Newsgroup sci.archaeology 49353

Directory

On Sat, 26 Oct 1996, at 05:35:58, Keith Grenville cajoled electrons into
this
>                    F O U N D A T I O N    M E E T I N G 
>
>                                    of
>
>            T H E   C A P E   T O W N   E G Y P T I A N   S O C I E T Y 
".....Shall say, against their hearts, We thank the gods,
Our Rome hath such a soldier!"  ;))
Keith mon ami
My very best wishes on the above.  I hope it goes swimmingly and have
every confidence that with your good self at the helm, narry a wave
shall rock the boat.
And so, once more unto the breach....
Best of everything
Marc
XX

On Fri, 25 Oct 1996, at 10:45:34, Stephen Hendricks cajoled electrons
into this
>Nefertari image is clearly Negroid in
>appearance.
LOL!!!
Clearly is a word which is often used to emphasise an unresearched
contention.  Implication that a speculation is common knowledge will not
suffice to elevate speculation into the realm of consensus.
Regards
Marc
X

Subject: Deluge Info
Distribution: world
In message <54lq9u$kb1@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
Marcus Hensel,  wrote:
>I need info on the variations of the flood story, Biblical,
>Babylonian, and Sumerian.  Especially the similarities/differences
>between the three heroes.  Any ideas for books or periodicals
>that would help?  Any info would be appreciated.
Mark Isaak has compiled a web page with synopses of many of
the legends which includes an extensive bibliography.
It can be found it at:
http://pubweb.acns.nwu.edu/~pib/flood.htm   .
This web page shows that the claims by creationists that there is
one single flood myth with minor variation is pretty much either
sloppy scholarship or propaganda on the part of creationists.  The
only thing most flood myths have in common is that they mention
the occurrence of any of various different types of floods.
Yours,
Keith Littleton
littlejo@comm.net
New Orleans, LA
NAPOLEON: What shall we do with this soldier, Guiseppe?
          Everything he says is wrong.
GUISEPPE: Make him a general, Excellency, and then
          everything he says will be right.
                -- G. B. Shaw, "The Man of Destiny"

Timothy Hall wrote:
> 
> No.  Archaelogical evidence, along with that fact that North Africa
> has/is/was populated by Arabs and Berbers, which were, originally,
> Caucasoid, irrefutably shows that the "Egytians of the Pharoahs" were
> Arabic/Caucasoid, not African/Negroid.
I thought the terms "Negroid" and "Caucasoid" had been confined to the
garbage heap. The definitions are so elastic that members of the same
family could appear in both. These are tendentious terms. It was my
impression that the reason for the adoption of "Afro-" and "African-"
to replace "black" or "Negroid" was for more precision. However you
define "Negroid" and "Caucasoid" for the continent of Africa is going to
lead to a hodgepodge. Some peoples have been moved from one to the other
depending upon the point being made. I'm reminded of the old South
African Race Classification Board which even split families.
It bothers me that whois or isnot in a particular group is so arbitrary
and seemingly a function of the advantage to the one doing the defining.
Look at all of the physical characteristics and complexions that have
been disciminated against in the USA for being "black" or "Negroid".
Just a couple of thoughts.
Chuck

sci.archaeology@pubnews.demon.co.uk
Subject: ATTN: Archaeologists -  A New Pothunter Newsgroup
Distribution: world
On my service provider a new newsgroup, called 
" alt.treasure.hunting," has recently appeared.  From the posts
that have so far appeared on this newsgroup, it appears to be
solely inhabited by people whose idea of a "good time" is use
metal dectors to dig up historic archaeological sites for "curios"
and "relics."  Despite the fact they make no mention of keeping
any sort of records about the stratigraphy and location of the
artifacts, they have a funny way of calling this "research" and
learning about local history.
In fact, there is one post from a person advertising both
historic and Mayan artifacts for sale that he has just brought
back from Honduras.  So much for observing antiquity laws.
Some collectors wonder why they have bad reputation among
archaeologists.
Anyway, if archaeologists want to keep in touch with what the
pothunters are doing with metal detectors, this might be a good
newsgroup on which just to lurk.
Yours,
Keith Littleton
littlejo@comm.net
New Orleans, LA
NAPOLEON: What shall we do with this soldier, Guiseppe?
          Everything he says is wrong.
GUISEPPE: Make him a general, Excellency, and then
          everything he says will be right.
                -- G. B. Shaw, "The Man of Destiny"

"Dr. John McMath"  wrote:
>> > >
>> > > But throw away all history and learning - make way for Bible myths
>> > > interpretted by dunderheads! At some point ignorance becomes
>> > > pig-headedness and stops being an accidental and correctable condition and
>> > > reveals a profound flaw in character.
>> > >
>Just a note here.  There are actually some evangelical Christians who
>not only believe the Bible is accurate, but have scholarly credentials
>in history, archaeology and linguistics.  I can see the disdain for
>Elijah.  But recognize he is not representative of most biblical
>scholars.
A good example of this is, for example Kenneth Kitchen - not a man
noted for being ignorant of chronological matters.
Gareth
>Peace, be still!
>-- 
>"Keep digging.  Wait."
>Dr. John McMath
>Research Ministries/ Moody Bible Institute
>http://www.ior.com/~jmcmath/      Archaeology and Biblical Studies

    > On Sat, 26 Oct 1996, at 05:35:58, Keith Grenville cajoled electrons into
    > this
    > >                    F O U N D A T I O N    M E E T I N G 
    > >
    > >                                    of
    > >
    > >            T H E   C A P E   T O W N   E G Y P T I A N   S O C I E T Y 
    > 
    > 
    > ".....Shall say, against their hearts, We thank the gods,
    > Our Rome hath such a soldier!"  ;))
    > 
    > 
    > Keith mon ami
    > 
    > My very best wishes on the above.  I hope it goes swimmingly and have
    > every confidence that with your good self at the helm, narry a wave
    > shall rock the boat.
    > 
    > And so, once more unto the breach....
    > 
    > Best of everything
    > 
    > Marc
    > XX
Many thanks, my friend, for your graciously expressed support and confidence 
for the project. It is indeed "unto the breach" -  and,  remaining with the 
bard, - "Present mirth hath present laughter/What's to come is still unsure"!   
However, everything's in place, just hoping for some extra publicity from the 
media to reach the Egyptophiles and the society will be up and running - "zep 
tepi"!   If not I shall disappear up the Nile at the helm of a felucca!
            Thanks again, best wishes,
                                     Keith  XX

Eliyehowah-
Do us a favor and please stop changing the post's subject line/starting
new threads on the same old stuff. It's irritating for both the people
that are following these threads and the ones that want to ignore/killfile
them.
Thanks in advance.
-kim
Kimberly Burkard     |             _    Everything I needed to know in life, I
Rochester, New York  |      _____C .._. learned from my ferret:
greenman@servtech.com| ____/     \___/  Frolic and dance for joy often, have
                     |<____/\_---\_\    no fear or worries, and enjoy life.

In article <3272E42C.1DB9@falcon.cc.ukans.edu>,
Chuck Roast--A rare kind of guy!  wrote:
>Linguistic similarities abound among many contemporary and historic
>languages--doesn't mean that they are, or are not related.  
>Okay--comparative linguistic analysis can reconstruct a mother tongue,
>but it seems a nebulas proof--Words do not leave fossil evidence.
	Look at it this way -- if a language ancestral to some existing 
ones can successfully be reconstructed, then how would the people 
speaking various descendant languages have come to speak it?
	Also, some sort of similarities, such as word morphology and 
basic vocabulary, are strong indicators of common ancestry.
	See sci.lang for more.
>Did Greenberg (not sure of the spllng) successfully link the languages
>of the Americas, Eurasia, and Polynesia in his encompassing theory of
>human dispersal?
	Greenberg has claimed the existence of several high-level 
groupings, like Eurasiatic (approximately equivalent to others' 
Nostratic), Amerind, and others; the business about migrations is the 
idea of others.
-- 
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

On Sat, 26 Oct 1996, at 14:39:41, August Matthusen cajoled electrons
into this
>Mr. Byafew Minitz  (Prof.)  M.A.  R.C.Li  N.E sallied forth 
>with the following:
>[snip]
>> Afropean or Eurican, black or white?  "Red herring", I say, and a
>> particularly smelly one at that!
>My dear professor, as the arguments about the varied 
>attributes of African swallows vs. European swallows 
>have been with us since King Arthur's time, I do
>not see an end to this conflagration any time soon.
>Confusing the issue further by mistaking swallows
>for red herrings is not helping the matter.
>
>Regards,
>August Matthusen
My Dear Friend and Learned Colleague
I am always somewhat given to melancholia at the sight of Swallows in
August.  As they form linear arrays on overhead telephone cables,
queuing, British fashion, for their turn to place long-distance calls to
Africa, in order to notify those fellow Hirundinidae they left behind,
that the time to apply electricity to kettle is ripe.  Melancholic,
since their linear behaviour signals imminent departure, marking the
onward march of time, heralding the winter of summertime, when the
living was easy.  
Discontent? Nay! Regrets? Aye, a few, but then again, too few to 
mention.
Indeed, as you so correctly state, arguments concerning the Swallow 
have been with us since the time of King Arthur.  In fact, if historical 
sources are to be believed, one of the most heated of those arguments 
occurred between King Arthur himself and Sir Lancelot.*
Having acquainted myself with your scholarly paper, 'Martin's: Do They 
Swallow?', and furthermore, having satisfied myself as to its 
quintessence, it ill behoves me to draw your attention thus.
The Swallow (H. rustica), and its urban cousin, the Red Rumped Swallow 
(H. daurica), are of the opinion that a better roost cannot be had than 
that which is furnished by a marsh.  During their lengthy odyssey over 
continental Europe, they are compelled to modify their diet.**  This, 
they achieve, in accordance with that age-old maxim, so beloved of 
computer programmers everywhere, "Exit flies, enter fish!"
The Red Herring,**** a coarse fish*****, is a dweller of marshes, being 
most numerous in those marshes which migratory Swallows select for the 
purposes of roosting and dining.  Not unexpectedly, the migrant swallow, 
choosing the path of most efficient supply, takes to a diet of Red 
Herring.
I am grateful to you for providing me with this valuable opportunity to 
clarify my earlier comments and I trust that the issue has been rendered 
less confusing.
Finally, in relation to the contentions propounded by those scholarly 
giants, the champions of the Afro centrist position, I say this, "They 
might have a byte, but they cannot expect a Swallow?"
I remain, your humbug servant,
Mr. Byafew Minitz  (Prof.)  M.A.  R.C.Li  N.E.
*  In which a lengthy and acrimonious debate took place concerning 
Guinevere, a night on the round table and the question of the Swallow.
**  It is common knowledge that there are no flies on the French.**
*** It is uncommon knowledge that there are no flies on the French, due 
to the fact that the French consider fly-shooting and fly-fishing of 
equal sporting value and will readily take to the fields shooting at 
anything which flies, particularly during months with an R.
**** So called owing to its penchant for living in large shoals, looking 
glum, and doing little else.  Which modus vivendi occasioned association 
with communist principles.
***** Red Herrings are exceptionally coarse.  Red Herring jokes, for 
instance, are often among the most disgusting I have ever heard.

head with argument
>  There may well be other mysteries to do with the pyramids that we have not
> yet discovered because we haven't asked the right questions yet. After all, if
> you want to see the Grail you have to ask the correct question! Let's keep on
> searching and maybe one day we will have all the answers.
> 
> Adrian G. Gilbert
> 
> P.s. If you haven't done so already, visit the solos site at
> http://www.netlink.co.uk/users/solos for information on the pyramids.
I would like to submit that the above wish of yours can only prolong the
agony of not knowing. I have a funny feeling that the New Age and
Academia are in the same boat. In my view, the farther the Pyramid gets
in our own past, the farther into our Future we must look - not
forgetting that if it's New (whether New Age or the New Archaeology and
Science), you can't learn the future. Unless, of course, the Pyramid is
just an obsession, then it's a localized affair. A degree or two should
salve the continuing not knowing. After all, succeeding generations
should get to the bottom of this. God I love the rat-race.
Vladimir

Eli, If there is so much error in the findings of past and present 
scholars, why should you be correct, you yourself claim that you are a 
voice going unheard, if you were correct in your claims and had any 
trace of proof your talk would not fall on deaf ears!  Why should we 
listen to you (no offence) but i need more than what sounds like mere 
speculation.
P.S. I dont think anyone threw away the Bible, they just said it was 
interperated by "dunderheads".

Claudio De Diana (sniper@tep.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de) wrote:
:	 Basically you say that the 
: 	fact that there are no further support (proofs) to the reference
: 	given in:
: >> D. Casello, La frutta nelle pitture Pompeiane
: >> in  Pompeiana : raccolta di studi per il secondo centenario degli scavi
: >>di Pompei / [edited by Amedeo Maiuri].  Napoli : Gaetano Macchiaroli Editore, 1950.
: 	does not mean that the reference given is wrong and the
: 	fruit, instead of a pineapple, is a pomegranate or, as somebody
: 	else suggested, an artichoke. Actually the final test will be
: 	to have a gif file of the evidence and judge by ourselves but
: 	this is not the point.
You got me right, Claudio. It would be nice if someone with access to this
book could scan the picture and post it on the Net. Or someone who could 
go to Pompeii take a good picture...
Anyway, I am certainly not trying to make a big case out of this. It is
simply a curious piece of evidence at this point. 
: 	Let's say that your point is:
: 	"the fact that there are no evidences that an event takes place
: 	does not imply that the event did not happen"
: 	(which actually it is a deep phylosopical subject, if I remember
: 	well it was the argument of "if a tree falls and nobody see it
: 	falling did it fall or not?").
Nothing to do with the above. Such things as plant diffusion will 
certainly be settled in the future as new technologies for dating pollen, 
for example, become available. Nothing to do with philosophy... just hard 
science.
: 	My point - I admit bad explained in my previous post - is:
: 	"the probability that an event took place is directly proportional
: 	to the amount of evidences given". [Take care! From now on I talk ONLY
: 	about Romans or other European/Near East and North African populations!]
: 	You(**) will admit that there are no written evidences, in the great corpus
: 	of Greek and Latin literature, of a succesfull crossing(*) of the Atlantic
: 	Ocean.
Debatable. Have you considered the possibility that numerous references 
to "Atlantis" in classical literature may be references to America?
:	 In fact it seems to me that your point was that, maybe, a wreckage
: 	or a lost ship during a tempest managed to make a "one way" trip.
: 	This, from your point of view, will explain the fact that the
: 	evidences are fragmentary and quite obscure. I agree with you that,
: 	up to this point, I cannot "deny" that a crossing took place.
This much is pretty certain. Remember that there are plenty of Roman 
artifacts found in the Americas, but most of them are disputed by 
anti-diffusionists.
[snip]
: 	So, getting back to our "pineapple question" what are the real chances
: 	of Roman Ships getting back AND forth(***)?
As I said, I don't want to make a big deal out of this matter. 
Probability may be low, but over many centuries even an unlikely thing 
can happen. We should not take this matter in isolation. When we have so 
much evidence for across-the-sea cultural diffusion, this thing may not 
be so anomalous after all.
Best,
Yuri.
--
           **    Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto   **
  -- a webpage like any other...  http://www.io.org/~yuku  --
Most of the evils of life arise from man's being 
unable to sit still in a room    ||    B. Pascal

On Sun, 27 Oct 1996 01:54:33 GMT, malo1100@mach1.wlu.ca (Paula Malone u)
wrote:
>
>hello to all
>
>does anyone know how i'd subscribe to the britarch mailing list?  i was 
email to mailbase@mailbase.ac.uk
in body of message, put:
join britarch Paula Malone
(actually it's join britarch firstname lastname in the instructions, and some
people literally put that in!)
if you have an auto sig you can't turn off, put
end
after the above line.

In <54q5s3$mac@news.smart.net> mobius@smart.net (Stephen Hendricks) writes:
[and someone else replied too, but I missed it, saying:]
>>I don't know about that, but I can buy the olive-skin or yellow-ish 
>>cast.  I have never seen the bust of Nefertiti in person, only color 
>>photos, which are not necessarily reliable.  Yet I wonder why you would 
>>say that a person with an olive skin cannot be considered "white"?
As someone else said, the skin is done with earth pigments, the best
description of it would probably be "earth-coloured" (_not_ yellowish,
but rather reddish-brown). Would you say Boutros Boutros-Ghali is "white"?
I think you're all rushing to classify everybody in the world as "white"
or "black". I don't think Egyptians (ancient or modern) fit that pattern,
just like many other people in the world today don't. 
>Being caucausian involves a lot more characteristics than  skin color.
>The Asian Indians are also caucasians,  are not negroid or hamitic.
Whatever "caucasian" means... (Asian) Indians are not "white", but they
often look (southern) European, except for skin colour. They look more so,
in fact, than some northern Europeans (who are often rosy pink anyway).
>Nefetiti, is clearly the image of the Ideal European woman, when
>disregarding skin color. [...]
Yes. But she couldn't have passed as German, I think... Spanish, or Greek,
maybe...
-- 
      Paulo M. Castello da Costa     /\/\/\  Minha terra tem palmeiras   /\/\/\
dacosta@natlab.research.philips.com  \/\/\/    Onde canta o sabia'...    \/\/\/
Philips Research Labs, bldg WY8.011, / Tel +31 40 2744281  Fax +31 40 2744675 \
Prof Holstln 4, 5656 AA Eindhoven NL \_________ SERI: dacosta@prles2 _________/

pmanansala@csus.edu (Paul Kekai Manansala) wrote:
>In article <54t6kq$sel@halley.pi.net>,
>   mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal) wrote:
>>My arguments were based on the modern classification of the Afro-Asiatic
>>languages, which is basically in agreement with Greenberg. 
>Then, Egyptian is not any closer to Semitic than Cushitic, right?
Subgrouping of language families is a notoriously difficult issue.
When Greenberg listed the 5 branches of Afro-Asiatic as co-ordinate,
he was essentially taking an agnostic position.  Since then (1963),
it has become increasingly clear that the Cushitic group has to be
split into at least 3 "independent" groups (within Afro-Asiatic, of
course): Omotic (was: West Cushitic), Beja (was: North Cushitic) and
Cushitic Proper (Central Cushitic, Eastern and Southern Cushitic).
Fleming would now also detach Central Cushitic.  Of these groups, only
Beja shows a special affinity with Ancient Egyptian on a scale
comparable with Semitic or Berber.
>>There is no direct evidence for the language of the A-group Nubians.
>>Based on the early geographical distribution of the Nilo-Saharan and
>>Afro-Asiatic peoples, my speculation would be Northern Cushitic (Beja).
>So you do think A-group Nubians were related to the Beja.   Therefore, a 
>language family at least as close to Egyptian as Semitic (according to
>Greenberg's classification) would be found along the Nile at the
>time of Egyptian state formation.
Yes, if this speculation is correct, actually two: Egyptian itself and
"Proto-Beja" (according to taste: North-Cushitic or South-Egyptian).
This is assuming A-group was different from C-group ethnically.  I'm
told some archaeologists now think C-group is a continuation of A-group,
in which case the A-group Nubians would again seem to be Nilo-Saharans.
It's a difficult issue.  Just looking at the map, Nilo-Saharan clearly
seems intrusive in Nubia, but that gives no indication at all of the
dates...
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal                     ~ ~
Amsterdam                   _____________  ~ ~
mcv@pi.net                 |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig

> Hello to all the posters on this thread who are not posting through
> sci.archaeology...
> 
> Unless your post has archaeological relevance, please do not copy it to sci.archaeology.  You are flooding this group with a debate that is less and less a debate than a series of harangues and diatribes, with little
> attention to archaeological and anthropological contributions to the
> concept of race in general and egypt in particular.  
Rebecca:
Its wonderful that you have taken it upon yourself to decide precisely
what is relevent to the newsgroup sci.archaeology, shall we, along with
your up and coming scholastic laurels in anthropology assign you the
title of newsgroup police officer?
I have seen very
> little in most of these posts that archaeology is in a position to
> comment upon.
Funny that. 
> 
> If you wish to inject new life into this thread, consider the following:
> in current anthropological thought, 'race' is a concept with little
> objective support (there is as much physical variation within 'races' as
> between).  Ergo, 'race' is an eminently political concept.  
Hence the point that I, Katherine Griffis Greenberg, Greg Reeder and
others have put across, but in your scholastic zeal have forgotten that
it is the responsibility of the archaeological communities to correct
those things which are not substantiated by archaeology or egyptology. 
Its all very nice to criticize the threads that you yourself have not
been participating in.  
(snipped Rebecca's points on PC and Race issues)
This is precisely the point.  The Egyptians dont nor did they *ever*
care what "colour" or race they were.  My suggestion is that if you dont
want to deal with a particular thread in a newsgroup dont respond to
it.  Sooner or later this thread will die.....again.  
Em Ma'at 
Xina

Timothy Hall wrote:
> 
> "S. F. Thomas"  wrote:
> 
> (snips):
>  ...The question is what were the *original* Egyptians.  The physical
> evidence supports a Black African origin.  I believe that evidence
> trumps your in any case inconclusive linguistic argument...
> 
>   ...It seems rather the reverse,
> >that the white-supremacy compulsion/obsession/delusion under
> >which we have all labored is what also compelled the great
> >LIE that is taught in the Western school-books, viz. that
> >Black Africans have contributed nothing to human history.
> >The heated reaction to Diop and the afrocentrists betray
> >white emotional investment in their delusions of superiority.
> >Blacks by contrast, can stand the truth, because it can't
> >be worse than the lies to which we have been subjected for
> >at least the last 200 years...
> 
> Not another "blamey"...sheesh.
If by that you mean that when a crime has been committed that
someone is usually to blame, then yes, I'm a "blamey".
I suspect that you are too.  The only difference is that you 
are selective in the crimes you consider blameworthy, and the 
criminals that you consider worthy of rebuke.
> No.  Archaelogical evidence, along with that fact that North Africa
> has/is/was populated by Arabs and Berbers, which were, originally,
> Caucasoid, irrefutably shows that the "Egytians of the Pharoahs" were
> Arabic/Caucasoid, not African/Negroid.
This is one of those LIES not borne out by the evidence...
Feel-good history for whites.  As I said to you before, take 
a look again at the likenesses of Narmer, the first pharaoh, 
the god Ausar, the protohistorical figure Lord Tera Neter, 
and the sphinx.  They are as Black African as all the U.S
presidents for the first 220 years of this republic are white
males.  In the course of *thousands* of years of existence,
the ancient Egyptians and their pharaohs of course came to
have caucasoid and asiatic admixtures as such types came into
the Nile Valley variously fleeing famine elsewhere (eg. the Jews,
according to the Bible), as slaves, or as conquerors.    
> In your rush to blame the white man for everything, 
Crude distortion.  Tired tactic...
> you said "Black
> Africans have contributed nothing to human history"... 
You again distort.  I did not say that.  It is the eurocentric
writers who said that.  Toynbee, notably.
> You know that
> isn't true; you're just using it to generalize your "blamey" beliefs.
Well, I'm glad at least that there is beginning at last to
be some acknowledgment of the great fraud that has been 
perpetrated by eurocentric scholarship.
> Africa has a rich history of great kings which led large tribal areas and
> established "nations".
Including ancient Egypt.
> What you resent is the fact that American public schools teach modern
> American and Western history mainly, because that is how we as Americans
> began. 
No.  I resent LIES, that sought, with malice aforethought, to
write black folk out of the history books.
> Some schools are including, as part of World history, some
> African historical studies, which is good.  There is always room for
> improvement.  And, in colleges, Blacks can freely study this subject in
> more detail.
You completely miss the point.  No one...white, black or otherwise...
should be taught deliberate lies.  And if ancient Egypt lies at the
foundations of Western Civ, don't make the Black Africans that founded
that civilization out to be other than they were.
> It is when the "revisionists", such as yourself, try to force a false
> history or try and delete American heritage in our public schools that I
> have a problem with.  
The battle is not over "revisionism", whatever that may mean.
The battle is over TRUTH.  Or do you believe that manifest lies
should continue to stain the history books, the better to avoid
this terrible thing called "revisionism".
> This factor, among others, is what has led our
> public school system to become almost total garbage...Illegitimate kids
> with no moral or ethical standards destroying the learning
> atmosphere....AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGHHHH
You lose me with these non-sequiturs... irrelevant in any case to
the subject at hand.  What they do succeed in doing is to reveal
your bad faith.  You really ought to leave the folks in s.c.a.a
alone, and take your coded laments elsewhere.  As
for me, I think I recognize a provocateur when I see one.   
Regards,
S. F. Thomas

In article <551kav$o2a@news1.io.org> yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
[deletions]
>:       Let's say that your point is:
>:       "the fact that there are no evidences that an event takes place
>:       does not imply that the event did not happen"
>:       (which actually it is a deep phylosopical subject, if I remember
>:       well it was the argument of "if a tree falls and nobody see it
>:       falling did it fall or not?").
>Nothing to do with the above. Such things as plant diffusion will 
>certainly be settled in the future as new technologies for dating pollen, 
>for example, become available. Nothing to do with philosophy... just hard 
>science.
>Yuri.
[more deletions]
I'm not sure I agree with you on this point Yuri, although I hold science in 
high regard.  Let's just suppose for the sake of argument that the Pineapple
did not reach the Old World prior to the 16th century.  In this case no amount
of digging and no fancy techniques would ever find any Pineapple remains, yet
the fresco would remain and people could still point to it as a possibility.  
I think that was the point of the tree falls in the woods quote.  Science can 
never prove that something did not occur - all we can say is we haven't found 
any evidence that it did occur.
Peter van Rossum
PMV100@PSU.EDU

Paulo da Costa wrote:
> 
> In <54q5s3$mac@news.smart.net> mobius@smart.net (Stephen Hendricks) writes:
> [and someone else replied too, but I missed it, saying:]
> 
> >>I don't know about that, but I can buy the olive-skin or yellow-ish
> >>cast.  I have never seen the bust of Nefertiti in person, only color
> >>photos, which are not necessarily reliable.  Yet I wonder why you would
> >>say that a person with an olive skin cannot be considered "white"?
> 
> As someone else said, the skin is done with earth pigments, the best
> description of it would probably be "earth-coloured" (_not_ yellowish,
> but rather reddish-brown). Would you say Boutros Boutros-Ghali is "white"?
The famous bust of Nefertiti (there are others, also) is not 
"earth-colored" or "reddish-brown".  I re-checked and it is a pinkish 
flesh-tone, as I had previously thought.  Why shouldn't it be?  I do not 
believe Nefertiti and Butros-Ghali are look-alikes at all.  Yet 
Butros-Ghali is a Copt, which makes him a descendant of the ancient 
Egyptians.  Would I classify him as white?  Well, he's not black.  He 
should be whatever he wants to be.  My guess is he would say "I am an 
Egyptian."
> I think you're all rushing to classify everybody in the world as "white"
> or "black". I don't think Egyptians (ancient or modern) fit that pattern,
> just like many other people in the world today don't.
> 
> >Being caucausian involves a lot more characteristics than  skin color.
> >The Asian Indians are also caucasians,  are not negroid or hamitic.
> 
> Whatever "caucasian" means... (Asian) Indians are not "white", but they
> often look (southern) European, except for skin colour. They look more so,
> in fact, than some northern Europeans (who are often rosy pink anyway).
> 
> >Nefetiti, is clearly the image of the Ideal European woman, when
> >disregarding skin color. [...]
> 
> Yes. But she couldn't have passed as German, I think... Spanish, or Greek,
> maybe...
You are much mistaken if you think the average German is so fair.  I 
have not found this to be true.