Subject: Re: Father=Creator=Pater=Ptah=Pitar
From: mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal)
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 04:37:23 GMT
whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>What I was claiming was that if you have the same sound and cognition
>in both European and Afro-Asian or Hamitic/Semitic, then at least
>according to Mallory, that word is a candidate for an Indo European
>or even proto-Indo European vocabulary.
I have looked in the index to Mallory's "In Search of the IE'ans",
under both Hamito-Semitic and Semitic alone, and I have not found
anything similar to what you claim. In fact, Mallory's claim is that
while there may well be a link between IE and Uralic (Finno-Ugric),
none has been shown to exist between IE and Afro-Asiatic, except for
some (late?) borrowings. This, of course, to add plausibility to his
theory of an IE homeland in the Southern Russian steppe, and to
question the plausibility of theories that put the homeland in
Anatolia or the Caucasus, much nearer to the Semites.
>>How do you think the MK Egyptians pronounced "Ptah iri"?
>They probably pronounced it as Ptahr, or P'ahr as in
>Par = an accepted standard used for comparison "make par"
>Parent = make children, teach them standards
>Parable = a story used to teach standards
>Paradigm = a standard way to do or make things
>There are many English words which use this root.
Pardonnez-moi, but this is incorrect. P'ahr must rather be connected
with fowl language, as in:
parrot,
parrakeet,
partridge,
pardalote (=diamond bird), or
parula warblers
Paradoxically, there also seems to be particular connection with
certain edible plants:
parsnip,
parsley,
paradise (="orchard"),
parasol mushroom,
partake ("please partake of this partridge with parsnips..."), and
parmentier (=prepared or served with potatoes)
I need hardly point out the striking resemblance between Ptah and
"potato" (/Ptah iti/, pronounced /Patate/), which can come as no
surprise to those of you who have followed the voyages of Pthor
Heyerdahl.
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal ~ ~
Amsterdam _____________ ~ ~
mcv@pi.net |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig
Subject: Re: Arabic Loan Words (was Kleins Comprehensive English Etymology)
From: Troy Sagrillo
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 20:39:52 GMT
Saida wrote:
[snip]
> Troy, some of your "Arabic" words looked familiar!
n.b., vowel + : below indicates a long vowel.
> camphor--I know the Arabic for this is "kafur", which I think perhaps
> has something to do with the Egyptian word for "repel". I discussed
> this in the thread "No Moths Allowed".
Arabic ka:fu:r is the origin of English "camphore" (prob via French
camfre and/or mediaeval Latin camphora). The Arabic word however does
have good IE roots: Avestian Persian kapur; Prakit kappuram; Sanskrit
karpum. But the English and other European versions, are via Arabic
(came in during the Middle Ages, as did a lot of other food terms).
> cummin--Egyptian "mm" or "mmy"
Arabic kammu:n (cog. to Hebrew kammo:n); from the verbal root kamana "to
hide or conceal". Again, prop. came into English via a Romance lang.
during the Middle Ages (cf. Old French cumin; Anglo-Saxon cymen)
> crimson--the Arabic "kirmiz" has to do with the cochineal insect, which,
> when the females are dried and crushed, make up the red stuff used to
> dye lips and cheeks. Since the ancient Egyptians used this stuff, also,
> I wouldn't be surprised if there is an Egyptian word close to
> "kirmiz". The Arabic "zinjafr", of course, is the cinnabar, the red
> ore.
>From Arabic qirmizi: via a Romance lang. (early Spanish cremesin; med.
Latin cremesinus)
> crocus-- I found the Egyptian "grugus", crocus or saffron, corresponding
> with the Greek "krokos".
The Egyptian /grgs/ is definately a loan-word from Greek krokos, and
only appears in Ptolemaic Egyptian.
I have to admit, I overstated this one. While the Arabic word is kurkum
(cog. to Hebrew karkom), it also has other Semitic cognates (such as
Akkadian kurkanu). Since the word is known in both Latin and Greek, it
was probably *not* borrowed via Arabic, but from another Semitic
language. (Camel is another word of Semitic origin that finds itself
into Europe, but not via Arabic.). In any event, not Egyptian.
> gazelle--There is the Egyptian "gehes" or "gehesai" of the same meaning.
> Another possible Egyptian "gazelle" word is "hart", a small, fleet
> animal.
Arabic ghaza:l, prob. in English via Old French gazel (and in French via
Spanish gacela). The Arabic verbal root ghazala means to "display
amorous behaviour; to court, woo".
> genie--Arabic "djin" or "spirit". My suspicion is that this word has
> something to do with the Egyptian "djenech" or "gensh", meaning "wing".
> I recall reading a book where the ba-bird was called a "djin" by the
> author and have seen mythical winged creatures of Israel and Mesopotamia
> called genies.
> jar--I know there is an Egyptian pot called a "jar". I don't recall now
> how it is spelled, but the determinative is a pot with fruit in it and a
> thing that looks like a flame. I'll look it up.
from Arabic jarrah via a Romance lang. (prob. Spanish jarra or French
jarre).
The Egyptian word you are thinking of is /Dr/, and you are right -- it
is *cognate* to the Arabic word jarrah as both come from a common
Afroasiatic root *garr- "container". However, Arabic is the origin of
the term in Eurpean languages.
> saffron--In the Ebers Papyrus 63, 9 is a saffron used in medicine called
> "atcharan". Perhaps it was melted ("sef") by heat and we get "sef
> atcharan" or saffron. Just a thought.
>From Arabic za`fra:n; again via a Romance lang. Budges' "atcharan" is
now rendered /`Drn/ ("`adjeren").
> ream--I can't think of an Egyptian word for a ream of paper, but I'll
> bet "sheet" comes from the Egyptian "shait" or scroll.
Ream is from Arabic rizmah (bail or bundle), prob. via Old French rayme
(cf. Spanish resma and mediaeval Latin risma)
> sesame--Egyptian "shemshem-t".
The Egyptian /SmSt/ (S = sh) is a very likely a loanword from a Semitic
source. However there is an Afroasiatic root *sim- "grass" (cf. Egyptian
/sm/ "lettuce") which could account for both the Egyptian and the
Semitic form, though the reduplication of the root only appears in
Semitic (and Egyptian) and not other AA languages (thus indicating a
probable loan from a Semitic language). The Arabic simsim is likely the
source of Italian sesamo and Latin sesamun rather than one of the other
Semitic cognates that use "sh" instead of "s".
> Troy, another Arabic word you forgot is
> "khamsin" (the hot wind), which could come from the Egyptian "shemshem"
> of the same meaning.
Arabic khamsi:n means 50. I believe it refers to the notion that the
khamsi:n winds would blow for 50 days.
> The prefix "shem" often has to do with heat--such
> as in the Egyptian "shemu" or "summer".
Correct. It goes to an Afroasiatic root *s^am- "burning; sun"
> sherbit--In Egyptian "sheb-t" is a kind of drink. As you know,
> "sherbet" is only eaten in western countries. In eastern it is drunk.
>From Arabic sharba(t), from the verbal root shariba "to drink". Prob.
comes into Europe via Tukish or Farsi sherbet (both of which borrowed
the Arabic). Syrup and sorbet are also derived from shariba
> tambourine--From the Egyptian "teben", a drum or tambourine?
A diminuative form of tambour, from the Arabic Tanbu:r (prob. via French
or Spanish). The Arabic word is prob. derived from Farsi tabi:r.
Egyptian /dbn; tbn/ is related to the Arabic word Tabl and has an
Afroasiatic root of *TabVl- (which is related to the root *Tab-
"container").
Subject: Re: Migrations...
From: S.NEMETH@IX.NETCOM.COM (Stella Nemeth)
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 01:53:13 GMT
rg10003@cus.cam.ac.uk (R. Gaenssmantel) wrote:
>I think I'm actually slowly getting sich and tired of this thread, so I'd just
>briefly like to set a few points straight.
I'm going to make a few comments. I've mainly stayed out of these
threads because I've usually got very little to say about them.
>Firstly, I am aware, the hunger as motivation for all migrations is a
>simplistic way of putting it, but it seemed an appropriate way of prasing it to
>cantrast to Steve's claims. My post originally explained that I regarded this
>only a valid statement for the 'big migrations' in the 'early middle ages and
>earlier' in Europe and central Asia. In this reagion most migrations were
>caused either by hunger (due to climactic change, etc.) or due to the peoples
>being pushed away by another people (in a chain ending with one people subject
>to the above mentioned problem of feeding itself).
Unfortunately, no one really knows what set the original group of
people in these chains moving. It could have been hunger, or natural
disaster, or just over population moving some of the people, but not
the people as a whole.
>Secondly, Steve seems to misunderstand the term migration. [snip]
I think this is the second grammar flame I've seen from you correcting
the speech of someone who is a native English speaker. Forgive me,
but since Steve speaks English every day and all day, and you do not,
I don't think it is appropriate. It is also rather silly. A word
doesn't mean what the dictionary says it means. A word means what the
native speakers of the language tell the dictionary committee it
means. Grammar flames are considered very bad manners in Usenet or
anywhere online. And finally, someone who lives in a glass house (in
this case makes regular grammar mistakes which have been ignored by
one and all) shouldn't throw stones.
>The inital argument was about the fact that Turkic peoples from modern day
>Turkey to western China (uigurs and Kirgeses) speak Turkic languages, related
>closely enough that Turkish speakers can converse with the locals. Steve
>claimed these peoples had taken up a Turkish dialect as a result of trade,
>others have argued against that and explained that the Turks originally lived
>in cental Asia (before migrating to modern day Turkey) and that the Uigurs and
>Kirgeses (among others) are from their origins closely related to the Turks -
>which explains the close link languages
Which means that the entire group of people didn't move, all at once,
together? Perhaps only some groups of them moved? Maybe even using,
in part, the mechanism that Steve suggests is one of the mechanisms of
migration?
>It was also stated that trade may account for new words being included into a
>language, but not for changes in grammar etc.
Why not?
>Steve has given impressive lists of historical battles, but not yet layed out
>any evidence in support of his claim that languages can be 'exported' to other
>peoples by trade.
Try English, which is spoken all over the world, and has been for a
couple of centuries, by people who have never set foot in an English
speaking country.
>There have been cases were entire peoples adopted a new language, however this
>was not a result of trade but of oppression (Ireland, Scotland, Soviet citicens
>of other ethinicities, ...). This was achieved by blood shed - and is still
>being done in parts of the world.
The lowland Scotts spoke a varient of English to begin with, so they
aren't a great example. The highland Scotts mostly migrated out
(individually and in small groups), to places like Ireland, and the
Americas. You are probably right about the other groups you mention.
Stella Nemeth
s.nemeth@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: Pyramids and Aliens
From: Baron Szabo
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 22:26:23 -0700
fmurray@pobox, frank murray wrote:
>
> On Mon, 14 Oct 1996 23:48:25 -0700, Baron Szabo
> wrote:
>
> >fmurray@pobox, frank murray wrote:
> >>
> >> ok...i'll state it again...my purpose here is to find someone who
> >> believes that the pyramids were built and used as tombs and who is
> >> willing to openly defend that belief...further, my intent upon finding
> >> such person, or persons, is to find out what evidence that belief is
> >> based upon...if you have such evidence, please state it...
> >
> >Why don't you quit playing games of rhetoric and recognize the truth of
> >the matter. You have found many people who believe that the pyramids
> >can be positively identified as tombs, all of which have openly defended
> >that belief.
>
> baron,
>
> if you've followed the discussion closely enough to be as sick of
> reading my above quoted paragraph as i am of writing it, then you
> should have noticed that i only repeat it when i am called upon to
> answer the question generally posed as "what's your point" or "what do
> you believe" .....repeatedly i state that i do not know the purpose of
> the pyramids,
If you don't (even pretend to) have an opinion about the nature of the
pyramids, then on what basis are you questioning the scientific
conclusions? Have you familiarized yourself with the society in
question, their funerary literature, their obsession with the afterlife,
etc? If you have, I am surprised you haven't even developed any
tentative theories about this. Or have you? Or do you at least have
evidence that points away from the "tomb" conclusion? If not, I wonder
on what grounds you argue it. The vast majority of all the chaotic
bits of evidence obviously point toward a tomby sort of function for the
pyramids. I better shut up though, since I don't want to influence this
debate too much...
Please continue to goad, or whatever works.
> . . . . .
> >You're claims that silence would follow have proven you
> >embarrasingly wrong in that regard. While it is true that the debate
> >over the details can continue, it would be good of you to drop your
> >original pretense without furthur defense.
>
> the original "silence" post was an obvious goad...i'd expect all to
> recognize that...greg certainly did, as his comment on bait
> showed...if you didn't, i certainly apologise for tricking you...
So you admit to open deception as a debate tactic?
That is more informing than you probably wanted.
> the "debate over the details" cannot begin until details are brought
> into evidence...
It is also necessary for YOU to work with the details that are brought
forward. And take *some* responsibility for asking specific questions
and following up on what is said.
> a close reading of my posts will show that i have made
> several attempts to have others state the specific evidence upon which
> their stated beliefs are based...
Time allowing, they DID state the basics of their evidence.
Its easy for you to demand a whole thesis that sums up the present state
of Egyptological pyramid research, but remember the experts usually have
day jobs to deal with too.
> if they have such evidence, they
> should state it...
Which they have done... But when they see your side of the debate, they
see that you will happily burn away their time, possibly to no useful
end. Can you demonstrate to them that you are not wasting their time?
if they have no specific evidence on the particular
> point in question, they should state that they have no such
> evidence...
Your in the pit of denial again.
> >Any furthur debate should be exploring whether actual bodies would ever
> >have been within the various sarcophagi. This line of discussion is
> >very interesting and very relevant.
>
> precisely...and if you know how to evoke from any of these others any
> evidence that "actual bodies" were so interred, please leap in...if
> there is no such evidence, and the pyramid/tomb belief is merely an
> article of faith, then i've no business questioning them...their faith
> is their own business, not mine...
you'll have to do it yourself. Try Deja-newsing Greg's first or second
posts to this thread, and bringing up specifics. If they continue to
play absentee, then you will look really good repeating your specific
questions. Not this "...they're not producing evidence..." shit.
> >And you can't say that they are not justified in calling the pyramids
> >tombs. What else would they be? What else would these sarcophagus
> >shaped boxes be?
> i do not pretend to know...please return to the top of this post for
> further clarification...
I ask you (without goading), in your opinion, do you feel that the
"coffers" within the chambers of the various pyramids are meant to be,
or represent, sarcophagi? (whether with bodies or not)
Is this a logical guess? (scientific fact or not?)
> awaiting evidence,
You're pretending that you missed it the first time, or that the
evidence wasn't good enough for you or something. Take the
responsibility of getting specific...
--
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/
Subject: Re: Wars of conquest vs commerce
From: S.NEMETH@IX.NETCOM.COM (Stella Nemeth)
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 05:23:15 GMT
rg10003@cus.cam.ac.uk (R. Gaenssmantel) wrote:
>Steve Whittet (whittet@shore.net) wrote:
>: In article <53u0h1$1uk@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>, rg10003@cus.cam.ac.uk says...
>Thank you very much, Steve, for telling me what I actually initially meant to
>write. Unfortunately I wrote something different. Not only did I qualify my
>statement in terms of the period and area (and bar one all you counterexamples
>don't fall in either this time or area - or do you really want to tell us the
>Mormons migrated in Europe and Central Asia in the early middle ages?), but
>they didn't even concern any real migration.
Sorry, Ralf, but the Mormon migrations from the East Coast states of
the very new United States across thousands of miles to the deserts of
Utah qualify as a migration of a group, as opposed to a migration of
individuals, as much as the migration of any ancient or mideaval group
in the Old World. They didn't go in ones and twos until much later in
time. They moved as groups, and in the beginning, very large groups.
The only thing that is different in this migration, as opposed to the
older ones, is that we've got pretty good records about where they
began, and where they ended up, and why they moved.
It was a "real migration" by any reasonable definition of the phrase.
>Also, in your quest to disagree with me you overlooked one thing: I said the
>migrations in that time and area can be traced to a single cause *and if it was
>only as the last element in a long list of one people pushing the other*. So,
>yes, this element was already in my statement. May I also recap, that from the
>original context it was clear that we were argueing about how the Uigurs and
>Kirgieses can to spak a Turkic language (you said through trade and I said they
>are related peoples) very closely linked to Turkish (and all three can talk to
>each other). This also sets the context for the migrations we were talking
>about - and the Mormons clearly dont fall within it.
As far as I can tell, you are objecting to the Mormons as a group that
migrated because of religion because they aren't a group that existed
in a single time and place. I don't believe that this thread was
originally limited to a single place and time, but in any case, this
is Usenet and the conversation has moved on from the specific to the
general.
>: We are agreed it is one of several mechanisms.
>Hmmm, Im not sure about this statemnet. I choose my words more carefully ;>
>I would call hunger a trigger and the wars and one people pushing or subdueing
>the other the mechanism.
>[...]
>: A migration is about the movement of people. People often move quite
>: independently of the people to whom they belong. A farmer marries the
>: daughter of a man who has a better field and moves to farm the good
>: bottom land in the adjacent valley.
>If you consider the farmer a migrant, I'm sure most of us here would find a
>better word for it. I don't consider my moving to Britain for studying a
>migration, nor the British taking of Melakka, Cape Town or the invasion in
>Normandy for that matter.
You wouldn't??? If you stay in GB, I'd consider you a migrant. If
you are part of a larger group, family and friends of similar ethnic
background, then you are part of a migration. Certainly both the Cape
Town and Normandy examples are examples of migrations.
>[...]
>: >History shows that religious freedom caused people to migrate,
>Actually the sentence continues: but not peoples. If you do want to quote me,
>you could at least be courtous enough to quote the whole sentence - and not cut
>it in a way that alters the meaning.
Since he gave the example of the Mormons as a group -- a "peoples" in
your version of the word -- he had made his point. Are you aware that
the word "people" above is a plural and can mean either individuals or
groups?
>: There are many instances of entire colonies migrating and indeed
>: the Mormons are probably not untypical. Indeed the Exodus has been
>: a model which fires the immaginations of missionaries and preachers
>: and encourages crusades.
>Unless you consider catholics, muslims, democrats, or cadillac owners each a
>people/tribe in its own right I think the Mormons don't fall in the category I
>was talking about (let alone time and place).
Please explain how a group, which saw itself as a group apart, doesn't
qualify as a "people/tribe". They saw themselves in that way. Most
of their contemporaries saw them in that way. Why don't you?
>Hmmm,.... . I think I'll leave the conclusions to be drawn to each individual
>reader.
I did. And I found your case wanting. Steve sees both groups and
individuals as migrating. When he gives you a modern, well documented
example, of a group migrating across thousands of miles and half a
continent into a wilderness and a desert because of a religious need,
you refuse to accept this excellent example. Perhaps you don't
understand how this group moved and that is why you aren't accepting
it? In any case, you have failed to make your point, IMHO.
Stella Nemeth
s.nemeth@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: help!!! looking for coin
From: Benjamin Vargas
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 21:23:53 -0700
Steve Firth wrote:
>
> 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?dear pothunter,
Although your interest in ancient artifacts may be innocent, your
interest in their value, and how to loot them from archaeological sites
will only do a disservice to people truly interested in history.
Although you may not be aware, stealing artifacts from archaeological
sites in the US, is a crime, not only legally, but also to the pursuit of
history. I know I sound harsh, but for the centuries that people have
been destroying archaeological sites they have perported to call
themselves "archaeologists." And with intentions such as yours, it
should be easy for all to see how Native American people have such a
disdain for archaeology. True archaeology is purely an intellectual
pursuit,not a monetary one. So please, you and all people who think the
archaeological record is theirs to buy and sell, dont call yourselves
archaeologists, or even bother posting in the archaeology newsgroup.
Pothunting SUCKS, I welcome your reply.
Subject: Re: Great Pyramid Dimensions.
From: maguirre
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 08:47:47 +0100
Rodney Small wrote on Pyramid dimensions
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Not quite, but you're on the right track. As I noted in my =
first post on =
this subject, the perimeter of the Great Pyramid's base, as =
measured by =
British surveyor J. H. Cole in 1925, is 921,455 mm =3D =
36,277.8 inches, not =
36,524 inches. However, the perimeter of the base including =
the =
"sockets", which originally held the Pyramid's cornerstones, =
was measured =
by British archaeologist Flinders Petrie in the 1880s as =
36,521.2 British =
inches (927,636-927,638 mm). See D. Davidson and H. =
Aldersmith, "The =
Great Pyramid: Its Divine Message" (Williams and Norgate, =
London, 1932), =
plate xx following p. 120. The thing that is of interest =
here is that, =
just as 921,455 mm equals almost exactly the distance in =
half a minute of =
equatorial latitude (921,455.7 mm, according to the 1964 =
International =
Astronomical Union ellipsoid), 927,636-927,638 mm equals =
very close to =
the distance in half a minute of equatorial longitude =
(927,665.8 mm, =
according to the 1964 IAU ellipsoid).
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D
On the text above I would like to make the following =
comments
1)
The reference elipsoid of the Earth is defined by the =
Internatuinal Union of Geodesy (not of Astronomy as you =
quoted)
2)
Reference IUG ellipsoid 1967 has an impresive name but is =
not a very acurate description of the shape of the Earth and =
is used only for quick calculations. It defines the Earth as =
a oblate spheroid with Radius r =3D Re(1-f*sin(lat)* sin(lat)) =
where f=3D1/298.247. and lat is the latitude. The accurate =
ference is called the Geoid. Diferences are pretty big e.g. =
there is a =8Chole=B9 south of India of almost 100 m, also + 10 =
m on the north pole and -30 m on the south (this is the =
source of so called term J3) of the geoid. Anyway the geoid =
is today not better known than 0.5 m.
3)
You speak of a =B3distance in half a minute of equatorial =
longitude=B2 my understanding is that you refer to the =
Equatorial circunference of the earth (that is used as base =
for latitude). My value working with the ellipsoid as =
defined as above is:
Equatorial radius of the Earth 6378140 m =3D> Earth =
circunference over the Equator 40075040 m =3D> Divided by 360 =
*60*2=3D 927.663 m. Your value was 927.665 m Here we agree. =
Your figure is right.
You speak of =B3distance in half a minute of equatorial =
longitude=B2 My understanding is that you refere to the =
elipsoid that passes over both Poles. The Polar radius of =
the Earth is 6356 755 m =3D> Earth elipsoid over the Poles =
40007910 m =3D>Divided by 360*60*2 =3D 926.1090. Your value is =
921,455.7. Here there is something wrong. =
5)
Anyway, what are we taking about, In a previous posting you =
have stated that the accuracy in the determination of the =
perimeter of the Pyramid is of the order of plus minus 76 mm =
(addition of the four values you provided). So you cannot =
quote accuracies down to 0.7 mm (921 455.7 vs 921 455) for a =
dimension that you have recognized to know only to plus =
minus 76
Subject: ARCE/UC-Berkeley Lecture: Egyptian Old Kingdom Sculpture
From: Glenn Meyer
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 20:05:59 -0700
The Department of Near Eastern Studies, UC Berkeley, and the Northern
California Chapter of the American Research Center in Egypt are pleased
to present:
CHANGE DURING THE AGE OF THE PYRAMIDS:
THE SECOND STYLE IN EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM SCULPTURE
a lecture by
DR. EDNA R. RUSSMANN
RESEARCH ASSOCIATE, BROOKLYN MUSEUM
Date: October 24, 1996 (Thursday)
Time: 8:00 PM (Doors open at 7:30 PM)
Place: Room 2060 Valley Life Sciences Building,
UC Berkeley
Cost: Suggested $5.00 donation. Free to ARCE/NC members
and to UC Berkeley students with student ID.
Dr. Russman received her Ph.D. from the Institute of Fine Arts at New
York University. She is a specialist in Egyptian art, and was
Associate Curator, Department of Egyptian Art, at the Metropolitan
Museum of Art, where she authored "Egyptian Sculpture: Cairo and Luxor."
For more information please call Marie at 510-527-9746 or send e-mail
to ALYC08A@prodigy.com .
Subject: Re: Caucasian on the Columbia c7300 BCE
From: Baron Szabo
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 23:09:21 -0700
Peter Van Rossum wrote:
>
> No racial typology scheme that I have ever seen can correctly identify > even living individuals 100% of the time, the problem gets even worse > when you are looking at a 10,000 year old partial skeleton.
It's too bad that science need to bail any process that isn't accurate
%100 of the time. Extremely limiting, if you ask me.
BTW, aren't there DNA strands in bone? Isn't there work being done to
genetically trace race through genes?
--
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/
Subject: Re: Caucasian on the Columbia c7300 BCE
From: Baron Szabo
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 23:00:37 -0700
August Matthusen wrote:
>
> Baron Szabo wrote:
> >
> > What's up! A white man in N.A. circa 7300 bc?!??! And noone even
> > mentions it?!? Surely August and his International Archaeology
> > Conspiracy[tm] have been working overtime on this one!!
>
> You can't pin this one on me or the IAC(tm), Peter. On 10/12/96
> I posted a response on alt.arch giving a web site that had info
> on the topic. Take a peek at your wonderful zoomQuake page
I'm flattered! The first compliment I've got (and a sarcastic one at
that) since Steve W. dryly inferred that it couldn't be *that* bad since
he had been there. Yeesh. Actually the place has been in Limbo for
months. Don't bother returning if you expect impending updates!
> and access Archaeology magazine at http://www.archaeology.org/
> They have a new article which indicates that the term
> "caucasian" was apparently misused by a journalist who used
> that term rather than "proto-caucasoid"
What does THAT mean? "before caucasian" "projected (early) caucasoid" ?
For your answer to have been appropriately defusing I would have to
guess "before caucasoid". :)
> PS It's not my IAC(tm), I'm only an adjunct member.
I'm ruthless. If you don't take me to your leader, then I just *have*
to point at you. Or do you have WAYS of dealing with upstarts like me?
---
To parallel Mr. Gilberts new book coming on, I must declare that I feel
a new Name coming on. Darius the Vth is looking for a new Baron, or
should I say...
--
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/
Subject: Re: Great Pyramid Dimensions.
From: Archae Solenhofen (jmcarth1@gtn.net)
Date: 16 Oct 1996 21:52:13 -0700
In article <3265AB00.2D6B@erols.com>, Rodney says...
>jmcarth1@gtn.net wrote:
>> In article <326461C7.4B88@erols.com>, Rodney says...
>> >Steve Whittet wrote:
>> >> The perimeter of its base in feet is 3043 feet 8 inches, or 36524 inches
>> >Not quite, but you're on the right track. As I noted in my first post on
>> >this subject, the perimeter of the Great Pyramid's base, as measured by
>> >British surveyor J. H. Cole in 1925, is 921,455 mm = 36,277.8 inches, not
>> >36,524 inches. However, the perimeter of the base including the
>> >"sockets", which originally held the Pyramid's cornerstones, was measured
>> >by British archaeologist Flinders Petrie in the 1880s as 36,521.2 British
>> >inches (927,636-927,638 mm). See D. Davidson and H. Aldersmith, "The
>> >Great Pyramid: Its Divine Message" (Williams and Norgate, London, 1932),
>> >plate xx following p. 120. The thing that is of interest here is that,
>> >just as 921,455 mm equals almost exactly the distance in half a minute of
>> >equatorial latitude (921,455.7 mm, according to the 1964 International
>> >Astronomical Union ellipsoid), 927,636-927,638 mm equals very close to
>> >the distance in half a minute of equatorial longitude (927,665.8 mm,
>> >according to the 1964 IAU ellipsoid).
>> Yes that is all very interesting. But the most amazing thing that
>> they apparently did was calculate the expansion of the base by
>> non-linear elastic strain and the deformational creep of the limestone.
>> In about a thousand years it will equal the equatorial distance exactly.
>> Yes those Egyptians really were amazingly advanced at the time they
>> built it. You think that the Egyptians would have used something a
>> little more strength with regards to creep deformation so that their
>> amazing depot of advance geophysical data would stand the test of time.
>> Your are suggesting that they knew a lot of geophysics are you not.
>> Apparently the aliens that helped them didn’t have a good understanding
>> of rock mechanics.
>> I am surprised they didn’t use their advanced technology or their
>> levitation energy to melt sand into solid blocks of beta-quartz or
>> take the limestone and convert it solid blocks of diamond.
>> Oh well... I guess we will never know what was going through their
>> heads when they decided to use limestone as the building material.
>> Archae Solenhofen (jmcarth1@gtn.net)
>Archae, I'm sure there is a point here somewhere, but I haven't found it
>yet.
That is right there is absolutely no point to this post. I am glad you
agree.
> First, I have no idea whether you are correct about the "creep
>deformation", but the limestone has served rather nicely for these last
>4600, or is it 12500, years, don't you think?
I have seen the great pyramid and I do not think that you are correct
in your interpretation of how well it has held up. Remember that the
lower surface has been picked away for building material and the
early tourist trade so it looks relatively undamaged from a distance
but not from close up. The rest of the surface shows signs of stress
induced fracturing a result of the fact that the base is under about
4 metric tons per cm^2. All of these fractures are the result of
expansion from the interior out through the surface from this enormous
compressional load. As a result the original dimensions have changes
since its construction. This is something you should be aware of if you
are going to be stating relationship that are based on the dimensions
of the structure.
12500 ?... oh no you are not one of those Hapgood regurgitaters are
you.
> Quite a lot better than
>most 20th Century structures.
Show me a single modern structure that costs 900 billion dollars (US).
>Second, what both Cole and Petrie
>attempted to do was to locate the original corner points of the Great
>Pyramid. So, whether the creep has been an inch or a mile is irrelevant
>for purposes of determining the original perimeter.
Are you sure they weren’t making those measurement relative to the
present day shape of the structure.
> (Although something
>just occurred to me: If you can determine the original corner points and
>the creep per year, you should be able to determine how many years ago
>the Pyramid was built.
First you would have to determine just how much space they allowed
between blocks. Deformation of the limestone blocks is the reason that
the joints are so tight, not because they had amazingly advanced rock
cutting tools. Then you would have to remove the deformation produced
by brittle failure and slippage along fracture surfaces. After that
you could probably get a rough estimate if you had the exact original
dimensions.
> Do you care to venture an estimate?)
I will take the conventional archeological date.
> Third, who
>said anything about aliens building the Pyramid?
Sorry you must be one of Handcock’s crowd I guess. Do you actually
believe that slipping lithosphere theory. I would think the alien
hypothesis is more likely than that. You think that with all that
geophysical data that the Egyptians had they would have had more sense
then to believe in such a silly thing as slingshoting landmasses.
> If equatorial latitude
>and longitude measures were incorporated into the base, it seems far more
>likely to me that the builders were of earthly origin.
In order to get accurate values they would need to be in space. Are
you suggesting that the ancients had space faring technology?
Archae Solenhofen (jmcarth1@gtn.net)
Subject: There He Goes Again!
From: petrich@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 07:44:59 GMT
In article <5402q2$cg9@shore.shore.net>,
Steve Whittet wrote:
>In article <326339C0.7E99@iceonline.com>, peters5@iceonline.com says...
>>> So what? Mr. Whittet was claiming that some Indo-European words
>>> for "father" were borrowed from an Egyptian phrase,
>What I was claiming was that if you have the same sound and cognition
>in both European and Afro-Asian or Hamitic/Semitic, then at least
>according to Mallory, that word is a candidate for an Indo European
>or even proto-Indo European vocabulary.
However, there is no such word, because the general word for
"father" in Egyptian was iti, which does not match most of the words in
the IE language, certainly not the ones that allow us to reconstruct
ancestral *p@ter- .
>In the case of the Pater=Ptah=Pitar correspondence it helps to realise
>that the word "father", also has the sense of maker or creator.
I don't see the relevance of this comment. The Indo-European
words showed here have the general meaning, not whatever specific one
that Mr. Whittet has in mind.
>Now the ter, tah, tar ending has plenty of ability to show a
>correspondence without my going looking for an "r" which would
>have been commonly added to the end of the word, (similar/similah)
Reduction of the "r" sound in several English dialects is *not*
the same as creating one from scratch.
>>> and he uses the written version to get around the poorer
>>> correspondence of "Ptah iri".
>"Ptah r" (the usual way of writing Ptah iri") has the correspondence
>of the general as oposed to just the specific sense. ...
However, if a nonliterate people was to borrow a word, they'd
borrow its pronunciation, and NOT create one from its spelling.
>>How do you think the MK Egyptians pronounced "Ptah iri"?
>They probably pronounced it as Ptahr, or P'ahr as in
For what reason?
>Par = an accepted standard used for comparison "make par"
From Latin par, "equal" from IE *per@- "to grant, allot"
>Parent = make children, teach them standards
Latin present participle of parere "to give birth", from IE
*per@- "to produce, procure"
>Parable = a story used to teach standards
From Latin parabola, from Greek parabole:, from paraballein "to
compare", the first part is from para "beside", from IE *per, which meant
something like "forward" or "through", the second part from ballein "to
throw", from IE *gwel@- "to throw, reach, pierce".
>Paradigm = a standard way to do or make things
From Greek paradeigma, from paradeiknunai "to compare"; see above
for para, deiknunai "to show", comes from IE *deik- "to show, pronounce
solemnly".
>There are many English words which use this root.
Mr. Whittet seems to be able to derive just about *any* English
word from Egyptian; he provides no counterexamples.
>Now does this come from the Latin word meaning "to make equal"
>or from the Egyptian "make to meet a standard"?
For starters, the derivation from Latin does not depend on
stream-of-consciousness pseudo-etymologies.
>By the way, Tochrian which seems to have a strange affinity to
>languages spoken in the region of Macedonia or the Balkans, shows
>up in the regions traversed by the armies of Alexander the Great
>immediately following his march through the Parthian mountains
>where Europe is linked to the Silk Road coming from China.
I'm NOT aware that his armies went as far as Chinese Turkestan.
And what affinity is this??? The Tocharian affinities I've seen are to
Italic and Celtic, which are a bit to the west of that.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
petrich@netcom.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html
Subject: Re: Father=Creator=Pater=Ptah=Pitar
From: Troy Sagrillo
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 01:37:50 GMT
I'll just save everyone the grief and pain and let Steve figure out what
a phonetic complement is on his own. (Steve: it's in Gardiner Chapter 3,
section 32, page 38). In the mean time, let's look at this supposed
"Ptah r" in the Book of the Dead cited by Steve, with the supposed
meaning of "father"
Steve Whittet wrote:
[snip]
> Chapter XXVI, "The Chapter of Giving a Heart" Rubric 7
>
> translates as "the truths which pervade the college (house of the mind
> of Ptah) make knowledge and wisdom"
Okay, I *think* I found this, though I am not sure based on the
translation you offer. I have in the Dover reprint of Budges' Book of
the Dead, page 89: Utterence (Chapter/Spell/Section/whatever you want to
call it) 26, line 7 (BTW Steve, rubric just means a section written in
red (usually indicated by underlining or an over-bar) -- it is not
something that is numbered and this section is NOT a rubric, though the
Utterence name at the beginning is) --
dwn wi sxmt nTrt wnn=i m pt irw wD n=i m Hwt k3 ptH
Budge translates this as:
May the goddess Sekhet [sic] make me rise so that I may ascend unto
heaven and there may be that which I commanded in the House of the Ka of
Ptah (page 308).
Like most of his stuff, Budge was "wide of the mark" so to speak. What
this really says is:
The goddess Sekhmet straightens/stretches me. I shall be in the sky,
(and) a command shall be made for me in The House/Temple/Estate of the
Ka of Ptah (ie, Memphis; BTW, /hwt k3 ptH/ is the origin of Greek
aigiptos, Egypt).
Alternately, this could be taken as:
.....I shall be in the sky (while/but) what I have commanded is
done/preformed/made in Memphis
So now, where's "Ptah r" or any concept of father??? Where's your "r"
form of /iri/?? The passive form of /iri/ (/irw/) *is* written (well in
front of Ptah I might add), and it so happens to be an **eye** without
the phonetic complement of /r/.
Troy
Subject: Re: Arabic Loan Words (was Kleins Comprehensive English Etymology)
From: Troy Sagrillo
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 02:18:12 GMT
Saida wrote:
>
> R. Gaenssmantel wrote:
> >
> > Saida (saida@PioneerPlanet.infi.net) wrote:
> > [...]
> > : gazelle--There is the Egyptian "gehes" or "gehesai" of the same meaning.
> > : Another possible Egyptian "gazelle" word is "hart", a small, fleet
> > : animal.
> > [...]
> >
> > Hmmm, it might be interesting to find out exactly which letters were used by
> > the Egyptians to spell 'gehes' or 'gehesai'. This would give us some clue as to
> > how likely this origin is.
> >
> > Ralf
>
> The glyphs amount to "qchs", "qchsaii" or "gchs", the "ch" being the
> gutteral, throat-clearing sound. In Coptic it comes out "k'chos. The
> actual Arabic word is "ghazal" with the second "a" being a short one.
Saida, not *one* letter of Egyptian /gHs/ corresponds to the Arabic root
/(gh)zl/.
> The ancient Egyptians did not have an "l" sound.
They very likely did, at least some dialects of it. The problem is that
it doesn't show up clearly in the writing until Coptic. /r/ was often
used for /l/, as was /3/ in Old Egyptian. In Late Egytian sometimes
/n+r/ was used for /l/. But never was /s/ used for /l/
Subject: Re: Father=Creator=Pater=Ptah=Pitar
From: Troy Sagrillo
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 00:30:13 GMT
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:
>
> whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>
> >In article <32630D2D.3E3E@utoronto.ca>, t.sagrillo@utoronto.ca says...
> >>
> >>Do you understand what a phonetic complement is?
>
> >A phonetic complement is a sign which tells you how the word
> >is supposed to be prounounced
>
> No.
>
> A phonetic complement is an optional and unpronounced reading aid,
> that repeats an element (usually the last) of a two-letter or
> three-letter sign. For instance: Amon. Written , or, with
> phonetic complement (making a nice square group of signs) .
> Pronouned /i-mn/, regardless of the presence or absence of the
> phonetic complement. Not pronounced /n/.
>
> I'm sure Gardiner explains this somewhere.
Chapter 3, Section 32, page 38.
Subject: Re: Pyramids and Aliens
From: fmurray@pobox,com (frank murray)
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 06:31:42 GMT
On 16 Oct 1996 22:14:37 GMT, Charlie Rigano wrote:
>.................................... At every step the
>indications are by the layout of the structure, the
>attendent structures, and the burial places surrounding the
>pyramids that the final purpose of the pyramids was to
>entomb (bury if you like) the king.
but then he wrote:
>- Since a number of kings had several burial places there
>are pyramids which were not actually used for the burial of
>a king - the Red and Bent are obvious examples.
how can you say in the first quote: "the final purpose of the pyramids
was to entomb" and then point out the red and the bent as
exceptions...these are the second and fourth largest (in area) of the
egyptian pyramids...and the fifth largest (in area - i believe it
slightly larger than zawiyet el aryan) appears to have been built by
the same king who built the red and the bent...further, its likely
that seven more pyramids, including the only one i know of east of the
nile, were built by him...how does the fact that, in your own
admission, these pyramids were not built and used as tombs, indicate,
let alone prove, that the others were built and used as tombs??...
your circumstantial evidence regarding the history of building
techniques is blown away by the direct evidence which you yourself
offer...
>- Sarcophagi have been found in many places - mastabas,
>pyramids, rock cut tombs - which are consider burial
>places. Some have had full bodies found in them.
but the question is: have any of those in pyramids been found with
bodies in them??...in the eighth largest pyramid (by area) a sealed
sarcophagus, which edwards takes as having remained sealed since the
time of the "burial", was found to contain no body...
>- There is not evidence that the pyramids had any other
>purpose.
but charlie, you have stated direct evidence that several of the
largest pyramids were not built as tombs..... i'll requote you:
>- Since a number of kings had several burial places there
>are pyramids which were not actually used for the burial of
>a king - the Red and Bent are obvious examples.
and you recognize the lack of evidence from the largest:
>- Direct evidence such as an king found in a pyramid will
>probably not be discovered. When looking at the empty GP
>sarcophagus it is not possible to say what it once
>contained.
i thank you for your straightforward and honest answer here...
>However, the wieght of 4500 year old evidence
>is that the pyramids intended purpose was as burial places.
and then you say this...please look at the evidence that you have
cited...
frank
Subject: Re: Pyramids and Aliens
From: fmurray@pobox,com (frank murray)
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 08:18:06 GMT
On Wed, 16 Oct 1996 22:26:23 -0700, Baron Szabo
wrote:
>fmurray@pobox, frank murray wrote:
>>.......repeatedly i state that i do not know the purpose of
>> the pyramids,
>If you don't (even pretend to) have an opinion about the nature of the
>pyramids,
compare and contrast the above two quotes...
>then on what basis are you questioning the scientific conclusions?
a scientific conclusion must be based upon evidence...i have not seen
sufficient evidence to come to conclusion...others say they have...it
is entirely legitimate to ask that they present their evidence...
>............... Have you familiarized yourself with the society in
>question, their funerary literature, their obsession with the afterlife,
>etc? If you have, I am surprised you haven't even developed any
>tentative theories about this. Or have you? Or do you at least have
>evidence that points away from the "tomb" conclusion?
1. multiple pyramids attributed to the same king - perhaps ten in the
case of seneferu..."scientific conclusions" are often discarded after
confrontation with a single "fact"...(law of falsifiability)...
articles of faith endure despite countervailing fact..
all a are b
but some a are not b
therefore all a are b
ACCEPT!!!...
2. only still sealed sarcophagus, that i know of, that was found
within a pyramid was empty...that, a more than slightly pregnant
negative...
all a are b
this a is not b
therefore all a are b
BELIEVE!!!...
>The vast majority of all the chaotic
>bits of evidence obviously point toward a tomby sort of function for the
>pyramids.
i agree...
>So you admit to open deception as a debate tactic?
>That is more informing than you probably wanted.
lets see...what might the phrase "open deception" mean??...deception
that neither did nor was intended to decieve??...i prefer the phrase
"obvious goad"...it is, at least, coherent...
>I ask you (without goading), in your opinion, do you feel that the
>"coffers" within the chambers of the various pyramids are meant to be,
>or represent, sarcophagi? (whether with bodies or not)
yes...my only shying from the term comes when confronted with the
nominalistic blunder, mistaken for argument, of: "you called it a
sarcophagus...that means there had to have been a body buried
there..."
frank
Subject: Re: Pyramids and Aliens
From: gblack@midland.co.nz (George Black)
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 96 00:54:40 GMT
.....repeatedly i state that i do not know the purpose of
>the pyramids, and state my purpose in the discussion...i do that,
>though repetition is tiresome, because i believe it to be my
>intellectual responsibility in a discussion to answer all relevant
>questions as directly and honestly as i can...i take that
>responsibility seriously...if others here would do the same, then i
>would not have to continually go through the other routine that has
>become such a bore, that of asking them to state specific evidence...
as you state, there is no body, no treasure, no nothing.
So, we have to examine the surrounds of that particular Pyramid.
The ship burials (6) associated with Khufu not only name the dead Pharoah but
also his successor Khafre
What perhap of the quarry marks discovered on the blocks that were used to
seal the burial chamber? The names of Khufu were known to number more than
one. A number of people have managed to ‘avoid’ this particular point.
And Khufu’s father Snefru who imported 40 shiploads of Lebanon cedar. Inside
his Bent Pyramid at Dahshur some of these 4600 year old cedar beams are still
present.
The first burials were in the desicating sands of Egypt. There is a good
example of this style of burial in the British Museum.
From thence came the Mastaba, a raised structure with a bench running round
it.
From there came the stepped pyramid (just an overgrown mastaba) and, finally,
with all the steps filled in, came the true pyramid.
Are you aware of the spirituality of the Egyptian as to the repose of the KA
for example the unfinished step pyramid at Zawiyet el Aryan.
The pyramid form began with the stepped pyramid of Djoser. Ghoneim has
found numerous galleries and niches within the pyramid
at Saqqara which yielded vases and jewellery.
Comparison of pyramid interiors demonstrate an evolution, a growth in the
mechanics of God/King burial.
And then we have the builings that surround the pyramid. The chapels, the
grainaries, the burials of the civil servants who served the Pharoah during
his reign. The artwork contained within these graves. In some cases we have
animal burials accompanying human burials. From crocodiles to cats.
Regards
Some people can stay longer in an hour than others can in a week
gblack@midland.co.nz
Subject: Re: Caucasian on the Columbia c7300 BCE
From: "Brent Wolke, 2nd Emporer of Man"
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 00:44:47 +0000
Baron Szabo wrote:
>
> Peter Van Rossum wrote:
> >
> > No racial typology scheme that I have ever seen can correctly identify > even living individuals 100% of the time, the problem gets even worse > when you are
>
> It's too bad that science need to bail any process that isn't accurate
> %100 of the time. Extremely limiting, if you ask me.
>
> BTW, aren't there DNA strands in bone? Isn't there work being done to
> genetically trace race through genes?
>
> --
>
> 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/
Yes there is in fact, and in reference to the Columbia River Skeleton,
the Umatilla coalition will not allow any more testing on the bones,
because it would be "sacreligious" to do so.
Brent E. Wolke, 2nd Emperor of Man
Subject: Re: help!!! looking for coin
From: Damien Burke
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 10:38:28 +0100
In article <3265B4D9.39C3@earthlink.net>, Benjamin Vargas
writes
>Steve Firth wrote:
>>
>> 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
[etc]
>
> dear pothunter,
>
>Although your interest in ancient artifacts may be innocent, your
>interest in their value, and how to loot them from archaeological sites
>will only do a disservice to people truly interested in history.
>Although you may not be aware, stealing artifacts from archaeological
>sites in the US, is a crime, not only legally, but also to the pursuit of
>history.
He did mention he was in the UK, not the US. There's still a
difference (if only in the price of Big Macs).
> And with intentions such as yours, it
>should be easy for all to see how Native American people have such a
>disdain for archaeology.
Well informed, these Native Americans? Keeping tabs on events
in the South of England. Very good!
--
Damien. Bored and with no work to do...
Subject: Re: Pyramids and Aliens
From: fmurray@pobox,com (frank murray)
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 09:09:45 GMT
On Fri, 18 Oct 96 00:54:40 GMT, gblack@midland.co.nz (George Black)
wrote:
>And Khufu’s father Snefru who imported 40 shiploads of Lebanon cedar. Inside
>his Bent Pyramid at Dahshur some of these 4600 year old cedar beams are still
>present.
thanks for clearing this whole thing up for me...almost...i've a few
more questions though, that i hope you won't mind answering...to make
it easy, i'll phrase them so they can be answered yes or no...any
others who wish to post their answers, feel free to do so...
1. do you believe snefru built the bent pyramid??...
2. do you believe he was buried in it??...
3. do you believe snefru built the red pyramid??...
4. do you believe he was buried in it??...
5. do you believe snefru finished the meidum pyramid??...
6. do you believe he was buried in it??...
7. do you believe snefru built the pyramid attributed to him at
elephantine??...
8. do you believe he was buried in it??...
9. do you believe snefru built the pyramid attributed to him at
abydos??...
10. do you believe he was buried in it??...
11. do you believe snefru built the pyramid attributed to him at
seila??...
12. do you believe he was buried in it??...
13. do you believe snefru built the pyramid attributed to him at
el-kula??...
14. do you believe he was buried in it??...
15 do you believe snefru built the pyramid attributed to him at
zawiyet-el-mayitin??...
16. do you believe he was buried in it??...
17. do you believe snefru built the pyramid attributed to him at
edfu??...
18. do you believe he was buried in it??...
19. do you believe that snefru built the pyramid attributed to him at
nagada??...
20. do you believe he was buried in it??...
frank
Subject: Re: Silver
From: mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal)
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 10:32:05 GMT
Troy Sagrillo wrote:
>My suspicion was well-founded: both the Worterbuch and Harris' lexical
>study of Egyptian terms for metals, &c.;, both say that the word /`rqwr/
>**is** a borrowing from Greek and does not show up until the Ptolemaic
>Period (it is on the Rossetta stone itself apparently). The native
>Egyptian term /HD/ (hedj) "silver" seems to have no longer meant
>**pure** silver and a new term was therefore borrowed (though there was
>some interplay).
>BTW, Harris claims that the Egyptian /HD/ was borrowed into Hittite as
>well.
Interesting. We have Egyptian borrowing the Greek word, and before
that Hittite (maybe?) borrowing the Egyptian word. (I'm not totally
convinced: the only evidence I've seen are the rare spellings URU
KUG.BABBAR for Hattussas, and KUR URU KUG.BABBAR-ti for Hatti.
Gamkrelidze and Ivanov give the Hittite word as harki- "white,
silver").
Which brings me to "silver" in English and its Near Eastern roots.
The word is general Germanic (Goth. silubr, OHG silabar), and is
probably connected to the words in Baltic (OPruss. sirablan, Lith.
sidabras, Latv. sidabrs), and Slavic (OSlav. sUrebro). Usually, the
word is connected with Akkadian Sarpu "silver" (Gamkrelidze and Ivanov
further give Arabic Sariif [?? I can only find this in the sense "to
change money, to circulate"] and Hausa azurfa). But how did an
Akkadian word end up among the tribes around the Baltic Sea, without
leaving any trace in between?
It becomes even stranger if we consider Basque zilar "silver". Celtic
(Gaulish) has arganto-, so the Basques probably did not borrow the
word from the Celts. A direct connection with Germanic is highly
unlikely until the Visigoth invasion, which seems late, and rare (the
Basques, like the Spaniards, did not borrow many Gothic words).
Finally, there are a few words for "lead" that might be relevant:
Avestan srva-, New Persian surb, Hittite suli-, suliya- and maybe
Greek solos (? *swol(w)os) "molten metal". Since the Indo-Iranian
languages often confuse l and r, these words seem to point away from
Akkadian Sarpu to a form with *l (*s(w)olw-?), like Germanic and
Basque. And then there are Lith. alvas, Russ. olovo "tin", OPruss.
alwis, OSlav. olovo "lead" (*olw-), further confusing the issue...
What are the Akkadian and Sumerian words for the metals?
I've got, from various unreliable sources:
GOLD hura^s^u gus^kin
SILVER Sarpu kug.babbar
COPPER eru^ urudu
BRONZE ? zabar
LEAD ? a.bar2, a.gar5
TIN annaku nagga (an.nag)
IRON ? an.bar
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal ~ ~
Amsterdam _____________ ~ ~
mcv@pi.net |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig
Subject: Re: Egypt's Foreign Connections Part II
From: mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal)
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 11:10:53 GMT
Saida wrote:
>[This is Margaret Murray encapsulizing Petrie, who died in 1942.]
>Judging by the archaeological evidence Professor Gordon Childe considers
>that "on a short chronology the whole Tripolyy development would lie
>within the limits of the period ii to iv". This would coincide with the
>XIIth Dynasty of Egypt, a period to which soul-houses and certain types
>of female figurines belong."
The short chronology (pre C-14, pre-calibration) is no longer tenable.
Cucut,eni-Tripolye is now dated between 4500 and 3000 BC, 1 to 2.5
millennia before the XIIth Dyn., and in fact before any Egyptian
dynasty whatsoever.
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal ~ ~
Amsterdam _____________ ~ ~
mcv@pi.net |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig
Subject: Re: Egyptian junkie pharaohs
From: mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal)
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 11:10:55 GMT
Lnewolf@iglou.com (Lnewolf) wrote:
>I have read the theory of how Native people were supposed to have
>crossed the Bering Straights. I never bought it. I do not think that
>the Native American people share a lot in looks or culture with
>Mongoloid people. I think that the theories should be expanded to
>include other possibilities. Is it too hard to imagine that the
>Native American people came by boat. Landing either in America
>itself, or down in South America and migrating.
America itself? You mean the US?
>Maybe that is what
>happened to all of the Aztecs and Mayans. Maybe the just all decided
>(for what ever reason) to move North.
The Aztecs actually moved _South_ into Mexico valley.
>It would certainly explain
>thier sudden disappearance in South America.
AFAIK, there were never any Aztecs or Mayas in S. America.
> We also shouldn't rule
>out the idea that, no matter what evolutionary process or creation
>process you want to believe in, Native American people may have formed
>here from the very beginning. Why are these possibilies not
>considered?
They will be, as soon as early hominid (pre-Sapiens) remains are found
in America. So far, none have turned up.
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal ~ ~
Amsterdam _____________ ~ ~
mcv@pi.net |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig
Subject: Re: Migrations...
From: "Alan M. Dunsmuir"
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 07:37:29 +0100
In article <5443kj$5c5@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>, Stella Nemeth
writes
>The lowland Scotts spoke a varient of English to begin with, so they
>aren't a great example. The highland Scotts mostly migrated out
>(individually and in small groups), to places like Ireland, and the
>Americas. You are probably right about the other groups you mention.
I suppose it's too much to ask you to refrain from talking about things
of which you know nothing?
The lowland Scots originally spoke the germanic language 'Lallans'
(which is actually about as close to English as Dutch is), and were as
much oppressed out of this by the English as were the highland Scots out
of their use of Gaelic.
No highland Scots ever migrated to Ireland in any numbers - that would
have been a leap well and truly into the fire - but went directly to
Canada, the USA, Australia and New Zealand. The movement in the 19th
century was actually in the other direction - the Irish fleeing the
potato famine to the West of Scotland, as well as to the USA. The only
'migration' movement in history of Scots to Ireland was the settlement -
not an opportunistic migration - of (lowland) prebytarian Scots in
Ulster in the 17th century, organised by the English Government, with
the express purpose of keeping the local Irish under control.
And we all know where that has got us.
--
Alan M. Dunsmuir
"Time flies like an arrow -
Fruit flies like a banana" --- Grouchy Marx (as used by Noam Chomsky)
Subject: Re: AFRICAN monuments...those Everlasting PYRAMIDS
From: Xina
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 07:14:36 +0000
hazel m. batts wrote:
>
> If you were blind and called the ancient Egyptians "Arabic Caucasoid",
> one may not have a problem with it. But if you can see and if you are
> claiming that the ancient Egyptians were white people who painted
> themselves Black(Brown), then you are just a racist in denial.
Excuse me, Hazel, but I work with Egyptians, and Ethiopians and Nubians
AND people from Zaire. Now, though their facial features are similar
there are skeletal differences. The Egyptians that I work with look
exactly like painted statuary and wall paintings of same. The folks
from Nubia and Ethiopia maintain that they are indeed related on some
level to the Egyptians, things such as "race" were absolutely immaterial
to these people. There were Several Per'aas (Pharaohs) and Queens that
were of Nubian or as you are fond of saying "African" decent.
When you are citing the painting habits of ancient Egyptians you are
not taking into consideration the fact that every glyph, every piece of
clothing right down to skin tone were *symbologically madated* Even
during the 'realism' of the Amarna period, the Ancient Egyptian old
school of art was firmly in place. If you want to know how and why
Egyptians painted their people in tombs, painted statuary etc, you must
take into account that colours of Egyptian Paintings and statuary can
not be taken as literal. Im not saying these things to 'cheat you (or
anyone else of African decent) out of their heritage. IMHO, it is the
Human Race we are part of.
If you
> think it is stupid that black people say the ancient Egyptians were
> black, then it is even more stupid for white people to say the ancient
> Egyptians were white.
Ive been on these newsgroups for two years and I have *never* heard
anyone claim that the Egyptians were "white". First let me ask you what
is your definition of white? What is your definition of black? Where do
the rest of us who are "niether" go when you are done doing your
definitions and dividing lines?
The ancient Egyptians left great and an abundance
> of evidence of whom they were and unless you are color blind or out right
> blind, it is abundantly clear that the ancient Egyptians were Black
> Africans. The authorities on whom the ancient Egyptians were are neither
> Black people nor White people, but the ancient Egyptians themselves. The
> ancient Egyptians said they descended from the Somalians and Ethiopians
Hmmm. You know a Somali doesnt look like a Masai, and neither of them
look Ethiopian and further still none of them look like "all" ancient
Egyptians. Frankly, there are statues where the Egyptians look more
Choctaw or Seminole or Tsalagi than they look "black" but we all know
that its imposible that they are from any NA Nation. (As far as science
tells us).
Interestingly, if you sit a Navajo next to a Tibetan, compare their
symbolism and their culture, even their weaving techniques which are
frighteningly similar, you would be amazed at the similarity of the
two. Also, if you set those two cultures next to the Ancient Dravidian
and the Ancient Egyptian, you start to see even *more* similarities. So
whats the message with that do you suppose? I think its quite simple we
dont *know* without a shadow of a doubt and we are still finding out.
> and even unto this day the Somalians and Ethiopians are still Black
> African nations. Yes today Egypt may be and look like Arabic Caucasoid,
> but that is the result of 2000 years of mixing with Greeks, Romans,
> Turks, and other modern Europeans such as the British, French etc.
2000 years? I think you better take a closer look at your historical
time line. 2000 years ago was the begining of the End of the Egyptian
Empire. Forensic reconstruction of skeletal remains have shown that the
people of Egypt now are not signifigantly different than those that
lived there 4000 - 5000 years ago. If you doubt me, do more research on
the subjects mentioned above.
> > >
> > > HISTORY SHOWS that the construction of the Pyramids occurred [in lands]
> > > occupied by AFRICAN people in Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan, as well as by
> > > the Africans who migrated to Central America in the 7th century B.C.
> > > Since ancient times, the pyramids have been the object of great
> > > speculation about HOW and WHY they were built.
Personally, my pet theory is that they were built by the Native American
people in desperation after discovering there were vast buffalo
shortagesin Egypt and they could not construct Tipis. (Tipis are not
very seaworthy, they get really heavy and sink when the skins get wet!)
Limestone and rock was all they could find and so in a vain attempt to
construct what they thought looked like what they were living in back
home they built the Pyramids. They couldnt figure out how to get into
the lodges once they had built them.....The King and Queens chambers was
about the best that they could do. Hmm I wonder what Professor Von
Berlitz would say about my theory.
Subject: Re: Egyptian junkie pharaohs
From: solos@enterprise.net (Adrian Gilbert)
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 96 11:26:15 GMT
In article <32640604.2D93@iceonline.com>,
Baron Szabo wrote:
>Adrian Gilbert wrote:
>>
>> Heyerdahl's book "The Ra expeditions". It's a bit old now but I have
>> tremendous respect for him as he doesn't pontificate from an armchair but
>> actually puts his theories to the test. As for me, another book has "come
on".
>> It's called "Magi: the quest for a secret tradition" and has just been
>> published by Bloomsbury. It picks up from where "The Orion Mystery" left
off
>> and presents evidence for the continuation of stellar knowledge right up
until
>> our own day.
>
>Did Robert Bauval offer any input on this new book?
>Does it focus any more on Egyptian astronomy and/or funerary customs?
>Isn't it obvious that stellar knowledge has continued right up until
>today? What is this furthur evidence useful for?
>
>If you want my few bucks, you'll have to earn them. :)
>I assure you I work very hard for my bucks! In answer to your questions, No,
Yes and No. :-)
Adrian
Subject: Re: Great Pyramid Dimensions.
From: mturton@stsvr.showtower.com.tw (Michael Turton)
Date: 17 Oct 1996 13:39:15 GMT
In article <544e1t$ar@lex.zippo.com>,
Archae Solenhofen (jmcarth1@gtn.net) wrote:
> First, I have no idea whether you are correct about the "creep
>deformation", but the limestone has served rather nicely for these last
>4600, or is it 12500, years, don't you think?
[deleted Archae's informative post]
> Quite a lot better than
>most 20th Century structures.
Archae: Show me a single modern structure that costs 900 billion dollars (US).
Can't show you that, but there are large numbers of modern
structures which should last for thousands of years barring disaster.
Any one of several dozen large dams -- the Aswan, Hoover, Columbia
and so forth, to name only one type. Like the Pyramids, they're just big heaps
of stone, artificial though it may be. But why is lasting a long time
a criterion of superior technology? Both stone tools and plastic plates
last a long time. Besides, who needs buildings that last a long time
in this day and age?
Mike
Subject: Re: Father=Creator=Pater=Ptah=Pitar
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 17 Oct 1996 12:50:47 GMT
In article <32657E13.682D@utoronto.ca>, t.sagrillo@utoronto.ca says...
>
>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:
>>
>> whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <32630D2D.3E3E@utoronto.ca>, t.sagrillo@utoronto.ca says...
>> >>
>> >>Do you understand what a phonetic complement is?
>>
>> >A phonetic complement is a sign which tells you how the word
>> >is supposed to be prounounced
>>
>> No.
>>
>> A phonetic complement is an optional and unpronounced reading aid,
>> that repeats an element (usually the last) of a two-letter or
>> three-letter sign. For instance: Amon. Written , or, with
>> phonetic complement (making a nice square group of signs) .
>> Pronouned /i-mn/, regardless of the presence or absence of the
>> phonetic complement. Not pronounced /n/.
>>
>> I'm sure Gardiner explains this somewhere.
>
>Chapter 3, Section 32, page 38.
>
>
Thank you for the correction.
Let me see if I understand you correctly.
A phonetic complement is:
optional
unpronounced
a reading aid
helps with the proportions and composition of the group of signs
repeats an element of a biliteral or triliteral sign
is a sign
tells you how the word is supposed to be pronounced.
is explained by Gardiner on page 38
"The biliteral signs and similarly the triliteral signs are
almost always accompanied by alphabetic signs expressing
part or the whole of their sound value"
wbn ra rswt
steve
Subject: Re: Caucasian on the Columbia c7300 BCE
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 17 Oct 1996 12:57:41 GMT
In article <3265817F.3752@worldnet.att.net>, Thwaak@worldnet.att.net says...
>
>Baron Szabo wrote:
>>
>> Peter Van Rossum wrote:
>> >
>> > No racial typology scheme that I have ever seen can correctly identify >
even living individuals 100% of the time, the problem gets even
>>
>> It's too bad that science need to bail any process that isn't accurate
>> %100 of the time. Extremely limiting, if you ask me.
>>
>> BTW, aren't there DNA strands in bone? Isn't there work being done to
>> genetically trace race through genes?
>>
>> --
>>
>> zoomQuake
>
>
>Yes there is in fact, and in reference to the Columbia River Skeleton,
>the Umatilla coalition will not allow any more testing on the bones,
>because it would be "sacreligious" to do so.
>
>Brent E. Wolke,
Those who want to know more about developments on this might
want to subscribe to SITKA. The other associated finds are
also very interesting. The actual people doing the work have
excellent relations with the local tribes because they respect
their attitudes and values.
This particular instance of cooperation may be a frustration
to some, but the researchers in the field are excited by a
wide range of other discoveries,
steve
Subject: Provincial Museum of Alberta WWW page
From: abeaudoi@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (Alwynne Beaudoin)
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 13:31:30 GMT
PROVINCIAL MUSEUM OF ALBERTA
WORLD WIDE WEB PRESENTATION
Sponsored by the Friends of the Provincial Museum of Alberta Society,
the Provincial Museum of Alberta World Wide Web presentation is now
"on the air" and can be accessed at:
http://www.pma.edmonton.ab.ca
This site contains over 325 pages of information about the Museum,
including an introduction to the twelve curatorial areas and the
educational programs, information on galleries and exhibits,
and a visit to the Museum Shop. It also contains general
visitor information (dates and times of opening, admission prices
etc.), details of volunteer opportunities, and a calendar of events.
Please direct any comments on this presentation to:
webeditor@pma.edmonton.ab.ca
Archaeologists may find sections on Archaeology, Ethnology,
Postglacial Palaeoenvironments of Alberta, and Quaternary Vertebrate
Paleontology of particular interest.
Subject: Re: Egyptian junkie pharaohs
From: ajenk70571@aol.com (AJenk70571)
Date: 17 Oct 1996 12:06:03 -0400
In Message-ID: <544lo6$10p@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>
gyoung1@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>
The real question is how something like cocane got to
ancient Egypt. There is only one way it could-- by sea.
>>
Not true. One can dream up all sorts of other hypotheses, at least as
plausible as this one.
For example, in the part of this show concerned with the presence of
nictine in these mummies, it was suggested that an African relative of the
tobacco plant, possibly now extinct, might be responsible. Whether or not
there is anything to this it does suggest a different line of inquiry. We
don't know the pharmacology of many plants that are still around, perhaps
one such plant is what is responsible for the cocaine traces. For
example, people in the Yemen/Somalia/Ethiopia area chew the leaves of a
plant called qat to get an effect somewhat similar to the effect that the
Andean people got from the coca plant. We know that the Egyptians were in
contact with people in this area in ancient times. I have no idea what
the active ingredient(s) of qat is/are, but it might be interesting to
know if it is chemically related to cocaine.
CHris Bennett