Newsgroup sci.archaeology 48778

Directory

Dominic Green wrote:
> 
> Many slanders have been spoken against the name of the Native American
> Noble Savage; the Indian has been accused of being Descended from a
> Spider Monkey with its Tail Removed; he has been accused of Human
> Sacrifice and Cannibalism; he has even been accused of being an Idyllic
> Pre-Lapsarian Society Free of Materialistic Greed and Close To The
> Heartbeat of Gaia.
> 
> It has also been claimed that Native Americans are the descendants of
> Extremely Displaced Hebrews. 
I have a theory about the American Indians and I do not know if it has
ever been touched on, but here we go.  Before I continue, I would like 
to say that I am not arguing whether the bible is historical or not
(which
I do believe it is).
The bible speaks of all races springing from Adam & Eve.  What races
were 
on the Earth before the Great Flood of Noah's time?  We don't know, but
the 
bible later says that Noah's sons is where our races come from.  
Ge 9:18-19, "And Noah's sons who came out of the ark were Shem and Ham
and 
Ja'pheth. Later Ham was the father of Ca'naan. These three were Noah's 
sons, and from these was all the earth's population spread abroad." 
From
which we get the threefold division of the human family into the
Japhetic,
Hamitic, and Semitic races.  
The bible speaks of the resultant peoples of Noah's sons but what races 
came from their wives?  Perhaps these wives were of different races
also.  
Explaining races that may not have sprang from Shem, Ham, and Ja'pheth.
But first let me express my view of the Ice Age and Mammoths.  Where did 
the water from the flood go?  Gen. 8:5 says, "And the waters kept on 
progressively lessening until the tenth month. In the tenth month, on
the
first of the month, the tops of the mountains appeared."  This could 
be where the ice age comes from.  It is known that the various date
testing
of carbon is progessively inaccurate the further back you go.  Could it
be
because of the canopy of water and the mist the bible says was around
the
earth, that prevented radiation to hit the earth?  If so, then the first 
man, and dinosaurs, and ice age could be a lot closer than scientists 
believe.  In this scenario, Noah could have brought with him different
kinds
of animal types, instead of the traditional two of the same animals. 
What 
I mean is instead of two "classic" elephants, he could have brought an
elephant and a mammoth, a polar bear and a black bear, etc, etc.
Back to the American Indians, in my scenario after Nimrod and when the 
languages were confused, a group indians may have taken the mammoths and
ventured north to the cold region.  Traveling must have been slow with
these 
creatures, many must have died and the indians needed every scrap of
energy 
to survive, so used every scrap from the mammoths.  As we have seen in
the 
past the indians use every ounce of meat and bones of animals.  When the 
indians found the north american continent, there were probably no
mammoths
left in their groups.  
But you may say, "Surely they didn't take all the mammoths with them, so
there should be mammoths still alive in europe."  Who's to say there
aren't.
Perhaps there are a few somewhere, after all isn't there a different
species
of elephant with a different skull shape alive today?  Dominant genes is 
another factor to think on.
Bradley J Seward

In article <5477ge$j46@halley.pi.net>, mcv@pi.netÁ says...
>
>whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>
>>Actually, if you look at Mallory, it becomes quite evident that
>>the Tochrian links to the languages of the Balkans come following
>>the march of Alexander the Great through Central Asia. What we
>>have here is the great world conqueror influencing the local
>>inhabitants of the Parthian mountains both linguistically and 
>>culturally. 
>
>Where does Mallory say that?
He starts on page 56
>
>If you read Mallory, it becomes quite evident that he sees the
>Tocharians as descendents of the Afanasievo people, a culture from the
>3rd millennium BC from just north of the Tarim basin (upper Yenisei),
>with links to more western cultures like the erlier Samara/Khvalynsk
>and the contemporary Yamnaya (Pit-Grave culture) of the Pontic-Caspian
>area.  There is no direct link between Tocharian and the "languages of
>the Balkans", and Alexander is not mentioned at all in connection with
>Tocharian.
Yes, quite right. That is what Mallory seems to think.
Even while he claims to hold that view he shows us something else.
He tells us there is no evidence of the Tocharians or there language 
until the 6th to 8th centuries AD.
1.)The Andronovo culture dates to c 4500 BC yet there is no mention
of Tocharian until after the march of Alexander to the Parthians.
Mallory claims links to the Andanov culture are possible, they
occupy the same geographical territory, but there is no evidence
to support that view and he mentions several points which suggest
otherwise.
From Mallory we get the following.
Tocharian first shows up in Chinese references between the 
6th and 8th centuries AD.
The language was named Tocharian after the historical Tokharoi
who were known to the greeks to have emigrated from Turkestan 
to Bactracia in the 2nd century BC 
(shortly after the time of Alexander)
Uniquely similar items of vocabulary and grammar are shared with
Baltic, Slavic, Greek, Armenian and possibly Phrygian
Additional evidence comes from other sources.
2.)Alexander does provide a direct link between the language of the
Balkans (Macedonia) and the Tocharian language.
3.)A province in the Pontic Caspian Region, modern Turkmenistan, 
is today called Balkan
>
>
>==
>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal     
steve

In article <3267CCD3.44A0@nic.smsu.edu>, mac566f@nic.smsu.edu says...
>
>Steve Whittet wrote:
>> 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. 
>
>This is the point where we differ. I say that if a script is so abstract
>that only one in ten signs resemble the picture from which it is derived
>then we no longer can call it pictographic.
>
>
> 
>> > 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...
>
>Gardiner's list of Egyyptian hieroglyphic characters (from the big
>grammar?) is useful when reading Egytian copied and justified
>inscriptions. Gardiner is useless in discusssing Sargonic cuneiform
>inscriptions. To discuss the outer characteristics of a script, we
>really need to be able to transmit images together with text. Possible
>through e-mail and usenet binaries, but the binary system is difficult
>to use.
If you fax the image to your computer it will give you the same
effect as if you scanned it in, only cheaper.
You can then convert that to a .bmp and convert that to a
.gif, .jpg or .pcx, which you can then zip and attach to
an Email. My Email supports Mime, send me whatever you want.
In talking about the Phastos Disk, I have found several of its Glyphs
are both listed in Gardiner and found on Sumerian and Akkadian
scripts. I very definitely consider a higher than 10 % recognition
rate is possible with these scripts, providing you have sufficient
familiarity with the logos of cities and gods and such.
For example Asherah is represented by a dotted triangle. The
Phaistos Disk has a dotted triangle. Recognition of the picture
being represented as oposed to simply seeing a pattern requires
you to know that.
The same thing applies to the star, boot, stalk of barley
boat, bird and fish glyphs which also show up on the kuderru.
>
>Marc Cooper
steve

Paula Sanch wrote:
> 
> Mill <"Michael Cook > wrote:
> 
> >Adrian Gilbert wrote:
> >> I presume this is a piss-take. However, living near the Cerne Abbas giant I
> >> know it well. It is undoubtedly a representation of Herne the Hunter (hence
> >> the name Cerne Abbas for the local village). He it would seem was a Celtic
> >> version of Orion. That he should be accompanied by a dog would not be at all
> >> surprising if it is true as Orion is followed by two dogs, Canis Major and
> >> Canis Minor.
> >> Adrian G. Gilbert.
> 
> >       So essentially you are saying that the carving is quite possibly "a boy
> >and his dog"?  
> 
> You mean, as in Harlan Ellison?
> 
> Paula.Sanch@emich.edu
> -----------------------------
> "We can disagree without being disagreeable."
> (Sis. Mickey Eaton, a southern Pentecostal)
	Guilty.  Sorry, I couldn't help myself.  :)

In article <3265B4D9.39C3@earthlink.net>,
Benjamin Vargas  wrote:
> 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.
thank you for your reply i think it was helpful to me. some of what you
said confused me though. why should these americans woryy abou me because i
live in hampshire whish is not in america? we had some indians live ehre
once, but it was a long time ago and i don't think they wanted to be here.
would the have leftthings for me here and if so where would i find them?

In article <548u74$o96@server.umt.edu> Rani McLean  writes:
>Hi,
>I would also like to receive any information you receive on the Aztecs.  
>I am an archaeological major at the U of MT and am doing a sort of 
>Master's thesis project on the Aztecs.  I have already posted for 
>information but so far have received very little.  If I get anything I can 
>forward any information on to you.
>
>Thanks.
>raymac
Probably the reason you've received little response is that your request is too
general.  If you want a complete introduction to the Aztecs, there are dozens
of books which give a good overview.  Just use a library system to search for
Aztec, that will give you plenty of info to get you started.
If you've already got the basics down, then what type of information
are you looking for?  Its not that people don't want to help its just that the
request is extremely vague.
Peter van Rossum
PMV100@PSU.EDU

In article <5481a2$a73@bignews.shef.ac.uk>, martins@dcs.shef.ac.uk says...
>
>whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>
>[. . .]
>
>>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"
>
>Cole measured to his best estimate of where the corners were.  Agreed
>on the 440 cubits, but I get the cubit nearer 523.5 - 523.7 mm.  It's
>interesting to look at how 440 would appear in Egyptian notation -
>the concatenation of two nice square numbers.
The value of the Egyptian standards of measure is apparently 
established by Egyptian rulers which have been preserved.
It is apparently the case that they used a system something like this
1 nail = 1/2 finger
1 finger = 3/4 "
1 thumb = 1 inch
4 fingers = 3 inches = 1 palm = 75 mm
4 fingers plus 1 thumb = 1 hand = 100 mm
8 fingers = 6 inches = 2 palms = 150 mm
12 fingers = 9 inches = 3 palms = 225 mm
16 fingers = 12 inches = 4 palms = 300 mm = 1 foot 
20 fingers = 15 inches = 5 palms = 375 mm = 1 geographic cubit 
24 fingers = 18 inches = 6 palms = 450 mm = 1 Biblical cubit
28 fingers = 21 inches = 7 palms = 525 mm = 1 Royal cubit
32 fingers = 24 inches = 8 palms = 600 mm = 2 feet
48 fingers = 36 inches = 12 palms = 900 mm = 3 feet = 1 yard
64 fingers = 48 inches = 16 palms = 1200 mm = 4 feet
measures of volume worked on the cube of the measures of length
The cube of a foot was a Talent
Because the Egyptians used unit fractions they would measure
a number like Pi as 3 + 1/8 + 1/64...
A finger is 1 1/2 nails
A thumb is 1 1/4 fingers
A hand is 1 1/3 palms
A geographic cubit is 1 1/4 feet
A Biblical cubit is 1 1/2 feet
A Royal cubit is 1 1/6 Biblical cubit
The ratio of the circumference of a circle to its radius
if its radius were 2 feet would be 12 feet plus 2 palms plus 1 finger.
if its radius were a Royal cubit it would be 11 feet with an error
of less than 1/16"
>
>>plus a pavement which projected a Biblical cubit from the corner of the
>>pyramid.
>
>A Biblical cubit?
Yes. 18"
>
>[. . .]
>...snip...
>>>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 seem not to have worried about this horizontal component elsewhere at
>the base - the surviving casing stones sit on top of the platform, with no
>special structure to hold them:
>
> 
>            +---------+
>            |          \
>            |           \
>            |            \
>            |             \
>            |              \
>         -----------------------+
>         -----------------------+
>
>The shallow SW socket, whose west end, defined only by a chiselled line,
>was on a level with the surrounding rock surface, surely performed no
>such retaining function.
True, this may be the purpose of the pavement so that the corners
were held in place by other stones in the same plane.
>
>>>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.
>
>Don't follow this at all.
The cornerstones were in the plane of the pavement. They could
not have been placed on top of the pavement as were the casing
stones and still served to lock the corners.
...snip...
>[. . .]
>
>>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"
>
>The point, however, was that Davidson and Aldersmith altered Petrie's
>figure for the socket-based perimeter, but presented the figure as if
>it was Petrie's.
>
>[. . .]
>
>>>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 measured to the chiselled line, which is the only thing defining
>the west end of the SW socket.  Davidson and Aldersmith went 17.5 inches
>_beyond_ the chiselled line, in the absence - by their own account - of
>any determinate feature to delimit such a measurement.
That was why I sketched the diagram. The casing intersected the
pavement inboard of the socket; the socket was inboard of the edge 
of the pavement.
>...snip...
>Petrie's real figures entail no such suspicious result.
>
>[. . .]
>
>>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
>
>You've been at the Stecchini again . . . As you know, Steve, IMO the
>last thing Stecchini does is make anything clear.  I'd want some
>convincing that the Egyptians ever used a foot of exactly 300 mm.
The Egyptians left rulers behind which were measured and provide
the basis of that statement. The Roman foot from which our foot 
was derived was about as much less at 296 mm as our present foot 
at 304.8 mm is greater than that mean.
>
>Besides, you seem to be talking about a different question to the
>one I addressed - the reliability or otherwise of Davidson and
>Aldersmith's figures.
I don't dispute your point. I think our ideas of measurements
need to be viewed from the perspective that this was built 
c 2500 BC. 
I do take into account that the Egyptians took
their measurements seriously. 
They may have been fussy about accuracy in measurement, 
but they can hardly have had very sophisticated systems 
for calculating the length of a year and the length of a 
degree of the earths circumference, let alone Pi and Phi.
The fact that we find these rather acurate values for
them incorporated into their architecture suggests
they had some simple methods of arriving at such
numbers which we don't fully understand yet.
>
>[. . .]
>
>>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?
>
>Before answering how, I'd need to be convinced _that_.  Where are all
>these figures coming from?  Can they be corroborated by reference to
>someone other than Stecchini?
The Egyptian rulers seems like a good startying point.
>
>Martin
>
steve

Paul Kekai Manansala wrote:
[snip]
> The problem here is that Egypt is in Africa, right next to Nubia.  Blacks
> have always been a part of Egypt.  The evidence itself, as presented by
> Arkell, Williams, Grzymski, Keita and others points to the Egyptian
> dynasties having their origin in Qustul of Ta-Seti. 
Williams' conclusions have been generally rejected for lack of any
credible evidence.
And I can assure that as a person who has studied with Kryzystof
Grzymski for four years, he believes *no* such thing (in fact you might
want to read his critical review of Williams's Qustul volume in JARCE
1990). He does however believe that the A Group culture of Lower Nubia
was influenced by its powerful northern neighbour, Egypt.
> An inscription at
> Edfu confirms this origin in text form.
Cite?

In article <5483q9$85q@netnews.ntu.edu.tw>, mturton@stsvr.showtower.com.twe 
says...
>
>In article <546ar0$2ab@shore.shore.net>,
>   whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>
>        [snipped other Martin-Steve exchange]
>
>>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.
>
>          Steve, all these measurements are *approximations*.
Go get a reference which lists the circumference of the earth and
check it out. 
The equatorial circumference of the earth is 24902.72727 miles
divide that by 360 and multiply it by 5280 to get the number
of feet in a degree. You get 365240 feet which is the number
of days in a millenium.
>What happens to your argument when better laser and radar measurements 
>annihilate your estimate of the circumference of the earth at the equator? 
The surveying standard is the Mercator system based on
the Clarke Spheroid of 1866. Better yet get two or three references
and look to see how much varience there is due to round off error.
The surveying standard is set as a somewhat arbitrary number to
avoid having to take into account such things as the coefficient
of expansion of the earth due to temperature and the effect of tides.
> I have no doubt that the number of days in a millenium also 
>equals the metropolitan population of a number of medium-sized cities, 
Fine, what does that prove?
>or.....on what grounds is there any significance in the fact that two 
numbers are approximately equal?  
It tends to suggest that the foot and degree are geocommensurate
as the Greeks maintained the Egyptians had intended.
Now, as you point out, there should be some significance to the
number for us to care whether or not there is some coincidental
relationship.
...snip...
>Mike Turton
steve

I have flown over these marvelous structures at 37,000 feet. They are breathtaking, 
without a doubt, but there are no effects on the magnetic compass of the aircraft nor 
are there any warnings on the aeronautical charts to avoid the area.
andrew.elms@datacraft.com.au wrote:
> 
> I was hoping someone could verify something for me.
> he did mention that aircraft are not allowed to fly over
> the top of the pyramids.
> wondering if this is true what reasons if any are given for why they
> wont let aircraft fly over them?
> 
> Elmo

Martin Stower wrote:
> 
> Rodney Small  wrote:
> >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.
> 
> Having looked at Rutherford's Pyramidology - a multi-volume work of
> outstanding battiness - I'm confident he got the figure from Davidson
> and Aldersmith.  Not only was he in the same tradition, he also knew
> them personally.  As an independent source, he lacks credibility.
> 
> >Nonetheless, are you quite
> >sure that Petrie never mentioned the 17.5 inches in any of his books?
> 
> The relevant book - the one that gives the figures Davidson and Aldersmith
> got right - was his Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh.  No mention of an extra
> 17.5 inches there.
> 
> When Cole made his measurements, he had the advantages of more modern
> equipment and a thoroughly-cleared site.  Comparison with his figures
> shows that Petrie's were excellent approximations, but not entirely
> accurate - there was some random error.   Yet an analysis of the figures
> given by Davidson and Aldersmith reveals a suspiciously neat pattern:
> 
>                         Deviation
>                         from mean
> 
> N       9129.8           -0.5
> E       9130.8           +0.5
> S       9141.4          +11.1
> W       9119.2          -11.1
> Mean    9130.3
> Perhaps a statistician could put it better, but to me this just screams
> cooking of the figures, as in
> 
>     S = (N + E) - W
You're right -- it does look strange.  However, according to the notes I took on 
Davidson and Aldersmith's book, at page 118 they did manage to get Petrie's 
measurements of the Pyramid's base excluding the sockets correct; i.e., they show the 
North side as 9069.4 British inches, the East as 9067.7 BI, the South as 9069.5 BI, 
and the West as 9068.6 BI.  By the way, these figures are all less than Cole's except 
on the North side. Overall they are 2.6 BI, or 66 mm, less than Cole's measurement of 
921,455 mm, which as I previously posted is almost exactly the distance in half a 
minute of equatorial latitude. 
> >> 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?
> 
> Er . . . have you actually looked at their book?  A relevant sample:
> 
>     . . . Petrie gives the oblique distance XM as 9141.4 B" [sic].  Now
>     the true geometrical Pyramid base side  36,524.24/4 P" = 9131.06 P"
>     = 9141.1 B".  From this it is obvious that this distance over the
>     two sockets was the original setting out dimension for the corner to
>     corner distance of the Pyramid's base side.
> 
> Yeah, obvious.  This, be it noted, is just a very small sample of their
> arbitrary way with figures.  Prolonged exposure to such stuff is not
> advised - it can lead to headaches.
> 
> Martin
Yes, I have looked at the book and I agree that the authors are either stunningly 
biased, or a little beyond the bend.  Again, though, with logic like the above, why 
bother to falsify the figures?  It's just as easy to rationalize that Petrie's actual 
figures support the author's pre-conceived views.
Anyway, let me try another coincidence on you.  William Fix in "Pyramid Odyssey"  
pointed out that there is a correlation between the height of the Great Pyramid plus 
the platform on which it rests and the polar radius.  Now I know what you're going to 
say -- Fix fudged the figures too.  But, here is what I discovered after consulting 
"L'Architettura Delle Piramide Menefite" -- a book written by Italian archaeologists 
Vito Maragioglio and Celeste Rinaldi (Tipographia Canessa, Rapallo, 1965).  The 
Pyramid does rest on a platform, which averages 548 mm in thickness (See Part IV, p. 
14).  If you agree with my calculations for the original height of the Pyramid that I 
previously posted; i.e., it was a minimum of 146.51 meters and a maximum of 146.70 
meters, the height including the platform was between 147.058-147.248 meters.  Now 
since half a minute of equatorial latitude (and longitude) is 1/43,200 of a great 
circle around the earth (i.e., there are two half minutes in a minute, 60 minutes in 
a degree, and 360 degrees in a circle), it would seem to follow that if there is a 
correlation between the Pyramid height plus platform and the polar radius, it should 
be on that same scale.  And, guess what?  If you multiply 147.058-147.248 meters by 
43,200, you get a range of 6352.9-6361.1 km, which includes the polar radius figure of 
6356.8 km almost at the midpoint.  Comments?