.
***He was not the liar, his egyptian tourist guides were, who wanted
to impress a foreigner....!
>> **The name Bentresh is thought enigmatic, and judged Aramaic in form.
>Meaning what?
***Nothing, just that the name is enigmatic.
And likely arose in the perzian time (when Aramaic was the common
language in the NE), not in Ramses II 's time
And of course that it is not Bactrian cq. Afganistian...:) 
>> You suggest:  'Daughter of Tresh'
>> The latter then should rather be a god's name rather than a father's
>> name. I know of none.
>God?  What god?
***Don't know. You said that Tresh was her father's name; but I would
point out that in those days, the parents name was never included in
the  name of a person  (I know of none, which doesn't say much), and
that the term 'son'/'dochter' was generally followed by a god's name.
F.e.: Benhaddad. That's all.
>If Budge didn't, why should I???  
**O, that's never a good mind setting. It should be 'if others say
jump!, why should i jump?!'. But again the point was: Budge is
outdated. Of course all after him could be wrong. But in this case,
all the evidence seem to show otherwise.
 kind regards,
 Aayko

Saida  wrote:
>Piotyr wrote:
>(a big snip of personal attack)
>>  It will be
>> foir nought, as it will have no influence on any serious any thinking about
>> anything, but it will continue to obstruct serious discussion on
>> the internet.   Fortunately, there are more important forums for
>> such matters, and they will not be made obsolete by the
>> internet, as that has definitely been taken over by the
>> patients.  Its is all a sad waste of time.
>Piotyr, it is you who ought to "blush with shame" for writing such 
>words.  Why is it you boys in here have such a penchant for personal 
>attacks?  Too much testosterone?  As I know you lump me with the 
>"patients" to which you refer and that "we are running" the institution, 
>let me give you a little medical advice for the sake of your own mental 
>health:  Open up the windows of your mind and let in a little fresh air! 
>This is not your internet.  You do not have the right to determine who 
>can or cannot voice his or her opinions here.  What you can do (and 
>obviously do not choose to do) is, when you see someone's name on a post 
>whose ideas you have in the past found repugnant or otherwise contrary 
>to the opinions you, yourself, hold dear, JUST DON'T READ THE POST.  Or, 
>if you cannot contain your curiosity and must take a look, just sigh 
>deeply and go on to the next.  It's as easy as that.  On the other hand, 
>Piotyr, can't you just view us all as one big family, "patients" and 
>whatnot?  Come on, it's all kind of interesting and what would you guys 
>do without the excitement of getting riled by people like Steve or 
>myself?
I fully agree with you here, Saida!.The name calling level in
newsgroups like this never ceases to disgust me. 
And i also fully agree with your last line :) I've never ever agreed
with Steve on any single detail, i think, but I love him for provoking
often interesting debates on a very wide variety of subjects. And the
same goes for you, who has trickered some of the more interesting
threads of last months.  So thank you Steve and Saida. And I'm not
being sarcastically here! Perhaps i may only ask of you two to take
a glance at the section below.
regards,
Aayko
PS:Seeing the linguistic debates lately, perhaps i may write down in
my own words some basics from Ruhl's 'A guide to the world's
languages', Ch1:
A Languages belong to one 'genetically' related group if they  are
more closely related to the members of that group than to any language
outside that group.
[That's why Egyptian belongs to the  Afro-Asiatic group, even *IF* it
had some IE words]
B Sound resemblances between languages can point to a genetical
realationship between those languages, but before that conclusion may
be drawn one must rule out these other explanations:
1. Chance
As there are a limited amount of sounds, there is always a chance of
similar words, even with similar meanings, in nonrelated languages. 
The conclusion 'chance' must be drawn if such similarities are
isolates, and there are no historical possibilities for borrowing .
2.Sound symbolism
There is a very small group of words that have a intrinsic human 
relation between sound and meaning, and therefor occure worldwide. 
Prime examples are 'mama' and 'dadda/pappa'.
[We have seen these pass by in the newsgroup]
3. Borrowing
These are words borrowed by contacts, and can be detremined by
these rules:
a- they are restricted to a limited semantic domain, notably names of
previously unknown cultural items that are imported via trade
[The Egyptian and Arabic words in English are of this category]
b- they are restricted to a limited grammatical domain, namely nouns
rather than verbs, and rarely inflectional or derivational affixes. 
c- basic vocabulary, like pronouns or names for body parts, is fairly
resistant to borrowing. 
d- very importantly: if a language X is related to language A, then X
must also be related to languages B and C that belong to the same
group as A. If the similarities ONLY occure between X and A, than it
is rather a case of heavy borrowing.
[English has an enormous amount of French words, but still it is a
Germanic language, not a Roman one; as English otherwise is much more
closer to Dutch and German than it is to Italian or Spanish; so all
the Roman words in English must be borrowings from French.]
The Egyptian words in European languages are a prime example of 
B3, so conclusion A (Egyptian and English are somehow genetically
related] may NOT be drawn.

Or that the ditch was temporarily filled and then cleared once again.
Never seen that happen in modern constructions have you?
Suredesign = Al Berens

In article , Dominic Green
 writes:
>
>It has long been fashionable in Archaeological Circles to accuse the
>Aztecs of Human Sacrifice and Cannibalism.  However, I intend to prove
>beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Aztec Race were a peaceful nation of
>Vegetarian Family Persons who never so much as Sucked a Goat in Anger.
>
>Let us consider the arguments of the Nasty Aztec School of Thinking:
>
>
>
     Great job Dominic!!!!!!!!!!!!   Don't we just luuuve a person with a
sense of humor?
I detect a very large tongue in a very large cheek. There should have been
a smiley 
face at the end of every line.
                                 W.  .F. Van Houten
                     What evil shadows in the hearts of men ?
                                   The Lurker knows!

Rodney Small wrote:
> 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?
Look at what Petrie had to say.  This is an argument
*for* the jeweled drills:
     "On the granite core, broken from a drill-hole (No. 7),
other features appear, which also can only be explained by the
use of fixed jewel points. Firstly, the grooves which run around
it form a regular spiral, with no more interruption or waviness
than is necessarily produced by the variations in the component
crystals; this spiral is truly symmetrical with the axis of the
core.  In one part a groove can be traced, with scarcely an
interruption, for a length of four turns. Secondly, the grooves
are as deep in the quartz as in the adjacent felspar, and even
rather deeper. If these were in any way produced by loose powder,
they would be shallower in the harder substance--quartz; whereas
a fixed jewel point would be compelled to plough to the same
depth in all the components; and further, inasmuch as the quartz
stands out slightly beyond the felspar (owing to the latter being
worn by general rubbing), the groove was thus left even less in
depth on the felspar than on the quartz. Thus, even if specimens
with similarly deep grooves would be produced by a loose powder,
the special features of this core would still show that fixed
cutting points were the means here employed."
The groove is scribed to an identical circumference
around the core through all the mineral grains. As the 
quartz grains stick out slightly further the mark is 
*apparently* scribed deeper in them.  This can be explained 
two ways: feldspar grains ground down more (i.e., they are
recessed compared to the quartz) than the quartz
prior to scribing the mark or after. Prior: from 
rubbing by the ground up material caught between the drill 
from the initial drilling which would preferentially grind 
down the micas and feldspars as the ground up granitic 
material would contain quartz which could wear away the softer 
feldspars and micas easier than the quartz which has the same 
hardness.  This would leave the feldspars slightly lower than
the quartz grains which would allow the reaming tool or new 
drill which I suggested may be responsible for scribing the 
mark.  This was partially why I suggested the reaming tool or 
new drillbit.  After: the mark gets scribed and the core is 
rubbed with quartz sand afterwards.  It is rubbed enough to 
wear down the feldspars slightly (but not the quartz) and is 
not rubbed enough to not removed the scribed mark.  I don't 
like this idea much as it makes you wonder why someone would 
start to smooth/polish something but not do it enough to remove 
a mark scored into the core. 
> 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".
Then you should have more incentive to perform the testing.
As no one else seems to have a problem with Petrie's exlanation 
and you are questioning the hypothesis, what is preventing you 
from testing the hypothesis? 
Regards,
August Matthusen

To Steve Berlant: Thanks for the comments on Persephone's pomegranates.
Actually in Sicily, Sicania, Carthage, etc, we find Persephone's date
palm trees as a symbol of the fruitful earth mother. Any pineapples?
Note that the Carthaginians controlled the Straits of Gibralter until
the establishment of the Roman Empire. See

 -=> Quoting Stella Nemeth to All <=-
 SN> I said the removal of the lid.  I said nothing about stealing the lid.
 SN> It could have been cleaned up by a neat freak sometime in the last few
 SN> centuries.  It could have been broken up and taken as momentos of a
 SN> 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? 
 SN> People collect the oddest things.
 Allow me to suggest that the lid was plated with hammered gold.
 Sort of like the Ark containing the tablets of the Lord that the Jews
 carried through the desert.
 While it is possible to scrape off most of the metal covering in a
 cramped space illuminated by only a few torches, the more expedient
 method would be to break up the lid and haul the pieces away.
 A thorough pounding would result in a gravelly mass from which gold
 could be panned.
 .... Wasn't there a gold mask of Tut on his sarcophagus ?
 HILL
... 12  Current Day, as in 20

August Matthusen wrote:
> 
> Rodney Small wrote:
> 
> > 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?
> 
> Look at what Petrie had to say.  This is an argument
> *for* the jeweled drills:
> 
>      "On the granite core, broken from a drill-hole (No. 7),
> other features appear, which also can only be explained by the
> use of fixed jewel points. Firstly, the grooves which run around
> it form a regular spiral, with no more interruption or waviness
> than is necessarily produced by the variations in the component
> crystals; this spiral is truly symmetrical with the axis of the
> core.  In one part a groove can be traced, with scarcely an
> interruption, for a length of four turns. Secondly, the grooves
> are as deep in the quartz as in the adjacent felspar, and even
> rather deeper. If these were in any way produced by loose powder,
> they would be shallower in the harder substance--quartz; whereas
> a fixed jewel point would be compelled to plough to the same
> depth in all the components; and further, inasmuch as the quartz
> stands out slightly beyond the felspar (owing to the latter being
> worn by general rubbing), the groove was thus left even less in
> depth on the felspar than on the quartz. Thus, even if specimens
> with similarly deep grooves would be produced by a loose powder,
> the special features of this core would still show that fixed
> cutting points were the means here employed."
What Petrie is saying here is that in terms of 19th Century technology, 
only fixed jewel points can be taken seriously -- loose poweder makes no 
sense.  But if Petrie were examining this core today, might he not 
believe that ultrasonic drilling better explained the groove?
> The groove is scribed to an identical circumference
> around the core through all the mineral grains. As the
> quartz grains stick out slightly further the mark is
> *apparently* scribed deeper in them.  This can be explained
> two ways: feldspar grains ground down more (i.e., they are
> recessed compared to the quartz) than the quartz
> prior to scribing the mark or after. Prior: from
> rubbing by the ground up material caught between the drill
> from the initial drilling which would preferentially grind
> down the micas and feldspars as the ground up granitic
> material would contain quartz which could wear away the softer
> feldspars and micas easier than the quartz which has the same
> hardness.  This would leave the feldspars slightly lower than
> the quartz grains which would allow the reaming tool or new
> drill which I suggested may be responsible for scribing the
> mark.  This was partially why I suggested the reaming tool or
> new drillbit.  After: the mark gets scribed and the core is
> rubbed with quartz sand afterwards.  It is rubbed enough to
> wear down the feldspars slightly (but not the quartz) and is
> not rubbed enough to not removed the scribed mark.  I don't
> like this idea much as it makes you wonder why someone would
> start to smooth/polish something but not do it enough to remove
> a mark scored into the core.
Interesting hypotheses.  Again, thanks very much for giving this subject 
some serious thought, but the true test would be duplicating the core.  
> > 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".
> 
> Then you should have more incentive to perform the testing.
> As no one else seems to have a problem with Petrie's exlanation
> and you are questioning the hypothesis, what is preventing you
> from testing the hypothesis?
> 
> Regards,
> August Matthusen
I have a lot of incentive, but as an economist rather than an 
archaeologist, probably not the expertise (Economists are terrific in the 
abstract, but not in the concrete, not to mention the granite).  I mean, 
if I fail to duplicate the core, would anyone on this board be convinced 
that it can't be done?  However, I would be happy to assist an 
archaeologist (or perhaps a non-archaeologist who is knowledgeable about 
drilling techniques)  Anyone game?

Jiri Mruzek  wrote:
>Stella Nemeth wrote:
>> 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.
Flexible glass?  Non-rusting weapons?  Super-accurate maps?  Secrets
of magic?
....[sigh]...
When glass is hot enough it flows.
Bronze weapons don't rust the way iron ones do.
What super-accurate maps?  I've never seen any from ancient times.
Secrets of magic?  Well, the Egyptians did do brain surgery.
What evidence?
Stella Nemeth
s.nemeth@ix.netcom.com

mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal) wrote:
>whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>>The Phoenicians and Carthagineans (who were into oneupmanship) 
>>apparently preferred to take elephants.
>It was my understanding that Hannibal took the elephants
>across the Alps, by the land route, precisely because of the
>difficulties of marine travel.
A question just occurred to me.  How did Hannibal get the elephants
onto the European continent so he could cross the Alps in the first
place?  
Stella Nemeth
s.nemeth@ix.netcom.com

For those who have inquired:
the site address is:
http://www.fragments.gosite.com

For anyone with an interest in classical history, books on ancient art,
and antiquities, we kindly extend an invitation to visit the new Fragments
of Time site located at:
http://www.fragments.gosite.com

Rodney Small wrote:
> 
> August Matthusen wrote:
> >
> > Rodney Small wrote:
> >
> > > 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?
> >
> > Look at what Petrie had to say.  This is an argument
> > *for* the jeweled drills:
> >
> >      "On the granite core, broken from a drill-hole (No. 7),
> > other features appear, which also can only be explained by the
> > use of fixed jewel points. Firstly, the grooves which run around
> > it form a regular spiral, with no more interruption or waviness
> > than is necessarily produced by the variations in the component
> > crystals; this spiral is truly symmetrical with the axis of the
> > core.  In one part a groove can be traced, with scarcely an
> > interruption, for a length of four turns. Secondly, the grooves
> > are as deep in the quartz as in the adjacent felspar, and even
> > rather deeper. If these were in any way produced by loose powder,
> > they would be shallower in the harder substance--quartz; whereas
> > a fixed jewel point would be compelled to plough to the same
> > depth in all the components; and further, inasmuch as the quartz
> > stands out slightly beyond the felspar (owing to the latter being
> > worn by general rubbing), the groove was thus left even less in
> > depth on the felspar than on the quartz. Thus, even if specimens
> > with similarly deep grooves would be produced by a loose powder,
> > the special features of this core would still show that fixed
> > cutting points were the means here employed."
> 
> What Petrie is saying here is that in terms of 19th Century technology,
> only fixed jewel points can be taken seriously -- loose poweder makes no
> sense.  But if Petrie were examining this core today, might he not
> believe that ultrasonic drilling better explained the groove?
I don't even understand how ultrasonic drilling explains 
the groove.  Are you going to transcribe some of Dunn's article?  
I'd like to see it.
As for Petrie's explanation re the loose powder, rub a harder 
mineral on a softer one--the harder one powders the softer one
or causes it to chip. 
As the drill bit incises into the rock being drilled, the 
harder minerals in the drill bit (jewels per Petrie but 
harder minerals would do as well in a drill bit) powder the 
softer rock being drilled.  Modern drill rigs flush out the 
chips and powdered rock out of the hole by the use of fluids 
under pressure: air, air mist, water, or drilling mud (bentonite).  
I doubt the Egyptians had drill rigs capable of this, so 
the powdered rock and small chips probably inpacted behind the 
drill bit as it advanced until the drill bit was so inpacted 
that it had to be pulled from the hole and the dust blown 
out of the hole (maybe by a bellows or something like that).  
This impacted dust could very easily contain quartz which 
would preferentially wear away the feldspars and micas as 
the drill bit was turned (or as the rock being drilled was
turned if the drill bit was stationary).
Regards,
August Matthusen

In article <53s7ig$ha8@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, Stella Nemeth
 writes
>A question just occurred to me.  How did Hannibal get the elephants
>onto the European continent so he could cross the Alps in the first
>place?  
Most of Hannibal's early life before his invasion of Italy was spent in
Spain, where Cartagena (Carthage Nova, and still a major naval base in
Murcia Province, SE Spain) was the capital of the Carthaginian Province.
He was married to a Spanish princess, Imilce. The elephants had probably
been imported to Spain at an earlier date, perhaps brought across the
Straits of Gibraltar.
But he chose the land route into Italy, rather than a direct sea route
from either Carthage or Cartagena, because of uncertainties of forcing a
landing in hostile terrotory for his army in general, and for the
elephants in particular.
-- 
Alan M. Dunsmuir

In article <53biud$2qi@ccnet3.ccnet.com>,
   felixm@ccnet.com (David Cloutman) wrote:
> <531doo$j59@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
>Distribution: 
>
>wd&aeMiller; (millerwd@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: I have a rather odd request for someone who speaks Kechua (sp?).
>
>: I am not a specialist in any way in mesoamerican antrhopology, so I
>: figured someone here could answer this question.
>
>: Is this the longest word in the world?
>
>: UKYAYSINAYAWASQAYKIMANTAPACHAPUNTAQSI
>
>I don't speak Kecha, but I do know that Welsh does have longer words. I 
>can't recall the word off the top of my head, but it is a place name and 
>is significantly longer.
We have a fairly long one here in New Zealand : )))
Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamatea(turipukakapikimaungahoronuku)pokaiwhenuak
itanatahu.
This is the name of a hill 1002 ft above sea level in south Hawkes Bay. (It's 
not much of a hill :-))  )
It means  "the hill where Tamatea who circumnavigated lands played upon his 
flute for his lady love"
Some people can stay longer in an hour than others can in a week
gblack@midland.co.nz

>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.
>
>I think the Italian text makes a mistake. Pineapple is now known to be a
>native American plant. 
>
>All the best,
>
>Yuri.
Thanks. Yes, I had a suspicion that it would be something like that.
Regards.
Some people can stay longer in an hour than others can in a week
gblack@midland.co.nz

spryder@sprynet.com (Stephen P Ryder) wrote:
> No need for apologies -- you've made some very enlightening points.  But I 
> suppose the question would then be why were the indians so drastically 
> affected then, but similar outbreaks have rarely (to my knowledge) occurred 
> elsewhere.   
I think conditions may have varied widely in different parts of North
America.  In the PNW entire tribes were wiped out by epidemic disease.
In many cases the problem was that there was absolutely no pool of
immune adults.  Every member of the tribe came down with the disease,
and the care giving system broke down completely.  There was no one
left to gather firewood, fetch water, change bedding and feed the sick.
Mortality approached 100%.  The big epidemics moved through the population
before white settlement, but the big killer was evidently rubella measles,
which also causes distemper in dogs.
-- Larry

"Alan M. Dunsmuir"  wrote:
>In article <53s7ig$ha8@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, Stella Nemeth
> writes
>>A question just occurred to me.  How did Hannibal get the elephants
>>onto the European continent so he could cross the Alps in the first
>>place?  
>Most of Hannibal's early life before his invasion of Italy was spent in
>Spain, where Cartagena (Carthage Nova, and still a major naval base in
>Murcia Province, SE Spain) was the capital of the Carthaginian Province.
>He was married to a Spanish princess, Imilce. The elephants had probably
>been imported to Spain at an earlier date, perhaps brought across the
>Straits of Gibraltar.
You can take a boatload of baby elephants across the Straits easily.
>But he chose the land route into Italy, rather than a direct sea route
>from either Carthage or Cartagena, because of uncertainties of forcing a
>landing in hostile terrotory for his army in general, and for the
>elephants in particular.
There was also an element of surprise involved, I think.
"...fear, elephants and surprise.  Our THREE main weapons are: fear,
elephants, surprise and a ruthless devotion to Tanit... Argh!"
	-- Hannibal meets the Spanish Inquisition.
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal                     ~ ~
Amsterdam                   _____________  ~ ~
mcv@pi.net                 |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig

    > Greg Reeder  wrote:
    > 
    > 
    > >qa67@dial.pipex.com (Derek Gow) wrote:
    > 
    > >>A few months ago I read a book by Wilbur Smith called River God.
    > >>Without going into the story, It made reference to a Pharaoh called
    > >>Mamose. and scrolls discovered in the wall of a tomb.  Can anyone
    > >>tell if they have heard anything about this, or where there is
    > >>information about the scrolls.
    > 
    > >It is a novel. It is not true.
    > 
    > It is a novel and it is not true.  You stated that, and I agree with
    > it.  However, I've stood in the shoes of the original poster and I
    > know just how frustrating it is to read a novel and to wonder just how
    > much of it is based on fact.  I haven't read this book so I can't help
    > him.
    > 
    > So, a few questions, reposted in the original poster's behalf:
    > 
    > Was there a pharaoh who would have been called "Mamose"?  Pharaohs
    > tend to have all these extra names that only the experts can keep
    > track of.  
    > 
    > Is that book based on historical record at all? 
(snip) I remember picking it up, reading a page or two
    > and putting it down again.  I just am not sure if it was the quality
    > of the writing that caused that or some historical glitch I couldn't
    > deal with on those couple of pages.)
    > 
    > Stella Nemeth
    > s.nemeth@ix.netcom.com
    > 
Wilbur Smith seems to do his homework so that fact and fiction can get 
intertwined and the narration can sound convincingly true.  I have read the 
book, and it's certainly a "blood and thunder" narrative - but the character of 
Pharaoh Mamose is based on the first pharaoh of the 18th Dynasty, Ahmose, who 
defeated the Hyksos.  Wilbur Smith's description of how the Egyptians viewed 
the horses and chariots for the first time is well worth reading, for its own 
sake.  Other than Ahmose, all the characters are totally fictitious.  It is 
slightly evocative of ancient Egypt with some accurate descriptions - and he 
throws in a few temples that we know and a few gods for a good mix.  If you 
like an escapist adventure story with an Egyptian flavour, this is for you.
----
Keith Grenville
Cape Town, South Africa

HM wrote:
> 
> solos@enterprise.net (Adrian Gilbert) wrote:
> 
> Unfortunately I seem to have missed the beginning of this thread,
> however I'm assuming its association with Equinox's Cocaine Mummies
> prog. recently shown on TV....  After having read your book May. Proph
> a few months ago and Hancock's Fingerprints some months before, none
> of the progs content came as any real suprise... it only added weight
> to the arguement for "Transatlantic Traditions"!
> 
> However, there are such deep-seated similarities between the two
> civilisations (Egyptian and Mayan) that I can't help but think that
> they "re-discovered" each other - hence the travellers being welcomed
> with open arms on reaching S.America... could it be that they knew
> that there were "others" around the world because they knew of the
> great exodus from Atlantis on its destruction and how its peoples
> scattered globally?
>> Helen Moorfield, UK
> 
> >Adrian G. Gilbert.
For your information, I would recommend checking out some Indian texts
for mention about sea crossings to S.America. The names of the places 
are different (I mean there wasn't a S.America or Brazil etc. back then)
but the definitions of the places and people are identical.
There are a few Indian professors who are investigating the similarities
between Vedic cultures and those of the Mayans and Aztecs. If you recal,
the Natives of the Americas were Polynesian/Asian and migrated across
the Pacific. Why shouldn't they take and evolve a culture as well?
Rgds
-- 
-delash-		delash@cs.man.ac.uk
Internet Lila : http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~pateld

Thnx, Jiri. I just got back on the group after a week offline -- how
frustrating! I'm new at this net stuff.
I'll reply later./
Can anyone tell me how to check back to see if there were any other
responses during the last week? I originally posted on 7 October.
Cheers,   Phil

rejohnsn@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 12 Oct 1996, Aurelius M. wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> But the "Romans" weren't all from Rome.  Many Roman soldiers were local
> enlistees.
> 
The Romans had a quite effective way of decimating the local celtic
population after conquering their areas and to spread people of
different ethnic groups all over their empire. An example is the
roman conquest of the last remaining Celtic regions on the European
continent by Tiberius and Drusus. In 15 BC they conquered the region
between the Alps, Lake of Constance, the Danubia and Bohemia (the
region later called Provincia Raetia), the region next to north Italy! 
In the alpine region there lived the Raetii and north of it the Celtic 
tribes of the Vindelici (see Strabo). It is suposed that after their 
conquest most of the male poulation, able to do military service, were 
sent into distant regions of the roman empire to serve in roman legions
and more than 500 000 Vindelici enslaved. There was not much or nothing
left of the celtic culture. The remaining Celts mixed with the Romans
and later with the Germans (Alamanni) when they conquered this region
200 - 400 years later.
BTW: The region descibed above between now Switzerland and Bohemnia
is the area where the Celtic culture has its roots (Hallstatt and
LaTene)!
Markus

I need informations (and a bibliography, if it's possible) about the
excavations of the european team (leaded by Joachim Bretschneider) in
Tell Beydar.
Thank you very much and...feel free to e-mail me.
Corradino Corbò
c.corbo@mix.it

can ayone help me with a problem with finding coins? I have a new metal
detecter which is very good and has found me some very interesting things.
i live in hampshire, uk where there are very good sites for metal
detecting. behind my house is a civil war battlefield and i have found many
partof guns and bullits but not much else. in a filed not far away i found
something more interesting it is a snall gold coin with a man face with
curly hair it looke very old and i had to polish it a lot to see it
properly but it is very good to have but it is not round properly. now i
have found that there is more of the same inthe are but i have to dig
underneath a large floor to find them. the flooris not very old (made of
concrete) and has a big picture on it make from small bricks but it is
dificult ot dig and to pick up coins on detector. I need to know the
following i) is these coins worth money? if so what is money that i can
get?? my friend says americans like these coins and i need some more a tthe
moment so maybe I could buy a better detecter. ii) can i detect these
better someway? i mena if there is more deeper down i would not know but i
could get a friend to help me dig iii) di i have to give some money to the
farmer when i sell these coins?? is it better to try and melt coins before
selling then the farmer cant say they are his and is it real gold?
yours john
please send me answers if you have some, but not to home because i borrowed
my dads computer today.
can i sell the gun parts as well? is there someone from a museum i could
sell the parts to or maybe the coins as well?? i could look for some of
these parts for you if you want, i am very good at finding old things and i
think i could help a lot, but i can only do this near home where there is a
bus or train. is their also a detecter for other thing that are interesting
like arrowheads? i would like to find more nice things for m colelction but
i can't find them here all the time because they not all metal. i saw on tv
where they find bodies with a machine which is like a metal detecter but
like a lawnmower in size and it makes pictures. would this find arrows and
other things like pots? is it expesive to buy and maybe if i find enough
coins i can buy one?

On 09-Oct-96 23:34:17 Mark Frazier  wrote:
>Caught that show last night on TLC about the supposed
>site south of Mt. Ararat. Does anyone have a URL
>for websites dealing with the facts about the site,
>rather than some quack repeating "This is it, this
>is obviously it"
http://199.190.118.2/ark/noahsark.htm
is the only one I could find in my lists... I think it's about the "site"
you're talking about.
I'm sure our friends over in alt.archaeology would be able to help a bit more
on this one :)
>Also, did anyone notice that in several shots, you could 
>similar (but smaller) structures in the distance? Oh 
>yeah, those must have been the life boats.
Only some of them were/are lifeboats - quite a few are the alien ships that
sank the Ark :)
--
                          Angus Mann, Sydney Australia
                          eMail amann@mail.usyd.edu.au
                       WWW http://www.usyd.edu.au/~amann/
       2D 35 17 4A 78 78 89 05  97 F0 FB 54 1F 26 CF EE (Key on WWW page)
--