Newsgroup sci.archaeology 48506

Directory

On 11-Oct-96 12:10:51 Stella Nemeth  wrote:
>>: "Catyal Hyuk[sic], Turkey goes back to the 7th millenium, Jehrico [sic]
>>: in Palestine, sites with pottery go back to c 10,000 BC and 
>>: sites with plaster floors go back into the Neolithic."
>....[sigh]...
>We've got a grammer problem here.  And a badly written sentence.  But,
Good thing we don't have a grammar problem too, or there'd be trouble...
>This is Usenet guys.  No one does four drafts of every message before
>they post it.
Then why point out a grammar "problem"???
>Stella Nemeth
>s.nemeth@ix.netcom.com
--
                          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)
--

However, absence of evidence _does_ mean that there is no particular reason
to believe in a proposition, unless it is meant to be taken as an item of
faith (which is a fine thing in its place, but not a useful tool of
scientific enquiry).
  And the fact remains that there is nothing to suggest that the Minoan
language was either Semitic or Indo-European (and no, suggested vocabulary
matches don't help, considering the cultural and technological influence of
Semitic speakers in the region. There are plenty of words of Semitic origin
in English. This does not make English a Semitic language), and reasonable
cause in the characteristics inherited by Linear B from Linear A to suggest
that Minoan was very probably not a member of either group.
Baron Szabo  wrote in article
<3251C2A7.6279@iceonline.com>...
> Alan M. Dunsmuir wrote:
> > 
> > Absence of evidence must not be taken as evidence of absence ;-)
> 
> Good man, you're learning!!  (or joking, anyway)   :~p
> 
> -- 
> 
> zoomQuake - A nifty, concise listing of over 200 ancient history links.
>             Copy the linklist page if you want! (do not publish though)
> ----------> http://www.iceonline.com/home/peters5/
> 

In article , Keith Grenville
 writes
>If you 
>like an escapist adventure story with an Egyptian flavour, this is for you.
And I actually preferred the 'historical tale' greatly to "The Seventh
Seal" (?), his follow-up modern-day story about the discovery of the
tomb and the recovery of its contents. 
-- 
Alan M. Dunsmuir

Rick--
I protest!  Leonard & McGlone's newest book is a very useful piece of
mainstream Southwest archaeology.  They've come a long way since that
monograph; why not just let it fade away?  
vale
Mike Skupin

Mike,
There's some confusion here--the newest "book" was PETROGLYPHS OF 
SOUTHEAST COLORADO AND THE OKLAHOMA PANHANDLE By McGlone, Leonard, 
and Barker (Mithras,Inc., 1994) with an introduction by Dr. E. C. 
Krupp of The Griffith Observatory.  The monograph mentioned in the 
title of the post was only released a few weeks ago.
Regards,
Rick 

	Itoo have read this marvelous book and it's sequel
	and I personaly enjoyed them throughly, as too their authenticity
all I can say is that Mr Smith always dose his research to a tee.
	what about the clan of the Cave Bear by Jean Auel for research
skills.
	I hope I can do half as good with my honours degree.
	Sharyn.

On Mon, 14 Oct 1996 06:45:42 +0100, "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.
>
>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.
He chose a land route because he had hopes of persuading Gallic tribes
en route (including in the Po valley) to join him against Rome.  He
avoided the coastal strip because it is often so narrow that a
numerically inferior Roman force could have blocked his advance.
There is no evidence that he even considered an invasion by sea.  Had
he done so then, the superiority of the Punic navy notwithstanding, he
would have had great difficulty in amassing enough transports to move
his men, horses, elephants, equipment and supply by sea while
providing an adequate escort against Roman attack.
>Alan M. Dunsmuir
Paul (pspinks@vegauk.co.uk)

Dear John,
it is clear that you have found an important archaeological site. The
coin may be very old, possibly Iron Age, and the floor sounds like it
might be Roman. Continuing to dig for coins at this site will probably
cause damage. I would urge you not to dig any further and to contact me,
David Hopkins (County Archaeologist 01962 846735). I will be happy to
talk to you about what you have found, and what is the best thing to do
next. (Please do not melt the coins as they are important archaeological
evidence which could tell us much about past inhabitants of the area in
which you live.) I look forward to hearing from you,
 David Hopkins.

fmurray@pobox,com (frank murray) wrote:
>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...
Congratulations, Frank, on your brilliant argumentative technique of telling
lies.  I was going to characterise it in other terms - such as, pretending to
be just a good empiricist, while in fact you're smuggling in unwarranted
theoretical assumptions of your own - but I see from the above that `telling
lies' covers the case quite adequately.
My pragmatic intuitions tell me, Frank, that you're struggling to make some
laboured rhetorical point here.  If you have such a point to make, I suggest
you make it yourself - and do us all the courtesy of making it explicitly.
Or, as a token of the sincerity of your request, and to further the enquiry,
you might provide a list of all cases where sealed sarcophagi have been found
in pyramids at all.  I'm sure a clever man like you, who's read Peirce's `The
Fixation of Belief', will be able to work out what I'm getting at.
Oh, by the way - I wouldn't usually comment on something like this, but could
you please learn to use the shift key?  All lower-case is as irritating an
affectation in a grown man as writing like a sophomore who's just discovered
Cartesian doubt.
Martin Stower

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?
[. . .]
I suggest the first thing we need to do is track down the actual core.  I
guess the Petrie Museum would be the place to start.  I'll make some enquiries,
when I can find the time.
Martin

Martin Stower 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?
> 
> [. . .]
> 
> I suggest the first thing we need to do is track down the actual core.  I
> guess the Petrie Museum would be the place to start.  I'll make some enquiries,
> when I can find the time.
> 
> Martin
Wonderful.  Keep us posted.

August Matthusen wrote:
> 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.
I would like to post Dunn's entire article, but believe that
would be in violation of the copyright laws.  Awhile ago I posted
a request for Dunn's address (either E-mail or surface), but no
one has responded.  However, I think I can post excerpts from
Dunn's article, and here is a relevant excerpt in response to
your question.  Dunn writes:  
"And keep in mind the methods proposed by Petrie -- that is, a
bronze tube set with jewels and sustaining a pressure of 2 to 3
tons as it revolves.
"The fact that the spiral is symmetrical is quite remarkable
considering the proposed method of cutting.  The taper indicates
an increase in the cutting surface area of the drill as it cuts
deeper, hence an increase in resistence.  A uniform feed under
these conditions, using manpower, would be impossible.
"The suggestion that jewels set in bronze could develop the
configurations in the granite does not take into consideration
the following question:  Under several thousand pounds pressure,
which material would offer the most resistence, the granite or
the bronze?  The jewels would undoubtedly work their way into the
softer substance, leaving the granite relatively unscathed after
the attack. Nor does this method explain the groove's being
deeper through the quartz!
"...The most significant detail of the drilled hole is the groove
that is cut deeper through the quartz than the felspar.  Quartz
crystals are employed in the production of ultrasonic sound and,
conversely, are responsive to the influence of vibration in the
ultrasonic ranges -- i.e, they may be made to vibrate at high
frequencies.  In machining granite using ultrasonics, the harder
material would not necessarily offer more resistance as it might
during conventional machining practices.  In fact, an
ultrasonically vibrating tool-bit may find numerous sympathetic
partners while cutting through granite -- embedded in the granite
itself!  Instead of resisting the cutting action, as it would
normally, the quartz could be induced to respond and vibrate in
sympathy with the high frequency waves, and amplify the abrasive
action as the tool cut through it.
"The fact that there is a groove may be explained in several
ways.  An uneven flow of energy may have caused the tool to
oscillate more on one side than the other.  The tool may have
been improperly mounted.  A build-up of abrasive on one side of
the tool may have cut the groove as the tool spiraled into the
granite.
"...The spiral groove can be explained if we consider one of the
methods that is predominantly used to advance machine components
uniformly.  Using a screw and nut method, as shown in
Illustration 7, the tube-drill could be efficiently advanced into
the workpiece by turning the handles(a) in a clockwise direction. 
The screw(b) would gradually thread out the nut(c), forcing the
oscillating drill into the granite.  It would be the
ultrasonically induced motion of the drill that would do the
cutting, and not the rotation -- the latter being used purely to
sustain a cutting action at the workface."

Not to be contentious, but there are a few points that I would like to add.
People who misuse scientific terms to make themselves or their theories
sound more impressive are being dishonest.  They may fool the ignorant
but tend to reveal themselves almost immediately to those who actually
know what the terms mean.
I looked in the OED and found that "paramagnetic" is given only the
technical definition; it is thus most unlikely that it has been taken
from common usage.
There remains the possibility that it is a neologism "para-" + "magnetism,"
meaning something similar to, but different from, magnetism.  Perfectly
legitimate, but almost certain to be misunderstood by the scientifically
knowledgeable who will read it as the technical term.  Reijs' reaction
is not at all atypical.  Those who would use "paramagnetism" in this new
sense need to have some kindly soul take them aside and tell them that
they are shooting themselves in the foot if they wish to be taken seriously
by scientists.  An explicit disclaimer of the technical sense probably
won't do the trick, unfortunately, since the technical term is so
ingrained.  It is probably necessary to create and define a new term.
(But even this may not be sufficient.  Many or most of these writings 
are so plagued by fuzzy reasoning and special pleading that the misuse of
scientific terms is but a minor problem.)
Paul Hughett

In article <53qvch$mop@s02-brighton.pavilion.co.uk>, HM
 writes
>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.
>
>
What's the problem?  Whateverthe answer is to the questions they are
guarnreed unanswerable in detail but most people interested in the
subject know a few things e.g.
a)  Folk from somewhere went to Egypt & they recorded the immigration.
As Egypt is up the end of a long lake the incomers must have known about
the culture and fancied the port in a storm.  There are no records of
influxes elsewhere save for a few people in myth, not record, at a
different time.  There can be no correlation between the influx and the
Siberia meteor for example, or the deluge.
b)  S.A. culture was after the Roman occupation of Egypt according to
debunkers.  So white gods etc. had to come from elsewhere & not even
Vinland/Scandinavia.
c)  All such stories carry reports of flying machines which the Indians
(in India) may have had but they aren't white and the Egyptians didn't &
aren't caucasian either.
d)  The evidence for Atlantis rests on Homer & could be a reference to
the  incomer story/evidence mentioned for a place near Europe.  It is
much more likely that the fabled Atlantis was on the Pacific coast in
Chile & no doubt you've all read the articles re that.  Other sites like
Knossos are silly but there is evidence for habitation, perhaps as the
remnants of the med. peoples replaced by Celts etc., in Portugal and on
various islands like Tenerife - even those way out in the Atlantic but
the people there would not have been white either.
e)  There is much better evidence for the existence of Mu as any witch
will tell you if you ask about the story of The Old Ones.  Mu may have
been along the Maldives ridge & survivors seem to have got as far as the
Gobi desert where the princeling in the painting is white.  This could
be so for earth movement & ice age reasons back then.  Also there is now
evidence for Pan where a people were terracing a valley in Borneo/New
Guinea and draining/irrigating it 9000 years ago.  (Two geographers
found the evidence after some archeologists missed it..
Bye 
-- 
Les Ballard         Les@gates.demon.co.uk
c/o BM: Gates of Annwn
London WC1N 3XX   U.K.       44+(0)1708 670431
Turnpike evaluation. For information, see http://www.turnpike.com/

Rodney Small  wrote:
[. . .]
>Stechinni also says that Cole stated that there was a minor range of 
>uncertainty in locating each original corner position of the Pyramid, as 
>follows: North and East, +- 6 mm at each corner; South, +- 10 mm at the 
>southwest corner and +- 30 mm at the southeast corner; and West, +- 30 mm 
>at each corner.  
[. . .]
>P.S.  The perimeter of the Great Pyramid as measured by Cole is 921,455 
>mm.  That distance is virtually the same as the distance in half a minute 
>of equatorial latitude, which equals 921,455.7 mm.  Coincidence?
You seem to have forgotten those little pluses and minuses here - and perhaps
there should be some attached to the figure for equatorial latitude also.
Given the uncertainty in both figures, I think we can be sure that so close
a coincidence is just that - a coincidence.
How recent is the figure for equatorial latitude?
Martin

Steve Firth  wrote:
>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??
There's a law about coins & tresures that you find with a metal detector
(not detetecter!!) which is the tresure trove law. I cant remeber all
of it at the moment (its a long time since I studied it) but if the
coins are something that somebody hid on purpose, then if you find them
your allowed to keep them. I dont think the farmer is allowed anything
if it isnt his coins. Theres another situation when the coins belong
to the Queen, but I think that's if you find something lost.
The coins are probably not gold, but if they're soft they might be.
(DOn't try to bite them like in the films they could be lead, and
thats poisonous!!)

Dear Steve,
I'm getting closer and closer to actually assuming you don't want to understand
what others write - and prefere reading into their posts whatever you feel like 
- or you really don't understand it. I will try not to go into all the tiny 
details otherwise this post will get too long - I fear itll be quite long-ish 
anyway.
In article <53j30n$t57@shore.shore.net> you wrote:
[...]
: >Slowly, slowly! First you ask the question 'why?' and when you get an answer
: >you fend it off with your preconceived ideas. You just assume that commerce
: >is the sole motivation for everything. But - as we all know - it is not.
: I am making no such assumption, you listed a single cause,
: I listed another. A few more might include climatic change,
: a search for religious freedom, the influence of new technology
: in transportation such as the domestication of the horse and
: the invention of boats.
Recap: we are talking about what makes peoples (! - not people!) migrtate.
To the point: your climatic change is actually included in my original 
argument. History shows that religious freedom caused people to migrate, but 
not peoples. In most cases the people and the rulers are of the same religion 
anyway (in the cases where this did cause a migration of a whole people this 
can be seen as the consequence of forreign occupation - which I had already 
written about). Your transport argument facilitates migration (by individuals 
or whole peoples), but it doesn't cause them. You wouldn't start to migrate 
and cause an onslaught just because your people have now got horses, would you?
: >Commerce doesn't explain the Roman conquest of Gaul or Germany,
: Doesn't it? Gaul and Germany had a lot of raw materials such as
: metal and timber, men for armies and gold to buy them uniforms,
Well whithout occupying Gaul there had not been additional soldiers, so there
would not have been the need to pay for the uniforms..;)
: There was food for Romes cities, grain, meat, cheese, wine, fish,
Nice try, but you beat yourself ;). These were tribal communities who were (at
least in food terms) mainly self supporting and would not necessarily produce
anything on a scale interesting to the Romans. It was the Roman veterans who 
were give a piece of land to cultivate in the provinces. Also, had I lived in 
Rom I wouldn't have wanted to eat Gaulic fish - I certainly would have 
preferred fresh fish. And with wine - hmmm, I don't think the Romans would 
have occupied Gaul for none existent wine. It was the Roman occupying forces 
who started growing wine there.
: Romes armies provided labor to build roads and stockades to secure
: the route.
And how appreciated that was by the locals can be seen by their 'warm welcome'.
The roads were military infrastructure and had initially not much to do with
trade.
[...]
: Rome was sacked 410 by Visigoths and 455 by Vandals. My guess is the 
: Visigoths couldn't keep their mouths shut and the Vandals heard about it...)
That makes it sound like no one knew about it who wasn't living there....
: Sure, they got a free taste of what the city had to offer.
I'm not sure if a city that fell to the enemy in the early middle ages had that
much to offer. Usually the city (in our case Rome) had suffered quite badly. 
Rome was looted by the Barbarians, not completely (otherwise the Barbarini 
couldnt have nicked the golden lettering of the Pantheon), but badly enough.
: Within a few centuries these people were paying tribute to Christian Rome as 
: a part of the Holy Roman Empire and they still are paying tribute to Rome 
: today. Regardless of who controls the city, all roads lead to it.
Now I believe I recall something about Rome actually being presented to the
Vatican (was it Pipin's donation?) so there wasn't a straight hand over.
Anyway, I think were digressing. We were talking about the Turks migrating into
Anatolia and the Turkic people in central Asia being of the same roots, hence
the closely related languages - which you claim is a consequence of the trade
between the two rather than from common ancestry.
[...]
Just summarising a few of your pages (to save band width and stay on the actual 
argument):
If the Mongols charging west is linked to the Tang Dynasties expansion the 
Mongols were pushed - one of the reasons for migration I described a while ago.
You think the new goverment after the sacking of Rome didnt have the power to 
destroy trade - maybe the goverment didnt, but 'vandalism' in a city doesn't 
leave too much in the city that you can trade in (unless you're dealing in 
second hand hastae) - and I believe there is a good reason why rowdy behaviour 
is still referred to as vandalism and not as visigothism.
[...]
: Getting back to the Mongols, a bit more seriously
[long list of dates and which people pushed which other one(s) where snipped]
Nice to see you can copy dates from a history book, but that only fills
bandwidth, and does nothing to persuade people that the Uigurs and Kirgeses
speak a Turkic language because of trade rather than ancestry.
: Now what is it do you think that suddenly makes such long range
: incursions possible?...Could it have been the establishment of
: and battle for control of trade routes do you suppose?
Well quite independent of who pushed the one who pushed the one... pushed the 
Saxons into England, the Avars into Byzantion, etc., we are still curious to 
find out what makes you believe that the Turkic peoples got their common 
language by trade rather than by ancestry. Apart from that I think youll find 
it hard to persuade people here that all these peoples migrated having trading 
in their mind when they felt the lances prick their back sides? They migrated 
to find some other land for themselves, not gold for trade.
[...]
: >and that Djenghis Khan was a merchant would be complete news to everybody.
: Who do you think pays for an emperors armies and why
: do you think they put the money up?
Are you referring to the Chinese emperor? Well, I suppose part of the Mongols
onslaught in the west was them not wanting to pay for the Chinese army....
Can we get back to your adventurous theory about the Turks???
[Stuff about Saddams conquest of Kuwait snipped; I brought it in as a and 
example for a war for trade purposes in order to contrast it to migrations 
in the early middle ages and before]
Lets come back to the actual argument now.
[...]
: >: >>> If you can speak Turkish you can basically talk and understand
: >: >>>all the Turkic peoples between Turkey and West China.
: >: >>That is because of a much later development called the Silk Road
: >: >>which provides a mechanism connecting these peoples together.
: >: >Horseshit. Trade links do NOT produce the remarkable linguistic
: >: >similarities that Mr. Graessmantel had mentioned.
: >: Why not?
: >If they did the whole of the mediterranean should be speaking Latin.
: Romance Languages?
Ahh, I see you have a sense of humour! Of course you know that the Romance
languages were not a result of trading as much as one of the occupation. And
even there we only find Romance languages in but a small portion of the former
Roman empire unless you consider Aramaic, Egyptian, Greek etc. as Romance 
languages??
: >: >Consider Japanese, and how it has acquired numerous words first from
: >: >Chinese,
: >: The Japanese did not trade with the Chinese?
: >You are desperately trying to miss the point.
: No, I just don't like superficial, fire from the hip, analysis.
: >Of course there was trade, but the Japanese don't speake Chinese
: None of them are bilingual?
Again, 5 out of 10 points for humour! The fact the some people still spek Latin
doesn't say anything about the 20th century Vatican trading in a time warp with
1st century Rome. Neither does the fact that some Americans speak German make 
German the native tounge of the Americans.
Steve, we were not talking about individuals speaking a language, we were
talking about whole peoples speaking a language. And if you want to proove your
assertion with the Japanese-Chinese ticket you would have to show, that
Japanese is merely a dialect of Chinese (or vice versa). And in this sense, no,
even if individuals speak both, the Japanese still don't speak Chinese!
: Does this apply also to Mandarin and Cantonese speaking Chinese
: do you think?
Well, here we can say they can read the same texts, but they don't understand
what the other one is saying.
: >- whereas the Turkic peoples speak lanuages which are extremely closely 
: >related, in fact closer than any trade links could have possibly accounted 
: >for.
: Could you explain this in a little more detail, how you establish what degree
: of linguistic relation may be accounted for by trade and which part you put 
: in another column on your ledger?
Well, two peoples (or three as in the example of the Uigurs, Kirgeses and
Turks) of common ancestry would speak related languages, wouldn't they? They
might on top be linked in trade, but the reason for the 'linguistic relation'
lies clearly somwhere else. In cases of occupation sometime the winners force
their language onto the losers in battle, but that's usually not by trade, but
by blood.
Languages adopt words from others, mostly because the item described doesn't
have a name in the language.
[...]
: >: Seems to me I see an awful lot of Japanese cars around...?
: >Yes, but you don't greet your boss: conichewa (sp?), do you?
: No, I don't greet my boss at all usually. My daughter on the
: other land just loves to go have sushi with her boss.
Nice one!! You tried to contradict me and accidentally proved my point! Since 
there is no such thing as sushi in Amercan cooking - let alone a word for it 
in the language - your daughter is using a Japanese word for Japanese food. 
This word has found its way into a language, it added to the language, but it 
didn't replace anything! And the word will probably suffer the same fate a 
most borrowed words: bastardisation to comply with the borrowers grammar (e.g. 
plural of vacuum? - vacua in Latin, vacuums in English).
: >: >Yet its basic vocabulary and grammar remain distinct from both --
: >: So? What you have shown is exactly the sort of connection I described
: >: with the aquisition of numerous words and concepts, the degree of
: >: distinction of basic vocabulary and grammar is really not an issue.
Now you've lost all of us in you gymastics of your mind. No-one ever said words
would not be acquired. But new words don't replace old ones, new grammar won't
replace the old grammar by peaceful methods - therefore just this is the issue.
: >Well, the fact that English has an awful lot of Latin words
: >(by whichever way they got in) doesn't make English related
: >to Latin, let alone an Englishman able to understand Latin.
: Actually, you are probably quite right here. Let me see if I follow you 
: correctly. English has no relation to Latin because Englishmen don't 
: understand it. Can we extrapolate from that to say the same is true of 
: American? That it has no relation to English because Englishmen don't 
: understand it?
Hey, you are actually developing a German sense of humour - and tomorrw the
English will beat the French in cooking, and the Italians will goose-step past 
the Forum Romanum!
If your attempt in ridiculing is meant to convince us that American and 
English don't have the same origin (like you claim about the languages of the 
Uigurs and Turks) and any similarities are just a result of it being traded 
with during the days of the empire, I think you'll be stoned to death by your 
fellow Americans for giving the world a bad impression of the American 
educational system.
: >And the languages you claim were merely linked by trade are
: >so close that they understand each other without any difficulties.
: Don't get me wrong here, I would be the last one to claim that
: people understand each other without difficulties. Look at what
: goes on in this group where most of us, presumably, speak the
: same language...:)
Well - following your argument - were obviously not, since Im writing in 
English which you dont understand. Luckily most Americans are bilingual and 
can cope with English quite well. ;>
Maybe it's also a question of the mind set? Also, you're just confusing to 
basic meanings of 'understanding': being able to put a meaning to each single 
word, and being able to make sense of the whole lot. The first is a question 
of knowing a language, the latter a question of intelligence. 
Maybe you should ask your daughter, if there are two seperate words for this in 
Japanese, which we could borrow in order to make our conversation more precise 
- and better understandable.
Here upon I rest my case on you trying not to understand what the hell the 
rest of us are actually trying to tell you.
Ralf
[...]

-- 
guenter kaiser
vorm holz 4 (421)
d-42119 wuppertal
fax:    +492022422474       e-mail: guenter.kaiser@t-online.de
hallo!
is here anyone, who explores 'Roman roads & bridges' in 'gallia'
and 'germania'?
i'm german civil engeneer and interested on any information!
thank you!
guenter

In article <32608441.D51@nic.smsu.edu>, mac566f@nic.smsu.edu says...
>
>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?
Think of it in terms of fonts. How many different fonts can you 
recognize a letter "A" in? Can you recognize it equally well in
both upper and lower case? Can you regognize it equally well in
both block letters and cursive forms? Does it matter if it has
seriphs? What about when it is subject to caligraphy?
> 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?
A pictograph has simplified a concept down to its essentials.
A star represented by a bunch of rays emanating from its center.
A whorl, a lower leg, a bowl, an ear of barley...are simplified 
to the point where it then becomes difficult to abstract away 
from the forms essential shape. How would you abstract a circle,
square or triangle away from their essential shapes?
>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.
I am not talking Rosarch ink blots here. What I am looking for is
the same sort of evolutionary characteristics which we use to
identify fossils and tell what kingdom, phylum...species we are
looking at.
The Roman Alphabet evolved from the Greek Alphabet,
the Greek Alphabet evolved from the Phoenician and so forth. Along
the way there is a lot of borrowing back and forth with other scripts,
but it is possible to trace the forms back and recognize their points
of origin.
>
>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.
Cuneiform begins to become unrecognizably abstract to the layman
c 2400 BC. A person who has been told that the signs generally 
have resolved curves into straight ligns and been rotated through
90 degrees can still pick out a good number of the originial images.
>
>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.
I think John Halloran has actually put these on a page.
> 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?
All the signs which everyone gets right should generally be considered
pictographs. If more than 10% are pictographic, I would be encouraged
to look further. There is a good probability the script is pictographic.
>My own guess is that neither of us, nor anyone reading this newsgroup, 
>could correctly pick more than a few dozen.
A few dozen would do it for me. I would call the scripts I see used
at the time of Sargon pictographic. The fact that I don't recognize 
all the pictures right away might mean I would have to invest some 
time to match the right images to the right pictures, but I would
consider that possible.
> Knowing full well that I would fail such a test,
>I characterize Sargonic cuneiform as abstract rather than pictographic.
So one of us sees the glass of water as half empty and the other 
sees it as half full.
>
>> >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. 
I think you gave it a good shot in your thought experiment, but
what we are forgetting is the pictorial vocabulary of a Sumerian
may have included some logo"s identifiable to everyone c 2400 BC
but lacking any meaning to us.
>
>> > 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.
You can identify enough, star, leg, bowl, grain, to suggest they
are pictures. Now what you need to do is look at other sources
of about the same time for similar forms. Gardiners Grammar of
Hieroglyphic Egyptian and Faulkners Middle Egyptian Dictionary
are useful in this regard.
> ...snip...
>> 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? 
If it matches exactly it matches exactly. That is the first level
at which even a cursory comparison pays off, for there are several
such exact matches.
> 
>> >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.
You need to look more closely.
>> 
>> 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.
It would help if more people were familiar with the sorts of 
god/city god/city/logos seen on the kuderuus.
>
>> >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.
Isn't the stratigraphic association of the PD with Linear A worth
following up on?
>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,
Not at all. It's enough to speculate but by no means enough to conclude.
1.) The PD inscription has some 45 glyphs. Thats one seventh of the total
number of glyphs you earlier mentioned for the Sargon era Sumerian. All
of the glyphs on the PD are used in a similar context.
2.) One problem with translating such an artifact is the assumption that
it must be writing. Suppose it were using the glyphs it has in common
with the kuderuus in the same way they use their glyphs, how would that
effect its decipherment?
3.) The glyphs have a very obvious repetitive pattern. A part of the
decipherment must be dealing with the pattern.
4.) The PD has twelve lines on one side that end with a disk preceeded
by a Peleset head, and just one such line on the other side. Such
patterns need to be addressed in the decipherment.
 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?
An artifact dated to c 1700 BC is terribly close to the 1628 Thera line.
You might well have something which was just starting to develop when
due to circumstances outside the control of the management there was a 
hiatus in business as usual on Crete, and a relocation to the other
side of town, over in Palestine.
>
>Marc Cooper
steve

In article <3259EA14.27D5@utoronto.ca>, t.sagrillo@utoronto.ca says...
>
>Steve Whittet wrote:
>> 
>> In article <3259001B.7D9B@utoronto.ca>, t.sagrillo@utoronto.ca says...
>> >
>> >Steve Whittet wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In article , petrich@netcom.com says...
>> >> ...snip...
>> >> >
>> >> >In article <538g5e$f9e@shore.shore.net>,
>> >> >Steve Whittet  wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>I was thinking of "Ptah r" where "r" is more of a verb
"Ptah r", where "r" is the verb "iri" (make, do, create)
I wrote the verb "iri" as "r" following Gardiner who says 
the verb "iri" is *usually* written "r"
>> >> >
>> >> >Actually, Mr. Whittet shows his ignorance of the structure of the
>> >> >Egyptian language, whose preferred syntax was verb-subject-object.
>> >
>> >And by claming that /r/ is a verb to begin with....
>> 
>> Gardiner page 214 Section 281 Tetiae Infirmae verbs
>> "(iri) make; do; is usually written without the expected phonetic
>> complent (r)"
>> 
>> So...is Gardiners Egyptian Grammar incorrect...?
>
>No, of course not, and this has absolutely *nothing* to do with anything
>other than orthography (writing). Gardiner is referring to the /r/ of 
>/iri/ *not* being **written** as a distinct grapheme but implied in the
>biliteral /ir/ sign (the eye).
No. Gardiner is specifically talking about the verb "iri"
get a copy and read it.
 But you are changing the issue once
>again. you wrote:
>
>"The Egyptians believed that things were created by giving them
>a name "r". Thus the act of creation or naming by Ptah was
>written as "Ptah" "r"."
>
>You did not write "Ptah iri"; you wrote "Ptah r" 
Which is the way "iri" is supposed to be written,
and which given its context you should have assumed.
and then continued:
>
>"I was thinking of "Ptah r" where "r" is more of a verb"
>
>Now which is it? "Ptah r" [Ptah + /r/ mouth] 
Gardiner writes "iri" as "r"; actually using the mouth hieroglyphic
>(which is impossible as /r/ is NOT a verb),
except in the special case of the verb "iri" to make or do,
read the reference.
 or (now) "Ptah iri" [Ptah + /iri/ eye]?? And again I
>ask, where is this text?
I have now cited it twice, this makes three times, I now
have it by memory. Budge BD p 438 rubric 7
>
>Troy
steve

Martin Stower wrote:
> 
> Rodney Small  wrote:
> 
> [. . .]
> 
> >Stechinni also says that Cole stated that there was a minor range of
> >uncertainty in locating each original corner position of the Pyramid, as
> >follows: North and East, +- 6 mm at each corner; South, +- 10 mm at the
> >southwest corner and +- 30 mm at the southeast corner; and West, +- 30 mm
> >at each corner.
> 
> [. . .]
> 
> >P.S.  The perimeter of the Great Pyramid as measured by Cole is 921,455
> >mm.  That distance is virtually the same as the distance in half a minute
> >of equatorial latitude, which equals 921,455.7 mm.  Coincidence?
> 
> You seem to have forgotten those little pluses and minuses here - and perhaps
> there should be some attached to the figure for equatorial latitude also.
I didn't forget the pluses and minuses -- Cole placed pins where he 
believed the corner points of the Great Pyramid were originally, and then 
measured the perimeter.  His measurement showed the perimeter to be 
921,455 mm.  To be sure, there is some slight uncertainty about where the 
corners were, but 921,455 mm has to be taken as the best estimate of the 
Pyramid's original perimeter.
> Given the uncertainty in both figures, I think we can be sure that so close
> a coincidence is just that - a coincidence.
But there are other correlations as well, if you are interested.
> How recent is the figure for equatorial latitude?
> 
> Martin
It's based on the 1964 International Astronomical Union ellipsoid.  To my 
knowledge, the latitude figure has not been updated.

In article <53rdah$gaa@newsbf02.news.aol.com> suredesign@aol.com (Suredesign) writes:
>From: suredesign@aol.com (Suredesign)
>Subject: Re: 2000 tons of rocks at Stonehenge
>Date: 13 Oct 1996 14:44:33 -0400
>Or that the ditch was temporarily filled and then cleared once again.
>Never seen that happen in modern constructions have you?
>Suredesign = Al Berens
Another thing is that the avenue entrance has a lot of post holes and
stone holes.  They are undisturbed.  The rocks were not brought in
through the avenue entrance,.
Plus there were giant megaliths standing in the avenue _ the heele stone
and gateway (slaughter stones) stones plus the two megaliths on the
avenue that predate Stonehenge 111.  The way in that way is blocked.
The archaeologists are all wrong about their NEOLITHIC connections.
Stonehenge is not a neolithic construction made by ancient Britains.
The question is unanswered by the archaeologists.
Norm.

In article <3262542D.6DC2@hants.gov.uk>,
David Hopkins  wrote:
>it is clear that you have found an important archaeological site. The
>coin may be very old, possibly Iron Age, and the floor sounds like it
>might be Roman. Continuing to dig for coins at this site will probably
>cause damage.
i dont think that it is roman becuase it looks very new with some pictures
made of pieces like in the Brooks, maybe it was where someone had a house
and they changed there mind and went somewhere else? i asked at the garage
and the men said there was nothing old around here (Brookwood) and if there
was it was all ploughed up a long time ago so i think maybe it was just
something that was lost so i can keep it?
>I would urge you not to dig any further and to contact me,
>David Hopkins (County Archaeologist 01962 846735). I will be happy to
>talk to you about what you have found, and what is the best thing to do
>next.
will you try to tkae my things away if i call you? perhaps i should ask my
dad first if i can do something with what i found. ihavent told him yet.
john.

On 14 Oct 1996 14:46:46 GMT, Martin Stower 
wrote:
>Congratulations, Frank, on your brilliant argumentative technique of telling
>lies.  I was going to characterise it in other terms - such as, pretending to
>be just a good empiricist, while in fact you're smuggling in unwarranted
>theoretical assumptions of your own - but I see from the above that `telling
>lies' covers the case quite adequately.
ah...martin good to see you've rejoined the conversation, though i'd
hoped that when you did you'd  bring us evidence of other sealed
sarcophagi,  ones that did contain bodies and were found in
pyramids...but alas, not so...instead: a high and nunnish snit...if my
poking a bit of fun at your crusade (and i assure you, i mean that in
a strictly positve sense) to dis-abuse young minds of nonsense, was
taken by you or others as insult, i apologize for such unintended
insult...and if it's comfort to you, i here publicly state that to the
best of my knowledge, i've never seen martin running down any
alleyway, anywhere in the world...
>My pragmatic intuitions tell me, Frank, that you're struggling to make some
>laboured rhetorical point here.  If you have such a point to make, I suggest
>you make it yourself - and do us all the courtesy of making it explicitly.
skip the intuitions; i'll state exactly what i'm doing...i am asking
those who state that the pyramids were built and used as tombs to
present evidence that supports that opinion...more specifically, i'm
asking you, martin stower, since you commented on sek being only one
case of a sealed sarcophagus, found inside a pyramid, being empty, to
furnish a list (it need not be an absolutely complete one, but should
give some indication of the number of such cases that we've evidence
of) of those cases where sarcophagi, containing bodies, were found
still sealed inside of pyramids...i suggest that you do us all the
courtesy of presenting such evidence...if no such evidence exists,
then please so state...
>Oh, by the way - I wouldn't usually comment on something like this, but could
>you please learn to use the shift key?  All lower-case is as irritating an
>affectation in a grown man as writing like a sophomore who's just discovered
>Cartesian doubt.
an incisive and cogent argument for the point of view that the
pyramids were built and used as tombs!!...but might you please put
forth something a bit more evidentiary in nature??....
at wait,
frank

At lease one fleet of Sir Francis Drake has been proven to have
carried plague. Whether this disease was deliberately introduced
into Spanish/Indian society by him appears to be unknown, but
it was quite possible. He was known to have used every tactic
available to him to destroy Spanish and Indian cities and ships.

Rodney Small  writes:
>> Given the uncertainty in both figures, I think we can be sure that so close
>> a coincidence is just that - a coincidence.
>But there are other correlations as well, if you are interested.
Yes there are, dozens and dozens of them, which is why most rational people
are certain they are coincidental.  What you say?  Well look, its a pyramid, 
its shape is exactly defined by two numbers, the length of a base and its 
height for example.  It can thus encode ONLY two numbers.  If you can show 30
numbers correlate to some dimension of the pyramid, we immediately know 28 
of those correlations must be coincidental, and the ability to find so many 
makes the case for the other two pretty weak.
-- 
-- MA Lloyd (malloy00@io.com)

H.V wrote:
> In article <53b08e$pjf@sparcserver.lrz-muenchen.de>,
> sniper@tep.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de says...
> >grooveyou@aol.com (GROOVE YOU) wrote:
>     so for example we know for sure that the Celti were
> >        red-haired, pale white skin and very tall (this at least
> confirmed
> Aren't those traits more characteristic of the germanic tribes of that
> time ? For example. i read somewhere that the typical red hair of the
> Irish isnt't a celtic trait, but rather a scandinavian one, from the
> Viking invasions.
> Another point is this :
> France was known as Gaul, a celtic country. So, i assume that from the
> earliest times, even with the various invasions that have happened,
> most Frenchmen are of "celtic stock". Now, most of them do not have
> red/blond hair with blue eyes. Why ?
> disclaimer : i ask these question simply out of curiosity. I have NO
> political or racialist goals at all. Also, i'm not a specialist of
> anthropology orpopulation genetics, so please forgive any huge mistakes
> i might have made in this post.
Your disclaimer doesn't work all that well, because you are a German,
who is basically asking if it is true that Germanic tribes were the
FAIREST OF THEM ALL. We've heard such talk before.
Anyhow, the answer is no, they weren't.
The largest numbers of Nordic types have always lived within the body
of the Slavonian nations - Croato-Serbs, Czechs and Slovaks, Poles,
and so on, simply because these nations control wider territories.
Just in Russia and Ukraine alone there are as many Nordics, as in
all of Western Europe put together.  So, Russia and Ukraine were, 
and have always been the heart, or Schwerpunkt of the Nordic type's 
territories. Hence, the answer to your question is that those traits
were more characteristic of the Slavonian tribes of that time.
The Nordic type of Cromagnon had probably crystalized in Europe 
during the Aurignacian, and had only begun to differentiate into 
Slavonians and Germanics/Latins after western and central Europe 
became smothered by impassable forests at the end of the last ice-age, 
whereas the lands east of Carpathians had remained mostly open and
passable. All this is like yesterday in genetical evolution.
The Nordic type is not superior to any other types of human. So,
Germans and other Western Europeans should have no problems in 
automatically allowing that Slavonians constitute the majority of 
Nordics, on every available occasion. Yet, this automatic reflex
was/is still hampered by blatant Denial, which ushers in a possibility
of a new Gotterdamerungen.
Since living in North America, I was often querried " So, what part
of Germany are you from?" This question had occurred frequently enough
to entice me into playing a little game of sociological research.
I would reply: "Sorrry, rrong, guess again."
The other party would say "I was just certain you must be from Germany,
being so Nordic. So I guess you must be Dutch?" 
"No".
"Danish, Swedish, Norwegian?"
"No".
" Swiss,Austrian, Finnish?"
"No"
Having gone through the list of north and central European nations,
the southern nations were next, Portuguese, Italians, Spanish. Only 
when all these possibilities were exhausted, I would hear: "Oh, so
you must be Slavic, but, I thought that Slavs were mostly dark-haired,
and brown-eyed. You don't look like a Slav!"
Obviously, these people have been exposed to accounts of Nazi propa-
ganda, presenting Slavonians as derelicts, but haven't been exposed
to films featuring typical Russians, or Ukrainins, kids going home
from school in Poland, lighting green fields like sunflowers with
their hair, or scenes of a Nordic superman in Russian uniform bayo-
netting a short, bushy-browed, old, fat and swarthy pipsqueek like
Himmler, in an SS-uniform. 
In other words, the anti-dote, the necessary counter-propaganda
has never been administered in the West. And I must wonder, if this
has perhaps, been omitted intentionally. Fortunately, this state
of affairs has lately been rectified by television opening windows
onto the world for a lot of people. They see that Pavel Bure, or 
Jana Novotna are just as 100% Nordic as Edberg or Becker, or Graph.
We must wonder if perhaps the old racial myths are the real reason
why the entire ex-Warsaw pact isn't simply integrated into the NATO.
 Anything else seems unnatural. Only when NATO is equally influenced
by both the USA and Russia will there be no chance for World War III.
 Whoever cannot see one Europe stretching from the cliffs of Dover
 to the rusting subs of Vladivostok is criminally shortsighted. 
The defence of Berlin, and Paris begins at the southern borders of
the ex-USSR.
Well, it is about time to undo the old misconceptions. Hoping 
to help a noble cause, I write this post to you mein Freund. 
End this blond-German nonsense. I for one, am fed up with it.
Look around you - half the prostitutes in Munich are probably 
Russian, by now. Aren't they extremely Nordic and good looking?
Hey, don't you feel like being a foreign investor into Russia?
Regards,
Jiri Mruzek - just another Nordic like you..

Paul Hughett (hughett@galton.psycha.upenn.edu) wrote:
: Not to be contentious, but there are a few points that I would like to add.
: People who misuse scientific terms to make themselves or their theories
: sound more impressive are being dishonest.  They may fool the ignorant
: but tend to reveal themselves almost immediately to those who actually
: know what the terms mean.
Your point is well taken but sometimes the people who ask questions about
such terms are those who have been so impressed, and subsequently decided
to investigate for themselves. This is a form of initiative that should be
encouraged.
: I looked in the OED and found that "paramagnetic" is given only the
: technical definition; it is thus most unlikely that it has been taken
: from common usage.
Thank you for looking that up. I don't have an OED (yet) and would have
had to dig out and rummage through my old physics and chemistry texts to 
check the definition, and that still wouldn't have given any indication of
the terms origin.
: There remains the possibility that it is a neologism "para-" + "magnetism,"
: meaning something similar to, but different from, magnetism.  Perfectly
: legitimate, but almost certain to be misunderstood by the scientifically
: knowledgeable who will read it as the technical term.  Reijs' reaction
: is not at all atypical....
Agreed, in fact I am often amazed at the level of forbearance and patience
shown by many on this group. Makes for a refreshing change from the
general background noise. I should apologize for my own lack of patience
in my initial comments, at the very least they should have been more
politely phrased. 
:                     .....Those who would use "paramagnetism" in this new
: sense need to have some kindly soul take them aside and tell them that
: they are shooting themselves in the foot if they wish to be taken seriously
: by scientists.  An explicit disclaimer of the technical sense probably
: won't do the trick, unfortunately, since the technical term is so
: ingrained.  It is probably necessary to create and define a new term.
: (But even this may not be sufficient.  Many or most of these writings 
: are so plagued by fuzzy reasoning and special pleading that the misuse of
: scientific terms is but a minor problem.)
: Paul Hughett
The difficult part is distinguishing between the "knaves" and the "fools",
ie. those who don't care from those who simply don't know.
My impression was that the original poster had heard the term paramagnetic
and mistakenly (possibly by interpreting it as a neologism) thinking it
might provide a mechanism by which lithic structures could act as
antennas, decided to ask here for more information. Such questions should
be answered gently, lest they stop being asked. (the old "no such thing as
a dumb question" thingy)
In terms of archaeology I am very much an armchair amatuer, but have had
enough experience with misunderstood terminology in other fields to know
that very ofteh the source of the problem is that the uninitiated don't
even realize that they're using technical terms, a mistake that should be
corrected (which _was_ done), not ridiculed (which was also done, although
gently).
Brett K. Heath		\ You only can see what you know how to look at 

fmurray@pobox,com (frank murray) wrote:
>On 5 Oct 1996 22:55:16 GMT, Martin Stower 
>wrote:
>
>>fmurray@pobox,com (frank murray) wrote:
>>
>>[Sekhemkhet]
>>
>>>ok...that's one sealed sarcophagus with no body in it, but with
>>>treasure left laying about...that sarcophagus was found in the middle
>>>of a necropolis surrounded by the tombs of lesser officals...
>>
>>That's one sarcophagus in an unfinished pyramid, which seems itself to have
>>been entered and resealed (this from the masonry blocking the passage).
>
>martin, i've browsed your website...your supplying of the facts
>against which one can weigh some of the wild theories of ancient
>doings, that sprout so thickly in the modern mind, is a valuable
>service to the net...perhaps you might perform a similar service here
>by supplying us with facts...would you please list for us all those
>still sealed sarcophagi, that were found within pyramids, and that did
>contain bodies...i'm sure such a list would help us to understand how
>much importance we might place on the finding of the "sekhemkhet"
>sarcophagus...
Frank, my pragmatic intuitions tell me that your request is a merely
rhetorical one.  If you have a point to make, I suggest you make it
yourself, and do us all the courtesy of making it explicitly.
>>The treasure was hardly `left laying around'.
>
>nor did i use the phrase "left laying around"...a keen perusal of the
>compared definitions should indicate why i used the other word...
A keen perusual of the literal quote above - generated by the browser
and indented in the usual way - reveals otherwise; but then again,
perhaps an evil daemon is deceiving me . . . (This latter device, for
which you display an inordinate fondness, I'll call `pregnant ellipsis'.)
A small enough point, but if you're going to play the good empiricist,
I'd suggest paying closer attention to what people have in fact said
- yourself included.
>>Was this unfinished pyramid really surrounded by tombs?
>
>is your intention here to quibble over what percentage of the 360
>degrees surrounding that pyramid is subtended, within some arbitrarily
>defined horizontal distance out from that pyramid, by tombs??
No, of course not.  You made a specific claim:
    . . . [T]hat sarcophagus was found in the middle of a necropolis
    surrounded by the tombs of lesser officals . . .
- echoing what Greg Reeder said about Khufu's pyramid:
    . . . It is in the middle of a necropolis surounded by the the tombs
    of lesser officials. . . .
On a natural reading, you were claiming exactly what you've since denied
you were claiming: that Sekhemkhet's pyramid was surrounded by the tombs
of his lesser officials, just like Khufu's pyramid.  Since the pyramid
was attributed on the sole basis of labelled stone jars found within it,
that struck me as unlikely; I'd guess on the contrary that there are no
known tombs of officials of Sekhemkhet in the vicinity - a very different
situation to that at Giza.  So, since you were the one making the claim,
I asked the question.
>...i'll leave that sort of game to the scholars...suffice to say: the
>necropolis at sakkara is both so vast and, except for the nile side,
>so inexactly delimited, that it is, in our present state of knowledge
>about this site, a reasonable use of language to say that everything
>at sakkara is surrounded by tombs...
On criteria that lax, it's a reasonable use of language to say that any
spot on the planet is surrounded by tombs - but in any case, that's not
what you said.  You said `surrounded by the tombs of lesser officials',
implying - by echoing Greg's wording - congruence with the pattern of
burials at Giza.
So, while posing as a good empiricist - or insisting that others must
be good empiricists - what in fact you were doing was selecting or
distorting the facts to fit a tendentious classification.
>>We're talking about pyramids, right?  The tomb of Hetepheres - call it
>>something else if you insist - was not a pyramid.  It seems we have a
>>problem with Egyptian tombs in general, not just pyramids.
>>
>>The body was absent from the sarcophagus, but the canopic chest was present,
>>complete with contents.  That does tend to suggest a tomb.
>
>yes...and prior to the opening of the sarcophagus, as at sekhemkhet,
>it tended to suggest the presence of a body within the
>sarcophagus...but, as at sekhemkhet, no body was found within...
Frank, what did canopics contain?  Part of the body was found there.
On top of that, the sarcophagus displayed damage consistent with it
having been forced.  Again, let's have some respect for the distinctive
facts of the case.
Does that pregnant ellipsis stand in for something of significance?
>>The following recycled for the second time:
>
>and here, martin, you give cogent evidence for the existence of the
>coffer, and of a similar one in khafre...but the existence and
>description of those coffers is not what is at question here...
Given your use of Smyth's preferred terminology - coined on the basis
of an erroneous conception of the form of the sarcophagus - I have to
say: no, the description is clearly very much at question.  I see you
conveniently overlook my more important point - the detailed family
resemblance between these and other sarcophagi - on which basis I will
continue to call them sarcophagi, without qualification or apology.
(I'm sure you've heard of family resemblance arguments, Frank.)
>if you have any evidence (and having seen your presentation of evidence on
>the existence of the coffers, i trust that you fully understand the
>difference between factual evidence, on the one hand, and
>interpretation, opinion, and argument on the other)
As it happens, Frank, I have given some consideration to this question,
and I came to conclusions such as: all facts are theory laden - consistent
empiricism reduces to solipsism - evidence only becomes evidence in some
kind of theoretical context.  I've also noticed that logical positivism
- this century's major attempt to develop a consistent empiricism - had
enormous problems in precisely this area: statements about the past.
Unless you can swallow the doctrine that the past is a logical construction
out of current evidence, I suggest you're stuck with any account of the
past being a theoretical reconstruction.
Frankly, Frank, I'm disappointed that a man who can recommend Peirce's
`The Fixation of Belief' can also come out with this (what I'd call)
vulgar empiricist rhetoric - but you will understand, Frank, if I
hold you to it, and insist on your being the consistent empiricist
you pretend to be - since it's quite clear that you're interested in
something more than the `facts' in their naked particularity: you
want to interpret the facts, find general significance in them, draw
some kind of moral from them . . . (pregnant ellipsis) 
>then please state
>what evidence you have that the coffer in khufu (or the one in khafre)
>ever held a body...
Abd el Hokim said it did.  Would I rely on him?  Probably not.
>frank
I'd say some more, were it less late, and were I less bored.
Martin

Per Egyptians sea-going abilities:  See Thor Hyderdahl's (sp) book Ra.
Re:  Trans-oceanic contact.  I love this topic, but isn't it basic 
scientific practice to assume that the simplist arguement is the most 
probable unless "proven" otherwise?  That is, that two cultures 
seperated both by time and distance managed to find similar solutions to 
similar problems.
Are the similarities that deep-seated?  Religions are not all that 
similar.  Use of astronomy - I submit it is harder to find an ancient 
agricultural society, that did not have a developed astronomy than one 
that did.  Pyramids - you can find pyramids or pyramid shaped structures 
on every continent except Austrialia and Antartica.
If there was that much cultural interchange, why in the world did they 
forget to tell the Americans about something so simple and useful as the 
wheel?
Hank  
P.S.  I'm not trying to flame anyone, these are real, if overly 
simplistic, questions.

Kevin Daly wrote:
> 
>   And the fact remains that there is nothing to suggest that the Minoan
> language was either Semitic or Indo-European (and no, suggested vocabulary
> matches don't help, considering the cultural and technological influence of
> Semitic speakers in the region. There are plenty of words of Semitic origin
> in English. This does not make English a Semitic language), and reasonable
> cause in the characteristics inherited by Linear B from Linear A to suggest
> that Minoan was very probably not a member of either group.
I agree.  I never said it was.
What I did say was that I am suggesting that it may have been a created
language that served the purpose of keeping lists of things (nouns) in a
pictorial way that would be easy to learn and to teach.
Here's a bit of what I remember [Warning: details may not be accurate]
1 - All the examples we have consist of lists of items (nouns?).
2 - Many of these can be identified as borrowed words (thru trade).
3 - These glyphs were used in the great Knossos storerooms, apparently
by lower class workers who could easily be taught to recognize the
symbols.
4 - Linear A was apparently not very good for expressing Indo-European,
although at least one scholar saw basic Greek in it, and the later
Linear B was improved for IE use with more vowel support, etc.
Although I can't go into much detail I remember following (or at least
trying!) the discussion on sci.arch about Linear A and B from a couple
months ago, and the whole time keeping in mind that it could have been a
created trade language.  I never noticed any evidence that contradicted
this theory.  In fact, it was from this discussion that I came to this
notion.
-- 
zoomQuake - A nifty, concise listing of over 200 ancient history links.
            Copy the linklist page if you want! (do not publish though)
----------> http://www.iceonline.com/home/peters5/

MA Lloyd wrote:
> 
> Rodney Small  writes:
> 
> >> Given the uncertainty in both figures, I think we can be sure that so close
> >> a coincidence is just that - a coincidence.
> 
> >But there are other correlations as well, if you are interested.
> 
> Yes there are, dozens and dozens of them, which is why most rational people
> are certain they are coincidental.  What you say?  Well look, its a pyramid,
> its shape is exactly defined by two numbers, the length of a base and its
> height for example.  It can thus encode ONLY two numbers.  If you can show 30
> numbers correlate to some dimension of the pyramid, we immediately know 28
> of those correlations must be coincidental, and the ability to find so many
> makes the case for the other two pretty weak.
> 
> --
> -- MA Lloyd (malloy00@io.com)
You're overlooking, or perhaps are unaware, that the Great Pyramid rests 
on a protruding platform, and that this platform is set into the ground. 
Further, there were at one times cornerstones beyond this platform.  
Accordingly, there were originally five basic external dimensions of the 
Pyramid -- the perimeter of the base itself, the perimeter of the base 
including the platform, the perimeter of the base including the 
cornerstones, its height without the platform, and its height with the 
platform.  Now if a meaningful correlation could be shown with all five 
of those dimensions, would that impress you, or would that be just a 
coincidence?

Many slanders have been spoken against the name of the Native American
Noble Savage; the Indian has been accused of being Descended from a
Spider Monkey with its Tail Removed; he has been accused of Human
Sacrifice and Cannibalism; he has even been accused of being an Idyllic
Pre-Lapsarian Society Free of Materialistic Greed and Close To The
Heartbeat of Gaia.
It has also been claimed that Native Americans are the descendants of
Extremely Displaced Hebrews.  Whatever the truth of this statement, the
American Indians were transparently *not* turned black by God as the
result of their Evil Activities against the Tribe of Nephi.  It is,
indeed, my contention that they were turned black as a punishment for
some other evil activity, such as writing ridiculous fictions on Plates
of Brass and hiding them in places where they knew the Mormons would
find them, or throwing themselves over cliffs and claiming the FBI did
it.
As regards the likelihood of Ancient Israelite contact with the New
World, it is believed by some scholarly authorities that all Israelites
are and have always been Egyptian, since the Exodus would seem never to
have occurred; two million Jews walking across the Sinai would surely
have left a trail of frogs, locusts, solid gold Farmyard Animals,
psychically deformed cutlery and blowtorched frying pans visible from
Space, especially since the Jewish Host are held to have spent Forty
Years in the journey; for was not Moses 'Fourscore Years old...When (He)
Spake Unto Pharaoh'[Exodus 7:7]?  And was he not 'One Hundred and Twenty
Years Old When He Died'[Deuteronomy 34:7]?  At its widest point, the
Sinai Desert is no more than two hundred miles wide - can we be asked to
believe that the Jewish Host moved at a continuous speed of 1/1752 miles
per hour?  However, the only other Truth remaining to us is scarcely
less incredible.  THE JEWS REACHED ISRAEL IN THE OTHER DIRECTION,
travelling at a far more respectable gait of 0.06 miles per hour, all
the more impressive when one considers that they would have spent much
of this time Swimming.  
At the time of their Exodus, however, the Israelites were still
Egyptian, and Thor Heyerdahl and Sigmund Freud have proven, albeit
without their knowledge, that Egyptian Pilgrim Fathers crossed the
Atlantic in gigantic convoys to spread the word of Akhenaten in Central
America, or the Mid West, which is the same thing.  As the fearsome
feathered priests of Des Moines raise their stone daggers over
whimpering sacrificial victims to this day, therefore, they owe the very
core of their religious observance to those woolly-haired, genitally
foreshortened Barbarians who are known to have contributed
Pyramidological Advisers to the Nicaraguan Government since before the
dawn of Prehistory itself.  
However, this in itself raises serious questions.  Why did the Central
Americans build their Pyramids in a Corrugated Manner, whilst the
Egyptians built theirs with a Smoothness of which Victor Kiam might be
proud?  The answer has long been supposed to be Wheelchair Access, and
the Mesoamericans have been unjustly attacked for their insensitivity to
the needs of Disabled Sacrificial Victims.  However, no Mesoamericans -
except those involved in the Toy Llama and Crystal Skull Polishing
industries - possessed knowledge of the Wheel.  In the absence of
Wheelchairs, therefore, it is probable that Disabled Mesoamericans might
have moved themselves along by sitting on the damp Jungle Floor and
flailing vainly at the Unrotating Earth with their hands.
Yours
Reverend Colonel Ignatius Churchward Von Berlitz M.A. (Dom. Sci.) Oxon. 
(Oklahoma)
*Possessing Knowledge Of The Wheel has long been considered by the Reverend to
be overrated, since knowledge of More Than One Wheel is normally necessary for
the construction of roadgoing vehicles.  However, now that Aberdeen Proving
Ground are known to be testing Hygroscopically-Stabilized Half-Tracked Combat
Unicycles based on Alien Technology for use against American Indians who throw
themselves over cliffs, these assumptions, as do so many assumptions made in
recent centuries, lend themselves to Serious Reconsideration.