Newsgroup sci.archaeology 48790

Directory

If you are not satisfied with the idea that the pyramids were merely 
"tombs" and want something more in the explanationm, consider the words 
of that great Egyptologist Alexandre Piankoff.
He wrote in THE PYRAMID OF UNAS (Princeton, 1968) that the pyramids were 
also to be considered as "...the solar mountain, the Benben, the obelisk 
point dedicated to the sun. It was also the primevil hill which first 
arose from the flood at the creation of the world, and which was the 
first manifestation of Atum, the All....Hence the pyramid, this mountain, 
was loaded with life-forming energy; it was the center of the earth, the 
place where the nether and upper worlds communicated."pgs 4-5.
_
_____
Greg Reeder
On the WWW
at Reeder's Egypt Page
---------------->http://www.sirius.com/~reeder/egypt.html
reeder@sirius.com

joseph pigott  wrote:
> Professor Jared Diamond UCLA School of Medicine has written that the 
> evolution of disease in Europe was caused by the proximity of domestic 
> animals and humans. The evolution of the flu virus in Asia occurs 
> cyclically as the virus mutates in wild duck populations enters swine 
> herds and finally its human host.  I think a much better question to ask 
> is: "Why didn't the native-Americans give any diseases to the Europeans?"
>   The native-Americans lacked domestic animals except for the dog. 
Influenza was first reported in North America, though it's point of origin
hasn't been established.  
Rheumatoid arthritis leaves a clear skeletal signature.  It was endemic
among the native population in the Tennesee/Kentucky region, and moved
into the world population after contact with the natives.  It didn't
exist anywhere else in the world prior to the 1800's.
Lyme disease and rabies are also North American diseases.  South America
has its own complement of diseases, and both continents have a wide 
selection of parasites.
-- Larry

Steve Neeley  wrote:
> Yes, good point!  Older forms of the game could have survived for quite a 
> while.  Hence, my cautious question about it in the first place.  It is 
> interesting to note that the Cree and Chippewa were quite reclusive and 
> not likely to have easily adopted a European game, yet they seem to be 
> the only tribes playing it.  
I don't know about the Chippewa, but the Cree didn't learn any games from
the Vikings.  Their historic range was south of the Great Lakes.  They
only migrated north because of immigrant population pressures from
Europeans.  
Eight hundred years ago the Cree were nowhere near the Vikings.
-- Larry

rab.wilkie@westonia.com (RAB WILKIE) wrote:
>            And maybe how
>  unusual the skull is relative to other pre-Columbian skulls
>  found in the Americas?
The Horner Museum at Oregon State University used to have a
sutureless human skull in its collection.  I used to go to the
museum just to stare at the thing.  It's hard to imagine how the
poor thing survived.  The headaches must have been excruciating.
I think the museum has been closed, so I don't know where the skull
is now.
-- Larry

Group,
I was asking a rhetorical question, but thanks again for your replies.
Paul Pettennude
Maya Underwater Research Center 
MA Lloyd  wrote in article
...
> "Paul Pettennude"  writes:
> 
> >George,
> 
> >What language did the Olmecs speak?  
> 
> >Paul Pettennude
> 
> The answer to that is going to be we don't know, since they didn't
> leave us recordings or a phonetic script.  I vaguely think the language 
> spoken in the area now would be Zapotec, but don't count on it.
> -- 
> -- MA Lloyd (malloy00@io.com)
> 

Alan M. Dunsmuir wrote:
> 
> Having lived with Steve on this NewsGroup for about three years now, I
> have reluctantly, if rather belatedly, also come to the conclusion that
> he is a troll.
I don't believe this for a moment.
(A big snip of unwarranted personal attack.)
Alan, you have gone too far.  An individual's personal life, job, etc. 
has absolutely NOTHING to do with this newsgroup and ought not to be 
commented on in any way whatsoever. Boys, stop this petty crap!  You are 
getting to be like a bunch of bitches with PMS.  Steve, learn to know 
when to hold them and when to fold them.  If I hear one more thing about 
Ptah, padre, papoose, pita, the pope or whatever from any of you, I am 
going to scream so loud all of your screens are going to explode in 
front of you.  Enough!

MA Lloyd wrote:
> 
> "Paul Pettennude"  writes:
> 
> >George,
> 
> >What language did the Olmecs speak?
> 
> >Paul Pettennude
> 
> The answer to that is going to be we don't know, since they didn't
> leave us recordings or a phonetic script.  I vaguely think the language
> spoken in the area now would be Zapotec, but don't count on it.
> --
> -- MA Lloyd (malloy00@io.com)
The Olmec themselves didn't leave behind a phonetic script (at least,
not one that we understand as such), but the peoples who lived in the
region in the later Formative (ca. 300 B.C. - 0 B.C.) did.  Tres Zapotes
Stela C has a long count date of 31 B.C. (still ranks as the oldest
known date in that form, I think) and La Mojarra Stela 1 has a lengthy
inscription that appears to be Mixe-Zoque (a family distinct from Maya
or Zapotec) related.  The theory has generally been that the Olmec spoke
some form of "proto" Mixe-Zoquean.
See John S. Justeson and Terrence Kaufman, "A Decipherment of Epi-Olmec
Heiroglyphic Writing," Science 259 (5102), (March or April 1993)
and 
Lyle R. Campbell & Terrence Kaufman , "A Linguistic Look at the Olmec,"
American Antiquity 41 (1), 1976.
Matthew H. Robb
matrobb@phoenix.princeton.edu

Could anyone tell me who has or how to locate information on a dig that
happened on Bellisle, County Fermanagh in the last 10-20 years?  I am
interested in finding out if they had site maps and the usual as I am
writing a paper on local history related to the islands up Upper Lough
Erne.
Thanks in advance for any help!
Slan Leat!
Phil McManus

Marc Cooper wrote:
> Perhaps, but so far as I know there is only one other inscription which
> uses the Phaistos Disk script.
> Since
> we have only two inscriptions written in the P.D. script, and no others,
> and many earlier Linear A, and Hieroglyphic Minoan inscriptions, I think
> that it's safe to conclude that the P.D. script is Minoan, that it was
> not widely used, and that it disappeared with the destruction of
> Phaistos. Why would the Minoans develop a hieratic form of a script they
> rarely used?
Thanks for the clear info, Marc.  Can you or some other knowledgeable person 
give me a reference for the other inscription(s) written in the P.D. script.
Also I'd like to know more about "Hieroglyphic Minoan".  Any suggested 
reading?

Beever wrote:
> 
> I'm just catching the tail of what has apparently been a long discussion concerning the
> language of the Linear A inscriptions.  
Actually, it was very short.  The fellow I was last talking to seems to
have disappeared.  I think it may have been because I snubbed his
signature file.  (Hey guy! Sorry!)  It was kind of an annoying one
though, you know?     ;->
Thanks for the reference to Gordon's work.  Snipped and stored.
> >- [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; 
I agree.   :)
> The Semitic Hyksos kings in Egypt (XVth Dynasty) date to the
> 17th-16th centuries (not 15th), 
I was quoting my text book...  Are you sure?
> supporting the theory that the origins of Minoan
> culture lie in the Egyptian delta.
Hmm..   But the Minoan culture began significantly earlier than 17th
century.  In my book --- Yakk!!  There's a "suggested new chronology"
that puts MMIII at 1800 bce!  Yer right.  How do you figure the Hyksos
were in Egypt earlier than my book says?
But still, what about before that?  There was evidence (in my own mind)
for Eastern influence in the Early Helladic Period (c2900- bce), in the
form of the Lerna sites.  Hyksos?  The Hyksos were just one of many
"Phoenician" groups in existence, wouldn't you agree?
-- 
zoomQuake - A nifty, concise listing of over 200 ancient history links.
            Copy the linklist page if you want! (do not publish though)
----------> http://www.iceonline.com/home/peters5/

In article <3267CF1E.A65@utoronto.ca>,
   Troy Sagrillo  wrote:
>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.
His views may be rejected by some, but certainly not all.  If you are saying
he is rejected by the majority Eurocentric establishment, what's the big
deal?  However, for those who would desire to consider his views check the
webpage of the Oriental Institute's Nubia exhibit at:
http://www-oi.uchicago.edu/OI/PROJ/NUB/NUBX/NUBX_brochure.html
You may be right on Grzymski's views, but his article in _American visions_
OCT 01 1993 v 8 n 5, gives a different impression; to me at least.
>
>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.
>
You may be right on Grzymski's views, but his article in _American visions_
OCT 01 1993 v 8 n 5, gives a different impression; to me at least.
>> An inscription at
>> Edfu confirms this origin in text form.
>
>Cite?
The inscription is referred to in  E. A. Wallis Budge, _A short history of the 
Egyptian people_, 1914, pp. 22-27;  St. Clair Drake, _Black Folk: Here and 
there_, Los Angeles, 1987, p.  163-4.  The Mesniu or "Blacksmiths," were 
metal workers from Ta-Seti who made harpoons and metal spearheads.  Curiously,
the Aquatic culture of the Sahel was also known for its harpoon and fish
barb metal work.  Aquatic culture sites have been found very near Ta-Seti.
The inscription is also discussed by Bruce Williams, Gaston Maspero, Alexander
Moret, Sir Flinders Petrie, Vercoutter and others.
An interesting study bearing on the predynastic and early dynastic Egyptians 
is B.K. Chatterjee and G.D. Kumar _A comparative study of racial analysis..."
Calcutta, 1965.  After studying Nakada II, Badari, Nubian, Old Kingdom Saqqara,
12th and 13th Dynasty cranium, they found that in respect to "long head, broad
head, low orbit, and broad nasal aperture have the characteristic features of 
the Negroid type."
Regards,
Paul Kekai Manansala

fmurray@pobox, frank murray wrote:
> . . . .
> all a are b
> but some a are not b
> therefore all a are b
> ACCEPT!!!...
Good post, Frank.  Upon reading it I was impressed with your undoubtably
correct points.  On the whole, I agree with you.
However, (there is always a however) when I looked back at my post that
you were responding to, I realized that you ducked out of the main
points I was making.  We'll see how specific you decide to get...
-- 
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/

August Matthusen wrote:
> 
> No sarcasm, just fact.  Can't you accept a compliment?  I've had
> the page bookmarked for quite a while for all the links.
That's encouraging!  Thanks.  Maybe there *will* be some impending
updates!
> "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." "
So, why do you think the features were more caucasian then than Indians
now.  As far as I know Evolution doesn't operate that quickly.
And those characteristics you describe sound incredibly caucasian.
[From New York Times News Service, Sept 30,`96]
At that point, recounted Chatters, an anthropologist based in nearby
Richland, Wash., "I've got a white guy with a spear point in him." He
added: "That's pretty exciting.  I thought we had a pioneer."
The real stunner came last month, after bone samples were sent to .....
the "pioneer" is 9,300 years old.
[end quote]
> 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.
Very amusing.
	:)
Is there no such thing as a responsible pseudoscientist, or is there
another way of putting it?  A speculative historian?  Are there any
responsible Speculative Historians?
You see, I don't believe that scientists are in the best position to put
all the data together in a clever, speculative and cohesive theory.  I
do really *like* what Sitchin tried to do.  But he (and all the others,
it seems) were motivated to sell books, and therefore truth left the
picture when they sat down with quill.
I'm convinced that a better job can be done of it.  One day you will see
"Speculation and History, by Peter Szabo" or something like that on the
local book counter.
> Darius (the Vth) Szabo??  Whatever works.
You are typing with the new Satrap of Canada, August.
It's kinda like having "Majestic" as your first name, isn't it?
-- 
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/

Peter Van Rossum wrote:
> 
> It might be nice if you would at least acknowledge the fact that your initial
> accusation (of silence) was incorrect and also note that even the researcher
> who did the study did not conclude the individual was "white".  But no,
> you'd prefer to ignore that and continue demonstrating your lack of
> knowledge about racial classifications.
As far as my accusation of silence goes, I only read and post on
sci.archaeology.  I don't participate in every conversation that goes in
the world, or the Internet.  So as far as I was concerned, sci.arch was
silent.  
As far as the researcher concluding the remains white, I posted an
excerpt from the New York Times New Service article in which the
researcher directly calls the remains 'white'.  Not that the article has
to be correct or anything; this is again just what I witnessed.
As far as my knowledge of racial classification, I'm not sure how I
degraded my standing here, but then I don't really care either.
> Beyond that I'm just being overly conservative when I talk about a less
> than 100% certainty.  
Of course I didn't actually mean 100% any more than you did.
Notice here I'm talking about having a living person
> standing in front of you from whom you can take as many measurements/samples
> as you wish - and you still can't get a definite classification.
> 
> All racial classification schemes will produce a significant number of
> misclassifications.  [etc] [etc]
I would suggest that the only reason for misclassifications and this
difficulty putting a fine line on it, is obviously due to the incredible
amount of mixing that has gone on in the world.  Some people are more
distinctly of a race than someone else might be.
I will not concede that race is a moot point, or not classifiable.
I am sure that distinctly white, black, Asian, or other extremes can and
will be genetically identifiable, if not obvious to the untrained eyes.
The misclassifications will arise as a result of mixed geneology.
I have done zero research or schooling in this area, but I feel pretty
darn sure of my opinion.
> doesn't mean that objective, discrete races exist (they don't).
Of course when you say "discrete" that is what keeps your point alive.
> As I've said the concept of race does not exist as a biologically discrete
> unit of analysis.  Researchers have tried for over 150 years to
> scientifically define racial classification schemes and none have been
> successful - doesn't this indicate to you that there is a problem with
> the underlying concept?
Not in the least.  Although I think my underlying concept is different
than the one you describe.
> Below I put some references so that maybe you can learn something by going
> to the library.  If you do, you'll see that the vast majority of physical
> anthropologists (these are people who have the study of human variability
> as one major goal) have rejected the race concept.
Perhaps they need to put down their books and just look in the mirror.
Sorry, I don't want to corrupt my mind with any of your suggested
reading.
> Finally, per your argument that a 100% certainty is limiting, the reason
> why you'd need to set a very high confidence level in this case is that
> the overwhelming perponderance of evidence indicates that the earliest
> New World inhabitants did come over from Asia.  You only supply one
> piece of evidence to contradict this view, therefore, you'd better be
> damn certain that one piece of evidence is correct.
Sorry, I didn't mean to supply any evidence.  I didn't mean to.  Can I
take it back?  What was it?
(If it was the proto-caucasoid dude, I would submit that much more than
just one piece of this evidence is existent.)
> You can't definitely use DNA data for racial classifications either 
Then why did they announce in the Vancouver Sun paper that 1 in 5
"whites" have a natural genetic immunity to AIDS, and so far the "black"
people tested didn't possess this genetic trait?
If there is no basis yet for DNA racial classification, I declare,
"Just you wait!"
-- 
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/

Paul Hughett wrote:
> An explicit disclaimer of the technical sense probably
> won't do the trick, unfortunately, since the technical term is so
> ingrained.  It is probably necessary to create and define a new term.
> (But even this may not be sufficient.  Many or most of these writings
> are so plagued by fuzzy reasoning and special pleading that the misuse of
> scientific terms is but a minor problem.)
>
Thanks Paul,
This is axcactly what I am trying to find out.
This evening I will talk with the person that stimulates this term, I 
will bear all the ideas I saw in mind when talking with him.
All the best,
Victor
> Paul Hughett
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------
WWW Thuis pagina: http://www.tip.nl/users/victor.reijs/ned/
WWW Home page:    http://www.tip.nl/users/victor.reijs/eng/

> Saida  wrote:
[I wrote:] 
>> 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
                 a measure, actually, c. 1 liter.
>> 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.
>> How is "parthal" written exactly?
>
>I am glad you asked, Miquel, because it has made me investigate this 
>matter further.  
The only hieroglyphic reference I've got is a simple book for "museum
visitors", so bear with me...
>It is written "wild duck, 
Flying duck, right? /p3/
>mouth with two slashes above 
>and a vertical dash below, 
/r3/ (ideographic mouth) and /j/?
Not sure how to interpret this: syllablic /ri/?
>duckling, 
Can't find the duckling.  I've got a sitting duck, /s3/?
>lion, 
/l/, in loanwords.
>determinative for metal".  
That gives me /p3-r3-j-s3-l/: "parisal" or "paritchel" or something
like that?
The "syllabic" style of writing and the "lion" suggest a borrowing.
The source is likely to be either Hebrew (Phoenician)  or
Akkadian .
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal                     ~ ~
Amsterdam                   _____________  ~ ~
mcv@pi.net                 |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig

In article <3268A97B.39EB@iceonline.com> Satrap Szabo  writes:
[Mr. Szabo continuous misconceptions of race deleted, because it
 doesn't add anything.]
>I have done zero research or schooling in this area, but I feel pretty
>darn sure of my opinion.
[Sarcasm on]
That's right Mr. Szabo your personal opinion obviously carries more 
weight than the entirety of 150 years of physical anthropological
research on the topic.
[Sarcasm off]
>Perhaps they need to put down their books and just look in the mirror.
Different populations do indeed often show different *tendencies*
when taken on aggregate.  The problem comes in defining racial classes
for individuals.
>Sorry, I don't want to corrupt my mind with any of your suggested
>reading.
That's right Mr. Szabo - tain't nuttin' in 'dem der books, wadda 'dey
'no', dey tink 'dat ciphering summit' all der lifes mekes 'em smart,
dey dun 'no' nuttin'.
I'm sorry I didn't mean to confuse you by bringing up actual facts.
>Then why did they announce in the Vancouver Sun paper that 1 in 5
>"whites" have a natural genetic immunity to AIDS, and so far the "black"
>people tested didn't possess this genetic trait?
Notice that it is 1 in 5 white, not all whites.  If you sampled a person
and they didn't have the trait, would this mean they were not white? Are
you starting to get the picture?
>If there is no basis yet for DNA racial classification, I declare,
>"Just you wait!"
I won't hold my breath - but please feel free to hold yours.
ps. based on the lack up substance in your last post might I suggest 
another name change?  How about Claptrap Szabo.
Peter van Rossum
PMV100@PSU.EDU

Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:
> 
> > Saida  wrote:
> 
> [I wrote:]
> >> 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
>                  a measure, actually, c. 1 liter.
> >> 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.
> 
> >> How is "parthal" written exactly?
> >
> >I am glad you asked, Miquel, because it has made me investigate this
> >matter further.
> 
> The only hieroglyphic reference I've got is a simple book for "museum
> visitors", so bear with me...
> 
> >It is written "wild duck,
> 
> Flying duck, right? /p3/
> 
> >mouth with two slashes above
> >and a vertical dash below,
> 
> /r3/ (ideographic mouth) and /j/?
> Not sure how to interpret this: syllablic /ri/?
> 
> >duckling,
> 
> Can't find the duckling.  I've got a sitting duck, /s3/?
> 
> >lion,
> 
> /l/, in loanwords.
> 
> >determinative for metal".
> 
> That gives me /p3-r3-j-s3-l/: "parisal" or "paritchel" or something
> like that?
> 
> The "syllabic" style of writing and the "lion" suggest a borrowing.
> The source is likely to be either Hebrew (Phoenician)  or
> Akkadian .
It sometimes bothers me when I see Semitic "loan words" into Egyptian 
because I wonder how it can be ascertained that the loaning was not vice 
versa.  In this case, however, it looks like everybody and his brother 
in western Asia had iron before the Egyptians, because the earliest 
evidence of iron smelting was excavated by Flinders Petrie, going back 
to the 6th Century B.C., whereas the Asiatics had it by the third 
millenium B.C.  However, iron artifacts, presumably gifts, were found in 
royal tombs such as that of Tutankhamun (1336-1327) B.C.  The Amarna 
letters mentions gifts of iron sent to Amenhotep III and Akhenaten, who 
preceded Tut, indicating the prestigious nature of the metal at this 
time.  My info is from "The dictionary of Ancient Egypt".
I have a great interest in ancient Egyptian pronunciation.  As I said in 
an earlier post, Budge gave the "duckling" or "sitting duck", as you 
aptly call it, as "th" and "tch".  If it is now supposed to be "s3", I 
am not aware of it.  Maybe Troy will tell us.  The "mouth" is just still 
"r", as far as I know, and the "lion" does represent "l" but is also 
used for "r" at times.  I believe (and this is just my impression) that 
this interchangeability occurred because the Egyptians pronounced these 
two sounds alike (even though "l" was foreign to them).  It is my idea 
that both "r" and "l" came out rather like "w", as in the Polish "l" 
with the slash through it.  We already know that the Egyptian "r" tended 
to be "weak" because it did not seems to be omitted by foreigners in 
their transliterations of Egyptian names and even the Egyptians omitted 
it themselves at times.  I feel sure that the British habit of rendering 
"r's" negligible at the end of words applied in Egyptian as well.

On Fri, 18 Oct 1996 13:33:32 -0700, B Seward  wrote:
>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
I live in Europe and there are no mammoths over here.  Have you
considered that they might have been air-lifted out by UFOs?  That
would certainly be consistent with the rest of your theory.
Paul	:-)

>In article <5477gi$j46@halley.pi.net> mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal)
>writes:
>>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.  
>I already have in my lexicon  as the Sumerian reading for the signs 
>AN.BAR 'iron', from  plus  'to pare, cut'.  Aside from obsidian 
>glass, iron makes the sharpest knives of any metal.
Miguel: I have no idea about the "origin" of the word, but the root is 
definitely widely distributed in Semitic languages, including Ugaritic, 
Hebrew, Aramaic, Epigraphic South Arabic (przn) and Arabic (firzil).  This 
makes it quite unlikely that it is a loan from Sumerian, and it certainly 
would have nothing to do with the sila bowl and sila measure.  The Sumerian 
was an-bar, often in early texts an-bar su3-ga.  The reading barzil is 
probably a late learned back reading.   If such a reading does exist--and I 
would have to look into it further--most probably it would be a loan from 
Semitic.  Meteoric iron has very little role in Mesopotamia before the first 
millennium, and while a very small few objects of iron have been found at Ur 
and other places.  Iron is not mentioned once, to my knowledge, in the more 
than 30,000 published economic texts from the Ur III dynasty (2100-2000) and 
only sporadically begins to be mentioned in the middle of the second 
millennium.  As James Muhly points out in his article Metalle in the 
Reallexicon der Assyriologie, "Iron played virtually no role in Mesopotamian 
culture prior to the first millennium BC."   He goes on to say that many iron 
objects that were said in the literature to be made of smelted iron actually 
were accidental byproducts of copper smelting.  SInce all indications are that 
iron came to be important long after Sumerian was a dead language, and the 
distribution of the root in Semitic languages is such that it makes a Sumerian 
loan unlikely, as it would have had to pass from Akkadian into all of these 
languages and there are precious few examples of a Sumerian loan going into 
such wide circulation, I would sincerely doubt it.   There is one further 
possibility, that it was an independent loan into various Semitic languages as 
well as into Sumerian (like "monkey", but only if the reading barzil of 
an-bar is accepted (but not "etymologized").  Hittite hapalki and the Egyptian 
word are completely unrelated.        

Larry Caldwell (larryc@teleport.com) writes:
> I don't know about the Chippewa, but the Cree didn't learn any games from
> the Vikings.  Their historic range was south of the Great Lakes.  They
> only migrated north because of immigrant population pressures from
> Europeans.  
Do you have a cite for that?  It doesn't sound like any version of Cree
history I've read.
> Eight hundred years ago the Cree were nowhere near the Vikings.
> 
> -- Larry
> 
--
Reid Cooper

Bob Zwarick wrote:
>andrew.elms@datacraft.com.au wrote:
>> I was hoping someone could verify something for me.
>> I was recently at a crackpot seminar given by some guy who reckons the
>> pyramids are actually huge "physic anntenna" for talking to beings in
>> other galaxies, and that what the archiologists call  ventilation
>> ducts, actually line up with other planets and can be used as
>> directional antenna. Whilst i personally think that this is all a load
>> of bullshit he did mention that aircraft are not allowed to fly over
>> the top of the pyramids. He says that it is because of the HUGE
>> mangetic fields generated by the pyramids (yeah, sure), but i was
>> wondering if this is true what reasons if any are given for why they
>> wont let aircraft fly over them?
>It's nonsense. I have flown over the pyramids while in joint exercises and
>noticed nothing at all (except the view).
Bob,
I must respectfully disagree.  Anyone who has been to Las Vegas knows 
that planes are not allowed to fly over the pyramidical Luxor hotel 
and casino at night due to the emanations.  The fact that the visually
observable emanations from a laser (50000+ watts or so), mounted in the 
top, blasting a beam of pure, white light heavensward would blind any 
pilot, should not be construed as detracting from the psychic vibrations 
which are *obviously* inherent in the shape (just ask any psychic).  
After all, why have a light shining skyward if not to attract 
extraterrestrials for a little gambling and R&R; after a hard day 
at Area 51?  Valet parking for saucers provided.
This may provide us with a clue as to what is behind the door in
the pyramid:  it has to be an on-off switch for the laser which 
is cunningly concealed in the top.  As soon as the switch is 
thrown the Giza Plateau Casino will be up and running.
Regards,
August Matthusen

Katherine M. Griffis wrote:
> 
> "S. F. Thomas"  wrote:
> 
> >It was the same with me.  That is the essential *forest* to
> >which I always return when the eurocentrists try to confound
> >me with endless disputation about individual *trees*.  Sure,
> >there were some caucasoids among the ancient Egyptian pharaohs,
> >but it was clear to me, being there, and visiting the tombs,
> >that by a large preponderance, they were Black people.  Moreover,
> >the further back in history, the more obviously Black they
> >were.  It therefore never ceases to irritate me when the
> >Hollywood depictions and those of the tv documentaries, would
> >have us believe that they were essentially White people.  It
> >is wrong and dishonest.  The apologists for the eurocentric
> >LIE taught in the history books do not hasten to correct these
> >mis-depictions, but they hasten to correct afrocentric scholars
> >on every minute, usually immaterial, point of scholarship.
> >The asymmetry of course reveals their partisanship in the
> >debate, and gives the lie to their claim of objective, dispassionate
> >scholarship.  Nevertheless, let us by all means examine with
> >them the individual trees; but let us also keep always in mind
> >the forest, as those of us who have been to Egypt find very
> >easy to do.
> 
> Then,  let us remember how *diverse* the African continent was, in its
> groups of people and their so-called "racial make-up".  I think it was
> *best said* by Frank Yurco, when he said:
> 
> "This has been my stance ever since I became involved with this issue,
> with the "Were the Ancient Egyptians 'Black' or 'White'?" article in
> Biblical Archaeology Review, back in 1989, and I still stand by that
> position, along with Trigger and Keita Shomarka, who both have noted
> that the African population is highly diverse, something that the
> Afrocentrists have found hard to swallow, with their claims that the
> Africans are all "black". 
Whoa!  Stop right there! This Yurco is a tricky character.
He again misrepresents the position of his opponent--as we
saw not so long ago in the discussion re Diop and the god Min--
the better it would seem to discredit that opponent.  This is
an old rhetorical trick, but it fools no one who is paying
attention; it therefore must fall into the category of cheap
propaganda, which works rather with the uninformed masses.
Nobody claims that the Africans are ALL Black.  What is claimed
by such as Diop, is that ancient Egyptian civilization was
founded by Black Africans.  And there is plenty of evidence
adduced to support this view, not least being the likenesses
of the pharaohs that have come down to us in statuary.  There
is even evidence that ancient Egyptian high culture was preceded
by, and descended from, ancient Nubian high culture (ref: the
Qostul excavations).  Nobody has ever asserted the non-blackness
of the Nubians, ancient or modern. 
> That is a nineteenth century American social
> concept, that lumped all African people as "black" and so also, stated
> that if one great grandparent of eight was African, then you were a
> Negro, in American terminology regardless of what the person's
> complexion might have been. To force this American concept onto the
> African population of the whole continent flies in the face of the
> anthropological facts, of the highly diverse African population."
> <10/15/96>
More trickery from Yurco.  It is clear that the "one-drop" 
rule would destroy immediately any argument for a White
Egypt, whether modern or ancient.  So, equally, it is
clear that if White credit is to be claimed for ancient
Egypt and its accomplishments--which Hollywood and the tv
documentaries continue to depict--the heterogeneity of the
ancient Egyptian peoples must be emphasized, and Blacks
must grudgingly be admitted as having been there alright,
but as menials, slaves, and servants.  This latter is only
hinted at, because the evidence is clearly to the contrary,
but for propagandists, the hint is sufficient: the masses
would be fooled by it, as indeed we all were, until Black/
African scholars exploded the great LIE under which we all
have labored.
> 
> As we enter the end of the 20th century, and into the new world of the
> 21st, let's NOT be dragged *kicking and screaming* into the old ways
> of thinking of the *19th century* and the travesty **that** was.
Very artful.  But last-ditch propaganda nonetheless.
> Let's move on and discover the richness of the Egyptian civilization,
> and celebrate its fascinating history of *how diverse peoples pull
> together*, and created one of the most intriguing and powerful
> cultures of all time.
Yes.  And let's start with the repudiation of all the eurocentric
LIES that we have all been taught.  
> Regards --
> 
> Katherine Griffis (Greenberg)
> Member of the American Research Center in Egypt
Regards,
S. F. Thomas

A good example of the propagandist's art: when all else
fails, spray some DDT on your opponent:
	Distract
	Distort, and
	Trash
I won't take the time to pick it apart, because even a
casual reading should demonstrate the validity of this
observation.  Besides, it's the more learned exponents
of DDT who need to be engaged.
Regards,
S. F. Thomas
Xina wrote:
> 
> 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. 

Are there any pictures (GIF, PICT, or any format) of Hittite King names (I
would like to find the names of Hattusilis and Supiluliumas, in
particular).
Thanks in advance
-- 
Paul Mavros
Dept. of Chemistry, Aristotle University
GR-54006 Thessaloniki, Greece
Fax (+30) 31 99 77 59

Satrap Szabo wrote:
> 
> August Matthusen wrote:
> >
> > No sarcasm, just fact.  Can't you accept a compliment?  I've had
> > the page bookmarked for quite a while for all the links.
> 
> That's encouraging!  Thanks.  Maybe there *will* be some impending
> updates!
> 
> > "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." "
> 
> So, why do you think the features were more caucasian then than Indians
> now.  As far as I know Evolution doesn't operate that quickly.
> 
> And those characteristics you describe sound incredibly caucasian.
9000 years is approximately 450 generations.  Plenty of time for 
changes, ask any rancher or or animal breeder. For example, how many
recognized breeds of dogs are there which are all probably descended 
from wolf forebears?
> [From New York Times News Service, Sept 30,`96]
> 
> At that point, recounted Chatters, an anthropologist based in nearby
> Richland, Wash., "I've got a white guy with a spear point in him." He
> added: "That's pretty exciting.  I thought we had a pioneer."
> 
> The real stunner came last month, after bone samples were sent to .....
> the "pioneer" is 9,300 years old.
> 
> [end quote]
Newspapers are a great place to get news but usually not a great place
to get the straight scoop on science.  Reporters have a tendency to 
report what they think was said and may miss important distinctions.
If they don't miss something, an editor may snip parts for space.
There was another post in alt.arch which is supposedly from Chatters.
I say "supposedly" because the headers don't match.  I don't know if
someone was passing along somehing from Chatters.  Anyway, here's
the post:
[begin quoted post]
From: 
                "Kent D Richert" 
         Subject: 
                Re: Skeleton???
      Newsgroups: 
                alt.archaeology
      References: 
                <325EFC3E.7F49@worldnet.att.net>
      Message-ID: 
                <01bbba13$edd7abe0$88e4cbcc@Brichert.3-cities.com>
    X-Newsreader: 
                Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1155
NNTP-Posting-Host: 
                bigtca407.3-cities.com
           Date: 
                15 Oct 96 04:07:13 GMT
           Lines: 
                25
            Path: 
                ix.netcom.com!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!
newspump.sol.net!news.mindspring.com!uunet!in3.uu.net!
netnews.nwnet.net!!
Brent Wolke  wrote in article
<325EFC3E.7F49@worldnet.att.net>...
> Does anybody know the outcome of the Columbia River Skeleton?  Does 
> anybody KNOW about the Columbia River Skeleton?
> 
> Columbia River, Washington State that is.
> As things now stand, the Army Corps of engineers still intends to give
the remains over to the Indians on the 24th of October.  There are,
however
at least two and possible three lawsuits pending, or at least being
considered seriously to prevent that from happening before study can be
done.
There is extensive coverage in the US media (in par6icular the New York
Times, Sept 30 and upcoming in the next few days) which is now
addressing
the nation-wide problem of the reburial of an increasing number of human
remains--ancient and not "indian-like" under the NAtive American Graves
Protection and Repatriation Act.  Whether or not we get additional study
of
this case, it may raise the issue of the appropriate application of the
law, or the appropriate content of the law regarding very ancient
remains.
As the person who conducted the study on the remains, i can state
categorically that i have not identified him as "white" not spcifically
caucasian. I have identified him as having caucasoid-like features,
which
if you look at the situation, these are predominantly archaic human
features that are retained in caucasoid peoples.
J. Chatters (chattersj@aol.com)
[end quoted post]
I don't know if this clarifies or not.
[snip]
> Is there no such thing as a responsible pseudoscientist, or is there
> another way of putting it?  A speculative historian?  Are there any
> responsible Speculative Historians?
I think "responsible pseudoscientist" is an oxymoron.  You seem to have 
this idea that scientists do not speculate.  They do, but in a
formalized 
manner.  If they didn't, things like the K/T meteor impact would never 
have been proposed and Chixulub would not have been proposed as the
site.
Speculation *is* a part of science.  It comes under the the concept of 
"multiple working hypotheses."  What are the observations, which 
hypotheses fit these observations, and which tests can be performed to
rule 
out some of these hypotheses?  Pseudoscience never gets around to
testing 
or weeding out speculations that do not fit the data.
> You see, I don't believe that scientists are in the best position to put
> all the data together in a clever, speculative and cohesive theory.  I
> do really *like* what Sitchin tried to do.  But he (and all the others,
> it seems) were motivated to sell books, and therefore truth left the
> picture when they sat down with quill.
It's easy to like what Sitchin et al. do.  They make a point of 
"Exploiting the romanticism of 'Wouldn't it be exciting if...?' 
which assumes that no normal scientific explanation is exciting" 
(Cole, 1980). 
> I'm convinced that a better job can be done of it.  One day you will see
> "Speculation and History, by Peter Szabo" or something like that on the
> local book counter.
You're correct in that a better job can be done in bringing 
science to everyone.  However, the problem is that not all
science can be simplified into convenient soundbites.
> > Darius (the Vth) Szabo??  Whatever works.
> 
> You are typing with the new Satrap of Canada, August.
> It's kinda like having "Majestic" as your first name, isn't it?
Yeah, but I didn't have any choice in the matter.  I was too small
and inarticulate to have any say.
Regards,
August Matthusen

Satrap Szabo (peters5@iceonline.com) writes:
> Beever wrote:
>> 
>> I'm just catching the tail of what has apparently been a long discussion concerning the
>> language of the Linear A inscriptions.  
> 
> Actually, it was very short.  The fellow I was last talking to seems to
> have disappeared.  I think it may have been because I snubbed his
> signature file.  (Hey guy! Sorry!)  It was kind of an annoying one
> though, you know?     ;->
Ha.  That's not why I didn't reply (assuming you meant me).  It's just
that you trumpet about keeping the probability of possible interpretations
in mind and then go way out on a limb.  Why do you consider it more
probable that there was a takeover of Crete by the Phoenicians, who
then artificially created a religion and writing system for the place,
than these were features of a local culture, which was influenced by other
peoples?
It's like talking to someone of a totally foreign religion, and I don't
know if there's any point.
Chris
--
Chris Camfield - ab292@freenet.carleton.ca
"You're nothing in the eyes of the world
 But you're going up and down in the elevator still..." (FINN)

Hastur wrote:
> 
> 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?
> >
> > 
	For the sake of any giant girlfriends, I hope not.
    But this figure is varyingly attributed:  Dr. Stuckeley thought it 
'Unquestionably' was 'Hercules, the Phoenecian leader of the fist colony 
to Britain when they can hither for Cornish tin.'  St Augustine is 
reputed (by William of Malmesbury, an obviously impeccable source) as 
having destroyed the worship of 'Heil' at Cerne.  
	Now there is written evidence of the dog: twice between 1969 and 
1976 the weather, vegetation growth and the right Sun height allowed the 
sighting of what seems to be a very primitive outline of a dog within 
clubbing distance of the Giant's right arm.  If the illustration in 
Newman (1987) is correct the animal is about the same size as the Giant, 
so maybe this is a case of the Dog and his boy (or Canis Gigantis).
	Stuart Piggott also identified the Giant as Hercules, but put 
some spin on things by roping in an Indian to identify the possible site 
nearby of a Maypole with Lingam worship.
	Current opinion seems to return to Nodens, or some other Celtic 
god.  So you more or less pays yer money an tykes yer choice.
(Newman, P: 'Gods and Graven Images:  The Chalk Hill-Figures of 
Britain', Robert Hale, 1987)

In article <3267FD55.724A@PioneerPlanet.infi.net>, Saida
 writes
>Alan, you have gone too far.  An individual's personal life, job, etc. 
>has absolutely NOTHING to do with this newsgroup and ought not to be 
>commented on in any way whatsoever. Boys, stop this petty crap!  You are 
>getting to be like a bunch of bitches with PMS.  Steve, learn to know 
>when to hold them and when to fold them.  If I hear one more thing about 
>Ptah, padre, papoose, pita, the pope or whatever from any of you, I am 
>going to scream so loud all of your screens are going to explode in 
>front of you.  Enough!
>
Believe what you want, Saida. But you can't stop us considering the
evidence, coming to a conclusion, and commenting here on that
conclusion.
My knowledge of Steve's personal life is based ONLY on what he has
previously reported himself on this NewsGroup. So give over with the
censor-torch.
-- 
Alan M. Dunsmuir
  "Time flies like an arrow -
   Fruit flies like a banana" --- Groucho Marx (as used by Noam Chomsky)

?
> 
> I flew directly over the Giza pyramids a couple of years ago and noticed
> nothing. The only worrying thing was the (EgyptAir) captain's passenger
> announcement that "Shortly we shall be landing at Cairo Airport -
> insh'Allah". Thankfully, his faith in God was fully justified.
> 
> --
> Alan M. Dunsmuir
	Many years ago, I flew out of Gibraltar airport (which at that 
time had a traffic light on the road to the terminal:  the bus stopped 
at it and I looked out of the window at the expanse ahead.  Then 3 RAF 
jets went by, about 50 feet in front, at a rate of knots and seconds 
later were dots in the sky.  Then the light turned green and on we went: 
I doubt if anyone runs that light!):  moments after takeoff the plane 
turned almost on its side and made a very very sharp turn.  After I put 
everthing back into the overhead locker that had fallen on my head I 
asked the cabin attendant (we called them Stewardesses in those days) 
what was up: she said that the turn was made to avoid entering Spanish 
airspace because Franco had installed AA guns along the frontier, and 
had threatened to open fire at trespassing planes, civil or military, 
and no one wanted to be first to find out if he meant it.  I would have 
taken some other means of getting home if I had known.
> 
>   "A bird can fly, but a fly can't bird'      A. A. Milne.

Steve Whittet wrote:
>In article <5477ge$j46@halley.pi.net>, mcv@pi.net� 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.
Fine.  I'm glad we've sorted that out.  Mallory says no such thing.
But yes, I can see your logic:
1. Mallory states some known facts about the Tocharians, and draws
conclusion X.
2. You read Mallory, discard some of the facts, discard conclusion X,
add some facts of your own, and draw conclusion W.
3.  Therefore: "if you read Mallory, you draw conclusion W".
This is misleading, as it is only true for a statiscally insignificant
number of instances, namely for [you] == [Steve Whittet].
>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.
The oldest Tocharian texts date from 600 AD, when writing was
introduced into the area (together with Buddhism).  This says nothing
about the earlier history of the Tocharians.
The earliest information about the Sinkiang starts about 200 BC, when
the Chinese start interesting themselves for the area.  There is no
explicit mention of the Tocharian language, as there is no explicit
mention of Greek, Macedonian or Balkan languages either.  The Chinese
show precious little interest in the languages of the barbarians, but,
given that in the period from 200 BC to 600 AD there is no mention at
all of population movements coming in from the west [Hunno-Turkish
tribes do move into the area from the north-east], we can be confident
that the Tarim Basin c. 200 BC was already inhabited by people who
spoke Turkic, Iranian and Tocharian languages.  Before 200 BC, there
is no written evidence at all.
>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 links the Tocharians with the Afanasievo culture ("radiocarbon
dates indicate that this culture began before 3000 BC and then
continued throughout much of the third millennium", p. 225).  The
later Andronovo culture ("Radiocarbon evidence suggests that the
Andronovo culture may have begun to emerge in the early second
millennium BC.", p. 227) is linked to the Iranians (or Indo-Iranians).
>Mallory claims links to the Andanov [read: Afanasievo] culture are possible, 
>they occupy the same geographical territory
No they don't.  The Afanasievo culture was located in the Upper
Yenisey area, 1,000 miles to the north-west of the Tarim basin.
The theory linking the Tocharians to the Afanasievo culture is
definitely not without problems.  There are 1,000 miles to travel, and
there is a gap of 2.5 millennia between the end of Afanasievo and the
earliest Tocharian texts.  We can only assume they were "en route".
>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)
The historical Tokharoi were Iranian, and have nothing whatsoever to
do with the linguistic "Tocharians".  The name "Tocharian" is simply a
misnomer, but it's too late to change it now.
>Uniquely similar items of vocabulary and grammar are shared with
>Baltic, Slavic, Greek, Armenian and possibly Phrygian
And Hittite, and Celtic, and any other IE language for that matter.
There is absolutely nothing in Tocharian to suggest a special link
with the Balkans.
>2.)Alexander does provide a direct link between the language of the
>Balkans (Macedonia) and the Tocharian language.
No he doesn't.  The army of Alexander spoke Greek.  When Greeks
established themselves in Bactria, their language was Greek, and
remained so.  The gap between Greek (or Macedonian) and Tocharian is
enormous, not 900 years, as you are claiming.  Ever read a Tocharian
text, or a grammar?  Tocharian is, right after the Anatolian languages
(e.g. Hittite), the most divergent member of Indo-European.
The Afanasievo culture theory may have its problems, but they're
peanuts compared to this.
>3.)A province in the Pontic Caspian Region, modern Turkmenistan, 
>is today called Balkan
I can only find the Great Balkhan range in Turkmenistan.  Sounds like
Turkic to me.
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal                     ~ ~
Amsterdam                   _____________  ~ ~
mcv@pi.net                 |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig

In article <54bald$6h3@halley.pi.net>,
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal  wrote:
>Steve Whittet wrote:
>>Uniquely similar items of vocabulary and grammar are shared with
>>Baltic, Slavic, Greek, Armenian and possibly Phrygian
>And Hittite, and Celtic, and any other IE language for that matter.
>There is absolutely nothing in Tocharian to suggest a special link
>with the Balkans.
	Of the other IE languages, Tocharian appears the closest to 
Italic, Celtic, and possibly Hittite. There are several shared features 
that support an Italic-Celtic-Tocharian subgrouping, such as a passive 
ending in r.
	No Balkan connection here :-(
-- 
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

After seeing a recent posting on the sci.arch.mod newsgroup regaring
a new "Amarna Collection" website (http://www.amarna.com/), I was
wondering of someone could shed some objective light on the situation?
I was not familiar with the collection or with the controversy 
surrounding it. The items look nice, but are they really from the
amarna period or are they recent? 
Unfortunately, the website has a less-than-objective feel to it with 
the many references to "us" and "we" and at the same time, adds for
publications of the Mansoor family. 
I am appealing to those who might have a feeling for how the work 
compares esthetically with other amarna work, or have knowledge
regarding the whiz-bang super scientific dating methods which have
been applied to the pieces. 
Thanks in advance,
-owen

Alan M. Dunsmuir wrote:
> 
> In article <3267FD55.724A@PioneerPlanet.infi.net>, Saida
>  writes
> >Alan, you have gone too far.  An individual's personal life, job, etc.
> >has absolutely NOTHING to do with this newsgroup and ought not to be
> >commented on in any way whatsoever. Boys, stop this petty crap!  You are
> >getting to be like a bunch of bitches with PMS.  Steve, learn to know
> >when to hold them and when to fold them.  If I hear one more thing about
> >Ptah, padre, papoose, pita, the pope or whatever from any of you, I am
> >going to scream so loud all of your screens are going to explode in
> >front of you.  Enough!
> >
> 
> Believe what you want, Saida. But you can't stop us considering the
> evidence, coming to a conclusion, and commenting here on that
> conclusion.
> 
> My knowledge of Steve's personal life is based ONLY on what he has
> previously reported himself on this NewsGroup. So give over with the
> censor-torch.
> --
> Alan M. Dunsmuir
Censor-torch my asp!  That Ptah thread was becoming a monument to male 
pig-headness and belligerence and had long ceased to be a discussion of 
any merit.  Your idea of "considering the evidence" is called "hitting 
below the belt" where I come from and is just plain bad form.  It is 
possible, you know, to score a point just with erudition and not attack 
everything about the opponent including his granny.

we are searching: sketches, plan with measurement, drawings etc.
relative to the Great Pyramid for an attempt of virtual CAD
reconstruction of it.
If anybody has  material and or had interested to the project, I beg
send material to the following address.
Roberto Fiorini
Via Pietralata 39
40122 Bologna  ITALY
E-Mail rfiorini@mbox.vol.it

we are searching: sketches, plan with measurement, drawings etc.
relative to the Great Pyramid for an attempt of virtual CAD
reconstruction of it.
If anybody has  material and or had interested to the project, I beg
send material to the following address.
Roberto Fiorini
Via Pietralata 39
40122 Bologna  ITALY
E-Mail rfiorini@mbox.vol.it

S. F. Thomas wrote:
> 
> Katherine M. Griffis wrote:
> >
> > "S. F. Thomas"  wrote:
> >
> > >It was the same with me.  That is the essential *forest* to
> > >which I always return when the eurocentrists try to confound
> > >me with endless disputation about individual *trees*.  Sure,
> > >there were some caucasoids among the ancient Egyptian pharaohs,
> > >but it was clear to me, being there, and visiting the tombs,
> > >that by a large preponderance, they were Black people.
You must have had your dark glasses on the whole time.  I am really sick 
of repeating this:  Yes, there were black pharaohs--must have been at 
the time of the Nubian Conquest.  Other than this assumption, there is 
not one single shred of evidence pointing to the kings of Egypt having 
been black as opposed to Caucasion.  Certainly, the men of Egypt were 
painted with a reddish-brown skin, but that was an artistic canon.  
Where a group of men were standing in a row, every other one was painted 
yellow so the composition wouldn't look like a dark blob.  Should we 
deduce from that that fifty per cent of ancient Egyptian men were 
dark-skinned and the other half light?
On your tomb-hopping excursions, did you perchance ever venture into the 
tombs of Queen Nefertari or Prince Montuhirkhopeshef?  These are among 
the most beautifully painted sepulchers of Egypt.  Nefertari's skin 
isn't even yellow in her tomb--it is rosy pink and the prince's skin is 
painted a cafe au lait.  Their features look nothing like the way 
Egyptian artists usually depicted negroid persons.  Yes, the Egyptians 
were very careful to show themselves as looking different from other 
races--although, of course, this was not always the case in reality.
How about an even more reliable kind of evidence than art?  Ever check 
out the royal mummies?  These ARE the kings and queens of Egypt you 
refer to--not a negroid type among them.  Although is now impossible to 
see the original skin color of the person, their features and hair are 
still admirably preserved.  Where there is hair, it is of the fine 
Caucasian quality, straight, sometimes wavy, but not crisp or woolly.  
Sorry to burst your bubble, but that is the truth.  Even the lightest- 
skinned "black" people I have seen rarely have Caucasian hair.
You've got to accept it--Egypt was a melting-pot.  At the time of the 
18th and 19th Dynasties from whence the royal mummies, a large per cent 
of the population had become of Asiatic background, probably the royal 
family ,itself, to a great extent.  Even in the Old Kingdom,however,the 
sculptures of the pharaohs give no indication that these people could be 
termed "black" as opposed to just plain Egyptian.

I have no idea what the pyramids were used for but a small model object ws 
found in the 1890's in an dig in Egypt, which does resemble a plane. For years 
nobody new what it was until in 1969 when Dr. Kahlil (Messiha an Egyptologist 
and archaelogist) examined an exhibit labled `bird exhibits' in room 22 of the 
Cairo museum. Being an ex glider man, Messiha recognised this as a basic 
glider. This cause quite a stir in the early 1970's and featured in the London 
Times of May 18, 1972. They built replica models of it and wind tunnel tested 
it and found that it could go at speeds of up 65 MPH. Several engineers at the 
time stated that a full scale model could stay in the air almost indefinitely. 
This a little like the drawing of Egyptian Lightbulbs in the temple of Dendra. 
They should not have existed at that time. There is also a Chaldean text about 
3000 BCE called the Sfir'ala  (translated by archealogoist Y.N. A'haroaon 
which tells one how to build and fly an aircraft.  

Saida  wrote:
>S. F. Thomas wrote:
>> 
>> Katherine M. Griffis wrote:
>> >
>> > "S. F. Thomas"  wrote:
>> >
>> > >It was the same with me.  That is the essential *forest* to
>> > >which I always return when the eurocentrists try to confound
>> > >me with endless disputation about individual *trees*.  Sure,
>> > >there were some caucasoids among the ancient Egyptian pharaohs,
>> > >but it was clear to me, being there, and visiting the tombs,
>> > >that by a large preponderance, they were Black people.
Wrong. They were predominently non-black (I assume "black" is non-Saharan 
African).
>You must have had your dark glasses on the whole time.  I am really sick 
>of repeating this:  Yes, there were black pharaohs--must have been at 
>the time of the Nubian Conquest.  Other than this assumption, there is 
>not one single shred of evidence pointing to the kings of Egypt having 
>been black as opposed to Caucasion.  
Define Caucasian...they were North African in geographical ethnicity.
>Certainly, the men of Egypt were 
>painted with a reddish-brown skin, but that was an artistic canon.  
Really? ever seen a modern Egyptian fellah in the sun for a few hours? 
They certainly do turn a reddish-brown! It was more than just an artistic 
canon.
>Where a group of men were standing in a row, every other one was painted 
>yellow so the composition wouldn't look like a dark blob.  Should we 
>deduce from that that fifty per cent of ancient Egyptian men were 
>dark-skinned and the other half light?
Yellow/beige was and is more to the actual colour of the Egyptians. In 
the sun, many turn a reddish-brown.
>On your tomb-hopping excursions, did you perchance ever venture into the 
>tombs of Queen Nefertari or Prince Montuhirkhopeshef?  These are among 
>the most beautifully painted sepulchers of Egypt.  Nefertari's skin 
>isn't even yellow in her tomb--it is rosy pink and the prince's skin is 
>painted a cafe au lait.  Their features look nothing like the way 
>Egyptian artists usually depicted negroid persons.  Yes, the Egyptians 
>were very careful to show themselves as looking different from other 
>races--although, of course, this was not always the case in reality.
Although the average Egyptian's skin color was and is a yellowish-beige 
colour, some have lighter skin and some darker. Just like all human 
populations.
>How about an even more reliable kind of evidence than art?  Ever check 
>out the royal mummies?  These ARE the kings and queens of Egypt you 
>refer to--not a negroid type among them.  Although is now impossible to 
>see the original skin color of the person, their features and hair are 
>still admirably preserved.  Where there is hair, it is of the fine 
>Caucasian quality, straight, sometimes wavy, but not crisp or woolly.
Try not to use the "Caucasian" terminology...unless you define what that 
is. I would say that they are North African features (not here that it is 
a geographical and not "racial" term).
>Sorry to burst your bubble, but that is the truth.  Even the lightest- 
>skinned "black" people I have seen rarely have Caucasian hair.
>
>You've got to accept it--Egypt was a melting-pot.  At the time of the 
>18th and 19th Dynasties from whence the royal mummies, a large per cent 
>of the population had become of Asiatic background, probably the royal 
>family ,itself, to a great extent.  Even in the Old Kingdom,however,the 
>sculptures of the pharaohs give no indication that these people could be 
>termed "black" as opposed to just plain Egyptian.
Egypt NEVER changed to an "Asiatic background". in 7 000 years, the 
population remained North African.
Although I agree with the jist of your post, I would advise that you be 
more carefull in terminology.
The Hab

Pat Zalewski wrote:
> 
> I have no idea what the pyramids were used for but a small model object ws
> found in the 1890's in an dig in Egypt, which does resemble a plane. For years
> nobody new what it was until in 1969 when Dr. Kahlil (Messiha an Egyptologist
> and archaelogist) examined an exhibit labled `bird exhibits' in room 22 of the
> Cairo museum. Being an ex glider man, Messiha recognised this as a basic
> glider. This cause quite a stir in the early 1970's and featured in the London
> Times of May 18, 1972. They built replica models of it and wind tunnel tested
> it and found that it could go at speeds of up 65 MPH. Several engineers at the
> time stated that a full scale model could stay in the air almost indefinitely.
> This a little like the drawing of Egyptian Lightbulbs in the temple of Dendra.
> They should not have existed at that time. There is also a Chaldean text about
> 3000 BCE called the Sfir'ala  (translated by archealogoist Y.N. A'haroaon
> which tells one how to build and fly an aircraft.
	You read about this BS  in one of Erich Von Dunniken's books, 
right? I saw the photo  of this super glider and it looks to me that it 
has the aerodynamic abilities of a cinderblock.  I'm in favour of the 
free expession of ideas, but the free expression of garbage spewed out 
for money by a Swiss ex bellboy is pushing the envelope a bit far.