Subject: Re: Pompeian Pineapples
From: Claudio De Diana
Date: 17 Oct 1996 14:56:54 GMT
yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>Berlant@cyberix.com wrote:
>: In article <53n9f8$4mu@news1.io.org>, yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>
>: As strange as it may initially seem, the fruits in these Pompeian frescoes
>: are, in all likelihood, stylized pomegranates. The pomegranate's smooth
>: surface differs significantly from the pineapple's rough, segmented surface.
>
>Thanks for your contribution, Steve. I'm aware of many mythological
>references to the pomegranate. It plays a great role in Judaism and was
>an especially sacred plant for the Jerusalem temple worship.
>Nevertheless, I'm not persuaded that it's so easy to mix it up with the
>pineapple. They look REALLY different on the tree, because of the huge
>leaves at the top of the pineapple fruit.
>
>Yours,
>
>Yuri.
So let's say that in a Pompeian frescoes there is a fruit
painted that looks like to a pineapple or to a pomegranate.
Let's make the hypotesis that the fruit is a pineapple,
this would imply that, given that the pineapple is an extra-european fruit,
somebody carried this fruit from its original environment.
O.K. Make the ->assumption<- that this is true.
Say then that the ancient Romans knew the Pineapple,
in this case I will expect that they kept growing them in such
a way that somebody else - different from the painter
of our frescoes - would have eaten, grown and described
pineapples or maybe painted in other frescoes.
Where are the other proof of the existance
of the "imported" pineapple during, let's say, the Western
Roman Empire period [max 476 AC, but the Vesuvio Eruption
happened before]?
There are no proof, so the assumption is wrong.
The fruit observed is therefore a pomegranate.
Let me point out that nowaday in Italy it is possible to observe
a wild tree of pomegranate but I strongly doubt that it is possible
to have a wild plant (or cultivated) of ananas... but maybe some
biologist will have mercy of us and will give the boundaries
of the environment of the pineapple tree.
Another reference that you posted was this
>> The reference in the _Man across the sea_ is slightly garbled (quite
>>apart from my imperfect memory). The correct reference is
>> D. Casello, La frutta nelle pitture Pompeiane
>> in Pompeiana : raccolta di studi per il secondo centenario degli scavi
>>di Pompei / [edited by Amedeo Maiuri]. Napoli : Gaetano Macchiaroli Editore, 1950.
>>
>>It discusses the fruit appearing in the paintings. There's only a
>>couple of paragraphs about the supposed pineapple, with one poor
>>quality illustration. Quote from p. 367:
>>"sul larario a destra entrando nella Casa dell'Efebo, si trova
>>dipinta una infruttescenza di Ananasso (fig. 46) di medie dimensioni,
>>di colore rosso, provvista del caratteristico ciuffo di foglie, la
>>quale dimostra che questa specie tropicale e anche orginaria
>>dell'Asia o dall'Africa e che conosciuta dai nostra avi prima della
>>scoperta dell'America."
**************** begin translation *************************************
I will translate for you .. Casa dell'Efebo, one can find
a Pineapple fruit (fig.46) of average dimensions, of red colour,
having the typical group of leaves, this demonstrates that this
tropical plant (verb missing) [which comes] originally
from Asia or (sic) from Africa (verb missing) [is] known
by our ancestors(*) before of the discovery of the America.
******************** end translation ***********************************
Even if we can suppose that the text was ruined, by the
trascription of a person who did not know the Italian Language,
it is very strange that the author relates a plant "coming
from Asia or (sic) Africa" to the "discovery of the America".
Best Regards,
Claudio
(*) ancestors is related to an italian audience.
Subject: Re: Arabic Loan Words (was Kleins Comprehensive English Etymology)
From: Saida
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 09:50:52 -0500
Troy Sagrillo wrote:
>
> 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/
I never intended to suggest that /s/ would be /l/. That can be
interchangeable with /z/. However, the /ai/ in "qechesai" could have
become an /l/ in Arabic. The reason I did not think this was a loan
word from Arabic is that I am well aware that when Semitic words
containing an /l/ were borrowed into Egyptian, the /l/ became an
/r/--such as "shalom" to "shar-m" and "shekel" to "shak-r". Perhaps the
words were cognates. I disagree most strongly that "qechesai" and
"ghazal" have nothing in common! The beginning letters, for one are
nearly identical in sound. In fact, you can take your pick as to
whether the glyph "wedge" or the glyph "oven (or stand)" are voiced
closer to the Arabic "gh" sound in "ghazal" because the Egyptian word
was spelled variously with either. Say "qechesai" a few times to
yourself and then "ghazal" and you won't hear too much difference.
Subject: Re: Father=Creator=Pater=Ptah=Pitar
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 17 Oct 1996 15:09:40 GMT
In article <32658DE5.1B14@utoronto.ca>, t.sagrillo@utoronto.ca says...
>
>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).
Thank you for getting a copy of Gardiner Troy, it makes discussion
much easier.
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"
The word "father" refers to one specific act of creation
making a child.
The word Ptah has a more general sense of "creator"
"father of all fathers"
"maker"
>
>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]
Budge misspelled Sekhet as Sekhmet, I agree.
Sekhet is a goddess associated with the creation
of the nature of a person. She partakes of the essence
of Hathor who was "the great mother of the world" and
"the personification of the great power of nature which
was perpetually concieving and creating and bringing forth
and rearing and maintaining all things both great and small"
Sekhet is associated with the knowledge of one's self.
"I have knowledge, I was concieved by Sekhet and the
goddess Neith gave me birth" Budge TGOTE vol I, p443
Sekhet is also identified with fire. The sense I get is of
the burning passion which makes us thirst for knowledge.
Neith is the "great one of knowledge"
The principal female counterpart of Ptah was the goddess
Sekhet. She is depicted in the form of a woman with the head
of a lioness. "The name Sekhet appears to be derived from or
connected with the root sekhem, to be strong, mighty, violent"
"Ptah as the master architect and workman who carried out
the designs of the seven wise ones partook in some respects
of the character of them all and as Sekhet was his female
counterpart she appears to have aquired some of their
attributes also."
Continuing with Budge:
> 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).
The Ka of Ptah is his mind. The house of the Ka of Ptah
is the college of Ptah where one who burns with the fire
of Sekmet, the eros for wisdom, can go to get an education.
>
>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 would be interested to hear what you think this means.
Here we have a goddess associated with a burning passion
or an Eros for Wisdom.
Where Budge uses the term "make me rise"
you translate it as ...
Sekhmet straightens/ stretches me...
I shall be in the sky"
Whatever could we be talking about here?...:)
> (and) a command shall be made for me
Following the title of the goddess Sekhet we have
the determinative of a man on his knee beseeching,
pleading or imploring and then the logo of the sky
beneath the base followed by Gardiner aa13 "im"
meaning "give"
Give me an education
Give me a chance to rise up in the world
Quench my burning thirst for knowledge
Enroll me in your college
This is followed by "iru" meaning form or nature
and Gardiner O44 meaning office or rank (degree)
and Gardiner Y1 "md3t" papyrus roll, book, word,
truth, know great (written degree)
followed again by the determinitive of beseech
and aa 13 meaning "give"
Or, if you prefer to use the word command, how about...
it has been commanded that a place shall be made for me
I will be accepted to, enrolled in,
>in The House/Temple/Estate of the Ka of Ptah
The house of the Ka of Ptah or the mind of Ptah
simply means the college or university of Ptah.
(ie, Memphis; BTW, /hwt k3 ptH/ is the origin of Greek
>aigiptos, Egypt).
I know Budge translates
"The House of the Ka of Ptah" as Memphis
But you should know better.
How do you equate the College of Ptah with Memphis?
There is no mention of Memphis here. The determinative
for city or compound or cluster of buildings is present
but what we are talking about is a school or university
not a city. The k3 pth (mind of Ptah) is enclosed in
the h making it a house, compound or cluster of buildings.
>
>Alternately, this could be taken as:
>
>.....I shall be in the sky (while/but) what I have commanded is
>done/preformed/made in Memphis
Try and understand what you are reading. What is the meaning
of the phrase "I shall be in the sky"? How does it connect to
what went before and what comes after? This is the sort of
translation which makes people think the Egyptians were retarded.
>
>So now, where's "Ptah r" or any concept of father???
The concept of "creator" here means creator of wisdom.
The title "father of fathers" means "teacher of teachers"
Where's your "r"
following the determinative for place after phrase
"the House of the Ka of Ptah"we have
"rh papyrus determinative"
given by Faulkner as learning/ knowledge /wisdom
make wisdom
>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/.
No. form of "rh payrus determinative"
"iri" is written with its vowels dropped as a mouth as it is
combined into a compound biliteral sign meaning make wisdom
where the "r" has the sense of the verb "iri" to make or do
starts us off and then we go on to explain what it is that
we are going to do.
The invocation of the name of a god or a major attribute
such as the "ka" has to be considered carefully when making
an evaluation of the sense of the phrase.
What we have here is a student asking for the college of
Ptah to enroll him in studies "the truths which pervade
the college (house of the mind of Ptah) make knowledge
and wisdom" leading to certification as a teacher.
For Ptah to create him as a teacher.
>
>Troy
>
>
steve
Subject: Re: Arabic Loan Words (was Kleins Comprehensive English Etymology)
From: Saida
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 10:56:26 -0500
Troy Sagrillo wrote:
>
> Saida wrote:
> [snip]
> > Troy, some of your "Arabic" words looked familiar!
Troy:
>
> n.b., vowel + : below indicates a long vowel.
>
> 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.
Yet the Egyptians, at some point, did have a word for "camel" which
sounds pretty much the same as the English word that comes from Semitic.
The point I am trying to make, Troy, that it is allright with me if you
claim all of the words you mentioned were taken from Arabic--but just
don't forget that Egypt was there, as well, and many of the Semitic
words have Egyptian counterparts and Hebrew, too, not forgetting that
one. Sometimes it is difficult to know who had the word first. The
destinies of these three languages, as is well attested in Egyptian, did
not stay separate for long. The word "crocus" is a good example of what
I mean. The whole Mediterranean world seemed to use it, so it is hard
to determine through which culture it came into English--Arabic, Greek?
In the dictionaries, the compilers choose a couple of sources for the
etymology that they know of, but they will not always be aware of who
used comparable terms at the same time or even just where the root term
originated. That is why I tend to think there were also Egyptian words
similar to Arabic for "camphor" and "crimson". We, of course, only know
the Egyptian words we have from the texts. You have to allow that
therre were terms that existed but did not appear in any texts known to
us. For instance, there would not be much call for camphor or crimson
in funerary or laudatory writings. Here is what I wrote about camphor
previously:
Another word I found interesting is "camphor". It harks back to the
Latin "canfora or camphora", still being "canfora" in Italian. The
Arabic is "kafur". When I saw this, I knew there must be an Egyptian
connection here, as well. While I could not find anything under
"camphor" in my Egyptian dictionary, I know that, in Egyptian, "kaf" is
"to drive away" or "to repel". The "ur" part generally means "big or
great" in Egyptian, but, as it usually appears as a prefix to a word, I
am not sure it could be applied in this case. But there is also "urur"
or "to go against" or just plan "uar" prounounced WAR, which means "to
attack" to "smite". A meaning of "camphor" is "to protect fabrics from
moths".
"Camphoric ice" is described as "an ointment made of white wax, camphor,
spermaceti, and castor oil". In Egyptian there is "qeba'a" or "the
great cooler"--a kind of ointment!
Subject: Re: Father=Creator=Pater=Ptah=Pitar
From: Saida
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 11:17:23 -0500
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:
>
> 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.
Well, this seems to be wrong and Egypt is the link.
> 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
I think it was pronounced "F'tach" with the gutteral at the end.
>
> 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.
>
How about "F'tach" as in the German ""fertig" meaning "done"? Let's
have done with this thread already!
Subject: Re: Origins of Europeans..
From: Kathy McIntosh
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 23:46:14 +0100
In article <541cjj$rmb@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, GROOVE YOU
writes
>Aurelius M. wrote: >>>
>> > I doubt if there is a Pure anything left in Europe. The Romans
>> > were in France/Gaul for atleast 800 years. No doubt there were >>>
> To use the term pure when speaking of light cultures is a incorrect
>term, because this insinuates that the original man was white, Science and
>History teaches us that the original man was and had to be black. The
>general and mis informed train of thought that a white person that is
>pure has blond hair is incorrect and down right wrong, the most original
>or purest of the white race would have to be the dark haired because that
>is more of a dominant trait. Science tells us that dark hair or eyes are
>dominant and that light hair or eyes are recessive, Mendell said that you
>can get the recessive from dominant, but you cannot get dominant from the
>recessive. So if you are going to use the term "pure," you can only use
>that term when you are speaking of someone that is the darkest of the dark
>or "black, because genetically speaking the purest and unmixed of man is
>black then it thin's (so to speak) out into white.
I want you to try a little experiment for me. Go out and buy a tin of
white paint and a tin of black paint. Then choose a nice wall and paint
part of it white and part of it black. Then see if you can find ANYONE
who has a skin colour that matches either patch.
I can tell you know, you wont, but I still feel that you need to do this
little test. You might just learn something very important if you open
both your eyes AND your firmly closed mind.
Nobody is "white" and nobody is "black". We are all just one of a
myriad shades of brown.
Of course, I could be polite and assume that you are colour blind as
well as colour prejudiced, but that would be an untruth.
--
Kathy McIntosh
Subject: Re: Great Pyramid Dimensions.
From: Martin Stower
Date: 17 Oct 1996 17:43:31 GMT
Rodney Small wrote:
>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,
There's nothing to indicate that the `sockets' held cornerstones. They
could instead have been filled with a cement deposit, like the analogous
sockets found at Lisht. For the platform to cover the sockets, with the
cornerstones on top of the platform (just like the other casing-stones)
would be a far more consistent design.
A plausible case has been made for the sockets playing some role in the
surveying and levelling of the pyramid site. I don't have the exact
reference handy, but it was an article in JARCE.
>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.
For Petrie's figures, it would have been wiser to consult Petrie's book.
The figure they attribute to Petrie is a product of their own fudging.
Not very long ago, I picked up a copy of your likely source: Wm. R. Fix's
silly book, Pyramid Odyssey. He likewise cites Davidson and Aldersmith as
the source of figures attributed to Petrie. Not having a copy of Petrie's
Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh - I've since obtained the facsimile edition
- I used the figures given to test an idea of my own. I worked out the
mean and deviations from the mean, with the following result:
Distance between the outer socket corners:
Deviation
from mean
N 9129.8 -0.5
E 9130.8 +0.5
S 9141.4 +11.1
W 9119.2 -11.1
Mean 9130.2
Which improbable result is strongly suggestive of numerical fudging on
someone's part. Did Petrie fudge his figures? No. His actual figures
were as follows:
N 9129.8
E 9130.8
S 9123.9 <-
W 9119.2
The discrepancy is in the figure for the south side: Davidson and Aldersmith
have added all of 17.5 inches! (Fix goes on to borrow the figure and use it
in his own numerical fudging.)
Having conjured up this 17.5 inches by an arbitrary manipulation of Petrie's
figures (S = N + E - W), where do they slip it in? I checked Davidson and
Aldersmith's The Great Pyramid: Its Divine Message - the original edition
of 1924 - and looked at their plate XX (precisely the one cited above).
They slip in the 17.5 inches at the corner of the shallow SW socket. to
the W of a chiselled line; the representation of the SW socket has this
remarkable annotation (upper case in original):
S.W. SOCKET
SOUTH WEST SOCKET U.X.Y. BEING TOO SHALLOW (AND, IN FACT, AT DIAGONAL
POINT Z. ON LEVEL WITH GENERAL EXTERNAL ROCK SURFACE) THE DIAGONAL
POINT Z. WAS DEFINED BY A CHISELLED LINE W.Z.
THE PURPOSE OF THE CHISEL LINE W.Z. ON SURFACE OF S.W. SOCKET WAS TO
DEFINE THE LINE OF BASE DIAGONAL Z.O. AT POINT Z. ON SOUTH SIDE X.Y.
DIAGONALS DEFINED IN ALL OTHER CASES BY SOCKET CORNERS.
THERE IS NO WEST SIDE TO THIS SOCKET [!] AS HERE THE ROCK SURFACE
OUTSIDE OF SOCKET IS DEAD LEVEL WITH SOCKET SURFACE.
In other words, they `measured' 17.5 inches where - by their own account
- there was nothing at all determinate to measure.
Davidson and Aldersmith go on to revive Smyth's defunct notions about the
significance of the the perimeter of the pyramid - evidently the object of
the fudge. I, for one, will happily leave them to it.
>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).
The figure, however, is spurious.
Martin
Subject: Re: The Minoan Linear A Language?
From: Beever
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 01:24:12 -0700
Baron Szabo wrote:
> I am fully aware that many good and smart people have devoted their
> lives (sob!) to researching these sorts of details, and I, therefore,
> fully acknowledge that there is existing information and findings out
> there that put my own shallow theory to shame. But I have been thus far
> been unable to become aware of any of these...
I'm just catching the tail of what has apparently been a long discussion concerning the
language of the Linear A inscriptions. "How do we know that an English village with
thatched roofs belongs to the same cultural sphere as Manhattan with its skyscrapers?
Certainly not from the architecture, . . . The newspapers in the homes of the English
village and in the apartments of Manhattan are better historical and cultural criteria
than the buildings." - Cyrus H. Gordon in [Ugarit and Minoan Crete] (1966).
For a nice exposition on Gordon's decipherment of Minoan as West Semitic, which he
first postulated in 1957, see: Rendsburg, Gary A. '"Someone Will Succeed in Deciphering
Minoan", Cyrus H. Gordon and Minoan Linear A'. [Biblical Archaeologist], V.59 No.1,
March 1996. The Bibliography of this article contains about 30 references on the
subject.
>- [semi related] At Tell ed-Daba'a, in Egypt, there's a frescoe
>depicting Minoan bull-leaping. It is dated to the period of Hyksos rule
>in Egypt (15th century bce)*.
More than semi related; The Semitic Hyksos kings in Egypt (XVth Dynasty) date to the
17th-16th centuries (not 15th), supporting the theory that the origins of Minoan
culture lie in the Egyptian delta.
Subject: Re: Father=Creator=Pater=Ptah=Pitar
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 17 Oct 1996 18:16:36 GMT
In article <544d1f$e31@halley.pi.net>, mcv@pi.netÁ says...
>
>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.
Mallory "In Search of the Indo Europeans", Chapter Four
"Proto Indo-European Culture", p 111-112
" It is extremely uncommon, for example for the majority of
Indo European languages to share the same
Proto Indo-European word.
Loss of the original vocabulary seems to have been high and
is especially likely to have affected the languages only known
in written form within the last 1000-2000 years.
If this is the case in how many different languages must the
same word occur to be counted as a Proto Indo-European word?
There is really no wholly acceptable configuration of correspondence
that may be utilized although one general rule of thumb demands at
least a shared correspondence between a European and a non-adjacent
Asian Language in order to attribute the word to high Indo European
antiquity."
> 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 forsome (late?)
>borrowings.
I read Mallorys claim as being that he did not agree with either
Renfrew or Igor Diakonov as to the origins of the Indo-Europeans
or Gordon Childe and the Myth of an Aryan homeland.
He seems to think that there was such a homeland in the
hunting and fishing communities of the Pontic-Caspian.
What none of these theories take into account, despite the fact
that they love to point to trading settlements located at the
mouth of a river, and then postulate the entire drainage catchment
of the river was the home of far ranging nomadic horsemen is that
waterways were the highways of the ancient world in most places
at least until the Romans made it a point to build more paved roads.
>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.
Yes. I think we are agreed that a better answer than any of the
above might be found if we look at the way rivers become long
narrow bands of influence connecting places which are often
geographically less than contiguous.
The shape of the territories thus defined becomes linear
rather than compact, and stretches out for great distances.
It is territory connected rather than separated by lakes and
seas, and it may pass right through other territories belonging
to the landfolk (tm).
>
>>>How do you think the MK Egyptians pronounced "Ptah iri"?
The Egyptian word "pth" "create" is the same as the word "Ptah"
except for the determinative for god.
>
>>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:
Egyptian "pa" fly,... perhaps, but also
>
>parrot,
make by rote (speech like sounds learned by rote)
>parrakeet,
small parrot
>partridge,
make a trident (with its tail) "p3't" = quail
>pardalote (=diamond bird), or
>parula warblers
make an ululation (howling or hooting sound)
>Paradoxically, there also seems to be particular connection with
make a contradiction designate or make a part or particle
>certain edible plants:
>
>parsnip,
make nappy
>parsley,
make flavorful
>paradise (="orchard"),
make residence
>parasol mushroom,
make a sunshade
>partake ("please partake of this partridge with parsnips..."), and
make take
>parmentier (=prepared or served with potatoes)
make mindful of rank (humble fare)
>
>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.
Is the word "pth"= "create" related to the word "pth"= Ptah "creator?
Is Ptah r, or Ptah {i}r{i} "par" as it appears to be = "create, make"
associated with the word "par" "make" as a root of many words?
Egyptian certainly is not the only possible point of origin
but it is worth giving some consideration to.
Egyptian "pr" house, property, steward in charge of the house
properties of the house
Ptah in the sense of father, Egyptian "p't" patricians, mankind,
determinative give children Faulkner page 88
>
>
>==
>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
steve
Subject: Re: Great Pyramid Dimensions.
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 17 Oct 1996 22:09:36 GMT
In article <545r83$duv@bignews.shef.ac.uk>, martins@dcs.shef.ac.uk says...
>
>Rodney Small wrote:
>>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....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,
The measurement to the sockets made by Cole does not include the
pavement of the Pyramid. It should be noted that the base was
most probably intended to be 440 cubits of 525 mm or 231,000 mm
to a side giving a total of 924,000 mm or 36,378" plus a pavement
which projected a Biblical cubit from the corner of the pyramid.
Petrie measured from here
|
| /
| /
Smyth measured to here __|/___start of pyramid side of 231,000 mm
____|_____pavement side of 231,928 mm
socket in bed rock side of 230,364 mm
Both Petries and Smyth's measurements along the pyramid
and pavement sides are correct, but both give different
values which can be used in different proportionate
relationships. Neither is a more correct one in my view.
There is a photograph which illustrates this on page 105
of Thompkins "Secrets of the Great Pyramid"
>There's nothing to indicate that the `sockets' held cornerstones.
Actually, the corners have to be locked with some such method or
the thrust of the horizontal component of the vertical load which
is carried down the slope of the pyramid would cause its foundation
or pavement to spread and eventually the pyramid would collapse.
>They could instead have been filled with a cement deposit,
>like the analogous sockets found at Lisht. For the platform
>to cover the sockets, with the cornerstones on top of the
>platform (just like the other casing-stones)
>would be a far more consistent design.
There is enough which remains of the casing and pavement to show
that this was not the case.
>
>A plausible case has been made for the sockets playing some role in the
>surveying and levelling of the pyramid site. I don't have the exact
>reference handy, but it was an article in JARCE.
The bedrock was carved into a grid of channels which when filled with
water provided a level from which to establish a fairly accurate
base plane for the pyramid.
>
>>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.
>
>For Petrie's figures, it would have been wiser to consult Petrie's book.
>The figure they attribute to Petrie is a product of their own fudging.
Piazzi Smyth had gotten the 36,524" measurement by measuring the sockets
Petrie measured the pyramid from where it intersected the platform and
got a perimeter of 36,276"
>Not very long ago, I picked up a copy of your likely source: Wm. R. Fix's
>silly book, Pyramid Odyssey. He likewise cites Davidson and Aldersmith as
>the source of figures attributed to Petrie. Not having a copy of Petrie's
>Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh - I've since obtained the facsimile edition
>- I used the figures given to test an idea of my own. I worked out the
>mean and deviations from the mean, with the following result:
>
>Distance between the outer socket corners:
>
> Deviation
> from mean
>
>N 9129.8 -0.5
>E 9130.8 +0.5
>S 9141.4 +11.1
>W 9119.2 -11.1
>
>Mean 9130.2
>
>Which improbable result is strongly suggestive of numerical fudging on
>someone's part. Did Petrie fudge his figures? No. His actual figures
>were as follows:
>
>N 9129.8
>E 9130.8
>S 9123.9 <-
>W 9119.2
>
>The discrepancy is in the figure for the south side: Davidson and Aldersmith
>have added all of 17.5 inches! (Fix goes on to borrow the figure and use it
>in his own numerical fudging.)
It isn't that there is a fudging, it's just the selection of what point
you measure from. The hieroglyphic for pyramid includes the base platform.
>
>Having conjured up this 17.5 inches by an arbitrary manipulation of Petrie's
>figures (S = N + E - W), where do they slip it in? I checked Davidson and
>Aldersmith's The Great Pyramid: Its Divine Message - the original edition
>of 1924 - and looked at their plate XX (precisely the one cited above).
>
>They slip in the 17.5 inches at the corner of the shallow SW socket. to
>the W of a chiselled line; the representation of the SW socket has this
>remarkable annotation (upper case in original):
>
> S.W. SOCKET
>
> SOUTH WEST SOCKET U.X.Y. BEING TOO SHALLOW (AND, IN FACT, AT DIAGONAL
> POINT Z. ON LEVEL WITH GENERAL EXTERNAL ROCK SURFACE) THE DIAGONAL
> POINT Z. WAS DEFINED BY A CHISELLED LINE W.Z.
>
> THE PURPOSE OF THE CHISEL LINE W.Z. ON SURFACE OF S.W. SOCKET WAS TO
> DEFINE THE LINE OF BASE DIAGONAL Z.O. AT POINT Z. ON SOUTH SIDE X.Y.
> DIAGONALS DEFINED IN ALL OTHER CASES BY SOCKET CORNERS.
>
> THERE IS NO WEST SIDE TO THIS SOCKET [!] AS HERE THE ROCK SURFACE
> OUTSIDE OF SOCKET IS DEAD LEVEL WITH SOCKET SURFACE.
>
>In other words, they `measured' 17.5 inches where - by their own account
>- there was nothing at all determinate to measure.
They measured to a chiseled line. If you look at other Egyptian
architecture the use of such "layout lines" is common.
Petrie simply measured to the top of the pavement where the casing
intersects it, neglecting the pavement altogether.
>
>Davidson and Aldersmith go on to revive Smyth's defunct notions about the
>significance of the the perimeter of the pyramid - evidently the object of
>the fudge. I, for one, will happily leave them to it.
The question really hinges on the length of the cubit used to measure
with.The discussion of Egyptian Units of Length starting on page 304
of Stecchinis appendix makes it clear that the Egyptians had started
with a foot of 300 mm and a cubit of 450 mm and worked up to a Royal
cubit of 525 mm. 525mm x 440 cubits is 231,000 mm
>
>>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).
>The figure, however, is spurious.
The relation that is interesting is much simpler. The number of days
in a millenia equals the number of feet in a degree of the earths
surface along its equitorial circumference.
We know that the foot of 300 mm fits into the Egyptians system
of measures as four palms; of which five are a geographic cubit
six are a Biblical cubit and seven are a Royal cubit.
What we have is a unit of measure arranged to be proportionate
in terms of a ratio of time and space.
Do you wonder how could the Egyptians measure one degree
of the earths surface, accurately c 2500 BC and why
does it relate to the length of a year?
Can you give us an answer Martin?
>
>
>Martin
>
Steve
Subject: Re: Silver
From: Saida
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 16:46:45 -0500
Miguel wrote:
>
> 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
>
Here are the metals known to the Egyptians. I also give the
Hebrew equivs. As usual, there is more than one word for all of
them in Egyptian. I found nothing for "tin" in this language.
EGYPTIAN HEBREW
Gold-- nub (main word) zahav
sau
qetem (does the Ger. "Kette" or neck- ketem
lace, chain have anything in common?)
white-gold --nub hetch
green-gold--nub wadj
finest gold--nub en qen
Silver hetch kesef
arq ur (pure silver) (Gr. arguros)
nub hetch (white gold)
ich (a white metal, possibly silver)
Copper hemt nehoshet
hemt kam (black copper)
hemt Sett (Asiatic copper)
ba'a (?)
Bronze ut arad
a'aha (weapons of bronze)
smen
Lead techt-t oferet
nus (block or pig of lead)
Tin b'dil
Iron banpi barzal
parthal (iron weapons)
The Egyptian and Hebrew are very similar and this
poses two question in my mind: Since neither the Egyptians nor
the Hebrews were the first to have iron (I believe it was the
Hittites) where did they get this word? Is it Hittite? Or is
"banpi" a Hittite word? According to Budge, at least, there is
a sort of "th" sound in Egyptian, which I had rather doubted,
but here it is obvious that something is going on. Either the
Hebrews, in typical fashion of those who cannot pronounce "th",
turned it to "z" or the Egyptians, encountering the "z", which
is not supposed to be in their alphabet, did a sort of Castilian
turn and transformed it to "th"!
Subject: Re: Caucasian on the Columbia c7300 BCE
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 17 Oct 1996 22:26:13 GMT
In article ,
oconneld@mail.oit.osshe.edu says...
>
>
>
>> >> BTW, aren't there DNA strands in bone? Isn't there work being done to
>> >> genetically trace race through genes?
>> >
>> >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.
>
> Excuse my ignorance, but what is SITKA? I would like to join. Dan
>O'Connell
>
I don't think Tim will mind my giving out his address.
To subscribe
First send an email to
listproc@sunbird.usd.edu
in the body of the message put
SUBSCRIBE SITKA Your@email.address
You will then recieve a response
welcoming you to the list and
asking you to select a password
the list is managed by
theaton@sunflowr.usd.edu
SITKA, the Northwest Coast Researchers List is devoted to
interdisciplinary discussion of glacial and postglacial
events along the northern Pacific coast of North America.
To post messages to the list (to all subscribers), send them to the
following address:
SITKA@SUNBIRD.USD.EDU
hope this helps
steve
Subject: Re: Great Pyramid Dimensions.
From: Archae Solenhofen (jmcarth1@gtn.net)
Date: 17 Oct 1996 10:26:27 -0700
In article <545cu3$aj@netnews.ntu.edu.tw>, mturton@stsvr.showtower.com.tw says...
>In article <544e1t$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.
I disagree. Most of these dams (and their network of supporting dams)
control the amount of water building up behind them and rushing through
them for a very good reason (that is they have design limitations).
Take away the maintenance of these structures and they will quickly
erode away. I doubt these structures could survive a 100 or 500y flood
without someone controlling the water level.
> Like the Pyramids, they're just big heaps
>of stone, artificial though it may be.
Well not exactly like the pyramids. They are made out of reinforced
concrete and are much better engineered. I am sure you would agree
if we found a structure like this on the Nile (like the Aswan dam)
and it was as old as the pyramids there would be absolutely no doubt
that the ancients were technologically advanced.
> But why is lasting a long time
>a criterion of superior technology?
That is right it does not. Technology generally means cheaper faster
construction of large buildings. That is from a pile of stone to
pillars to the arch to box girdering and so on. When they are cheap
and fast you can always build another.
> Both stone tools and plastic plates
>last a long time. Besides, who needs buildings that last a long time
>in this day and age?
High level radioactive waste storage.
Archae Solenhofen (jmcarth1@gtn.net)
>Mike
Subject: Re: Pictographs, was Re: Linguistic time depth
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 17 Oct 1996 22:50:43 GMT
In article <3263EDD7.1A17@nic.smsu.edu>, mac566f@nic.smsu.edu says...
>
>> Steve Whittet wrote:
>> >Marc Cooper wrote:
>
>> >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.
>
>That doesn't answer my question, Steve. But you do answer it below.
>
>> >Consider the following thought experiment: Instead of Roaf's table
>> >showing the evolution of cuneiform characters, you found a book listing
>> >the corpus of cuneiform characters from the time of Sargon of Akkad's
>> >dynasty, maybe 324 or so signs in all.
>> > Let's further imagine that you
>> >believed that these characters developed from pictographic signs, and
>> >that you attempted to determine what those pictures might have been. How
>> >many would you have to get right before you allowed yourself the liberty
>> >of proclaiming Sargonic cuneiform pictographic?
>>
>> 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.
>
>You are switching from a personal decision concerning whether or not a
>script is pictographic to a corporate one. I would only add that the
>group which makes such a decision be a group of experts. Assyriologists,
>at least all those I know, are certain that
>Sargonic cuneiform is not pictogrphic.
>
>> >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.
>>
>> > 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.
>
>The glass isn't half empty, it's 90% empty. You say just a few dozen
>correct guesses out of 324 would be enough.
I think what I said was that all the signs which everyone got
right (100% correct) would be considered pictograms. If an
inscription was composed of 10% pictograms that would be
enough to consider it pictographic. The person who drew it
probably included pictograms of objects which he expected
everyone would be familiar with, but which we no longer
understand. References to the logos of gods for example.
>In other word, a 90% failure rate, would be an acceptable result.
No, a 100% correct identification would be an an acceptable starting
point because it would give you a glyph.
>Come on Steve, a 90% failure rate would make any reasonable
>person question the validity of the hypothesis
>that Sargonic Akkadian is pictographic.
An inscription in which 10% of the glyphs were identifiable
right out of the gate would be worth further study.
>
>> 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.
>
>Thank you. There are sets of such logos which we know from seal
>engravings. They are very interesting and might be an entertaining if
>not productive topic of discussion. Sadly, and this is clear in the
>current discussion, the limitations of usenet technology make it
>difficult to talk about images.
We often identify them by Gardiner numbers, A suprising number are
included in his fairly comprehensive list, and the Egyptians seem
to have used many of the same glyphs
>...snip...
>Marc Cooper
steve
Subject: Re: Great Pyramid Dimensions.
From: Rodney Small
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 21:34:50 -0700
Martin Stower wrote:
> Davidson and Aldersmith
> have added all of 17.5 inches! (Fix goes on to borrow the figure and use it
> in his own numerical fudging.)
Hmmm, if you're right here, it certainly diminshes the
equatorial longitude correlation. However, Fix states at p. 237 of
"Pyramid Odyssey": "The point where the extension of the Pyramid's
diagonal comes out of the socket is indicated by an incised line 51 cm
from the corner. But according to Davidson, Rutherford, and earlier
surveys by Petrie and the Royal Engineers, the western edge of the
southwest socket is some 17.5 inches or 44 cm west of the incised line"
(footnotes omitted). Admittedly, Fix does not cite Petrie here, but
rather Davidson & Aldersmith and Rutherford. Nonetheless, are you quite
sure that Petrie never mentioned the 17.5 inches in any of his books?
> Davidson and Aldersmith go on to revive Smyth's defunct notions about the
> significance of the the perimeter of the pyramid - evidently the object of
> the fudge.
You say "evidently", I presume, because Davidson and Aldersmith do not
allude to a longitude correlation. Rather, they try and develop the
notion referenced by two posters here that the base encoded the solar
year of 365.2422 days. However, the perimeter of the base including the
sockets they claim Petrie measured was 36,521.2 inches. So if they
fudged, why didn't they fudge to make this perimeter come out to be
exactly 36,524.22 inches?
Subject: RE: Big concrete things - Construction and archaeology
From: heinrich@intersurf.com (Paul V. Heinrich)
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 19:23:58 -0600
"margaret gowen" wrote:
>Does anyone have information, whether published or
>anecdotal, about the impact of piling on underlying
>archaeological deposits?
There are two publications that address the issue of
the effects of burying sites beneath thick layers
of dirt and other fill. They are:
Mathewson, C. C., Gonzales, T., and Eblen, J. S., 1992.
Burial as a Method of Archaeological Site Protection.
Environmental Impact Research Program Contract Report
EL-92-1. US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington DC
20314-1000
Mathewson, C. C., 1989, Interdisciplinary Workshop on
the Physical-Chemical-Biological Processes Affecting
Archaeological Sites. Environmental Impact Research
Program Contract Report EL-89-1. US Army Corps of
Engineers, Washington DC 20314-1000
Both are available from:
National Techincal Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
I hope that this helps.
Yours,
Paul V. Heinrich
heinrich@intersurf.com
Baton Rouge, LA
Voice (Vyasa): And what is the greatest Marvel?"
Yudhishthira: "Each day, death strikes and we live as
though we were immortal. This is the greatest marvel."
- Jean C. Carriere in his play, The Mahabharata, based upon
the Indian epic classic, the Mahabharata
Subject: Re: Atlantis and Antactica
From: heinrich@intersurf.com (Paul V. Heinrich)
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 19:40:40 -0600
Daniel Harris wrote:
>Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
>Subject: Atlantis and Antactica
>Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 22:11:08 -0700
>Organization: Internet Company of New Zealand
>Message-ID: <325F286C.4CE4@iconz.co.nz>
>I am interested in the link between Antarctica and
>Atlantis, through continental drift etc. Can anyone
>lead me to any sites, or books, or whatever about
>this? TIA
Dear Mr. Harris,
I and others have discussed this matter extensively on both
alt.archaeology and sci.archaeology. If you have a web
browser, I suggest that you go to the Deja News USENET
archive at:
http://www.dejanews.com/forms/dnq.html
By using keywords such as "Antarctica" and either "Hapgood",
"Hancock", "MOM", "FOG", and "Ohlmeyer" you should get a
bunch of posts on this topic.
I have authored a couple of web pages that indirectly address
this issue. They are:
http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/mom/atlantis.html
and
http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/mom/oronteus.html
I hope that this helps.
Yours,
Paul V. Heinrich
heinrich@intersurf.com
Baton Rouge, LA
"If people don't want to live together,
they will find ways of not living together."
American IFOR officer in Mahala, Bosnia.
September 30th - "Nightline"
Subject: Re: Caucasian on the Columbia c7300 BCE
From: August Matthusen
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 17:48:17 -0700
Baron Szabo wrote:
>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!
No sarcasm, just fact. Can't you accept a compliment? I've had
the page bookmarked for quite a while for all the links.
>> 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". :)
Yep. 9300 years ago the early americans were neither caucasians
nor mongoloids as currently known. The Paleo-indians fall into
a group which has been variously described as proto-caucasoids
or proto-mongoloids. To quote from the web article entitled
REBURIAL DISPUTE by ANDREW L. SLAYMAN:
"Examination of the skull by anthropologist James Chatters revealed
a long, narrow skull and face, a projecting nose, receding cheek
bones, a high chin, and a square mandible. None of these features
is typical of modern American Indians, but they are found on other
Paleoindian skeletons roughly contemporaneous with the Kennewick
remains. Such features have previously been described as
"pre-mongoloid," "proto-mongoloid," "archaic-mongoloid," and even
"proto-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?
Yep, after you go to school for a while or read enough
of the *evil* peer-reviewed journal articles, we MAKE you a
member. It happens suddenly, when one day, someone starts
telling you about, or you read about, this "theory" that someone
has expounded in a new best-selling book and you stop, think, and
say something like: "It can't be so because the author is blatantly
ignoring...(such and such facts or observations)." At this
point you have had an epiphany regarding the concept of
atheoretical particularism. This is followed by the arrival of
a phalanx of invisible pink unicorns(tm) who carry you off for
the initiation rites. I can say no more or Paul Gans will put
another contract out on 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...
Darius (the Vth) Szabo?? Whatever works.
Regards,
August Matthusen
Subject: Re: the silence of the naked egyptologists
From: grifcon@usa.pipeline.com(Katherine Griffis)
Date: 15 Oct 1996 12:46:52 GMT
On Oct 13, 1996 04:26:22 in article , 'fmurray@pobox,com (frank murray)' wrote:
>On Sat, 12 Oct 1996 23:50:32 -0400, Doug or Kathy Lowry
> wrote:
On Oct 12, 1996 23:15:13 in article , 'Greg Reeder ' wrote:
>murray@pobox,com (frank murray) wrote:
>>On 12 Oct 1996 16:37:57 GMT, Greg Reeder wrote:
<<<>>>>
Folks, when are we going to get on the topic here?? I want to hear about
these "naked egyptologists" and why they are silent.
Katherine
Subject: Re: Migrations...
From: S.NEMETH@IX.NETCOM.COM (Stella Nemeth)
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 01:34:06 GMT
"Alan M. Dunsmuir" wrote:
>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.
>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.
Thank you for the correction on the language. It isn't what I've
heard before, but I'm no expert on this subject and if you are, I
stand corrected.
>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.
I consider that a migration since large numbers left home and settled
in very specific places.
>...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.
I wasn't talking about the 19th Century when I said the Scots migrated
out.
>...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.
This was one of the movements I meant. There was also the movement of
the Scots OUT of Ireland and into Scotland, but that was earlier.
>And we all know where that has got us.
I didn't say it was a good thing!
Stella Nemeth
s.nemeth@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: Silver
From: mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal)
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 06:21:25 GMT
Saida wrote:
>Here are the metals known to the Egyptians. I also give the
>Hebrew equivs. As usual, there is more than one word for all of
>them in Egyptian. I found nothing for "tin" in this language.
Thanks for the Hebrew references. I checked my Hebrew dictionary and
found a couple more (I don't really read Hebrew, so I have to look up
every letter and every dot. I hope there are no mistakes):
GOLD: Horo:ts, poz
LEAD: 'obhor
TIN: ba`ats, paH, paHi:th
IRON: magh'hE:ts
Any nuances in meaning between the various words for gold, lead, tin
and iron?
As you can see, I'm a bit special about stuff like distinguishing
exactly between 'alephs and `ayins, kaphs and qophs etc. which is why
I'm not sure what to make of your Egyptian transcriptions. For
instance:
> ich (a white metal, possibly silver)
What does the "ch" stand for?
>Iron banpi barzal
> parthal (iron weapons)
> The Egyptian and Hebrew are very similar and this
>poses two question in my mind: Since neither the Egyptians nor
>the Hebrews were the first to have iron (I believe it was the
>Hittites) where did they get this word? Is it Hittite? Or is
>"banpi" a Hittite word?
The Hitite for iron seems to be , for which Gamkrelidze and
Ivanov claim there are Hattic, Hurrian and Akkadian parallels, but
they don't give them (or I forgot to make a note of them).
I have found, also in my notes to Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, an Akkadian
word for "iron", (Aramaic ), which is doubtlessly
related to the Hebrew word. I don't know the origin, but it looks
suspiciously Sumerian to me, a compound based on the Sumerian word BAR
(or BAR-BAR > BABBAR) "white, silver, metal", as in ZA.BAR "bronze"
(stone-silver?), AN.BAR "iron" (sky-silver), A.BAR "lead"
(water-silver?).
If so, BAR.ZILU, or ZILU.BAR actually, could be an excellent candidate
for being the etymon of English "silver". But I don't know what to
make of this Akkadian "-zillu". Sumerain means "to peel off",
is "pleasing, nice". Maybe we should rather look at a word
like , a weight (Sin-iddinam 6 II 16-24: "When I dug the
Tigris, the big river, as wages each man received [??] barley, 2 sila
bread, 4 sila beer, and 2 shekel oil, daily he received like this").
But I don't know if this weight was ever used for silver or iron.
>According to Budge, at least, there is
>a sort of "th" sound in Egyptian, which I had rather doubted,
>but here it is obvious that something is going on. Either the
>Hebrews, in typical fashion of those who cannot pronounce "th",
>turned it to "z" or the Egyptians, encountering the "z", which
>is not supposed to be in their alphabet, did a sort of Castilian
>turn and transformed it to "th"!
How is "parthal" written exactly?
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal ~ ~
Amsterdam _____________ ~ ~
mcv@pi.net |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig