Subject: Re: Blackness .......Be Carefull! (you be careful too!)
From: Xina
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 06:32:07 -0600
rejohnsn@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu wrote:
>
> Jeeezz...this must be the "info superhighway" version of being shot by some nut who thinks you cut them off....
Hmmm, a very interesting analogy. Are you feeling particularly oppressed
or cut off at the moment?
>
> Xina, note two things: it was a request, and it was not an unusual or
> unreasonable one. There is no need to get personal about it -- all you had to do was ignore it.
Rebecca: no you not only did that, you deleted sci.archaeology from the
headers. I put them back. You emailed me and others on the thread. We
didnt ask for your opinion. You let it be known in private email that
what I and others do (Egyptologists, religious scholars, etc) don't
belong here in sci.archaeology, because its not a thread you can
participate in. Welllll!!! Lets make over the newsgroup just so Rebecca
can be all happy!
> > Its all very nice to criticize the threads that you yourself have not been participating in.
>
> So at what point is a lurker entitled to enter into a discussion?
Whenever you have something viable to contribute. Or didn't you have
something constructive other than your condescending criticism of the
thread itself to add?
Just
> because I hadn't anything to say as it was going on, doesn't mean that
> when the thread starts to die I have no right to observe as much.
No, of course. But you didnt have the right to *decide* for the other
participants where it belonged and where it didnt. Not only did you
just publically voice your opinion on the matter (which is perfectly
acceptable) you emailed me and others, you deleted the sci.arch headers
from the thread. That IMHO was NOT your place to do so. There are
people who have been on this group for several years that *are*
participating in this thread (and another one) and it was not your place
to play internet censor.
Don't
> you think it's a little hypocritical to assert your right to say whatever you damn well please, whenever and wherever you damn well please, and at the same time to say that I have no right to disagree?
You have absolutely every right to disagree, and you have absolutely
every right to post to whatever thread you like, I am the last person
who would censor what you have to say. What *does* bother me is your
assuming control of a subject which wou were not participating in,
deciding its relevancy to sci.archaeology (read that as what *Rebecca*
wants to read about only) and then throwing a fit when someone calls you
on your shit.
> If you yourself admit that the thread was going to die, why are you so
> upset at my asking it to go die elsewhere? You're being far more
> aggressive in trying to stamp me out than I ever dreamed of being in
> asking the thread to go elsewhere.
Im not stamping *you* out, Rebecca. Im standing firm on my assertion
that the thread is INDEED IRREVOCABLY related to Egyptology, and
archaeology, hence is of supreme interest to *some* of the participants
in this newsgroup. If you have a problem with that, its not of a major
concern to me nor, probably, to the other participants in the thread
whether or not it is relevant to YOU.
>
> Finally, Xina, you could have made all of your points without being
> mean.
You think Im mean? Heaven help you in the *real* world outside of
acedameia's walls.
Go back and read my original post -- how many personal aspersions
> do you see there?
I take personal your unsolicited advice and deciding for me and for
others in this newsgroup what is appropriate. You went BEYOND the
simple voicing of an opinion, you made it a personal crusade to elevate
sci.archaeology into what *Rebecca* would make it if it were *HER*
Newsgroup. Last time I checked you weren't listed as the NG's moderator
or List Consultant.
>
> Chill out, Xina. I made a request and a suggestion. All you needed to do was ignore them.
Then you should have kept the headers as they were, not tried to set up
and elevate a "standard" and decide what you *think* is relevant to
sci.archaeology, something which you were niether elected nor IMHO
qualified to do.
The Chilling needs to start with you. Say what you like, post as you
will I wont stop you, but if you try to bite me .......Im likely to bite
back. Mamma didnt raise me to suffer fools gladly.
Xina
Subject: Re: What Topics Are Acceptable To Be Posted On sci.archaeology?
From: mbwillia@ix.netcom.com(Mary Beth Williams)
Date: 29 Oct 1996 13:36:37 GMT
In <3275F15D.62FE@netins.net> Xina writes:
>
>rejohnsn@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu wrote:
>situations.
>> Chill out. It was just a request. Do you go off like this every
time
>> someone asks you to do something you don't want to do? God, Xina.
>> That's what delete buttons are for.
>
>I would say the same to you, Madame. It wasnt me who had the problem
>with the thread(s) in the first place. To you no discussion of
biblical
>archaeology, egyptology, language or religion is appropriate to
>sci.archaeology unless we add pretentious bits about what we are
>studying and our up and coming accolades. I obviously do not agree
with
>this stance. Do you have a problem co-existing with those of us who
are
>a little more specialized in our topics?
>
>I appealed to the group, who have been here for the two years that I
>have been on, to clarify for me, since you obviously have an
incredibly
>limited view of what archaeology is and isnt, to please clarify what
>*they* (not you, I already *know* your views as you mentioned through
>unsolicited advice on posting proceedure and netiquette) feel is
>acceptable or not.
>
>I'm waiting to hear from *them* and at this point care little for your
>insipid whining.
Well, I guess that I'm a *them*, having been following this NG for over
two years now, and I fully agree with Rebecca's request, and think that
she presented it in a thoroughly professional and unthreatening manner.
It was the reaction to it, in my mind, which was unreasonable.
Other than critiquing the use of Amerind and heading off the
Vikings/Egyptians/Romans-were-sailing-around-the-Hudson threads, I've
found absolutely no reason to contribute to sci.arch (or even
sci.arch.mod) in the past six months (which is dissappointing as I have
the time to do so, being on maternity leave this semester.)
Part of the problem is the divergent views between US and European
academics of what constitutes archaeology -- in the US, archaeology,
including theory and methodology, is usually associated with
anthropology departments -- if you're interested in Egyptian, Greek,
Roman, etc., history/art/language, you'll usually have to associate
with Classics departments. In Europe, anthropology departments are
less common, and usually focus on cultural/biological issues, so
archaeology is aligned with history/classics departments.
So whereas I find myself skipping over 99% of the threads lately, I
won't argue that Egyptology doesn't belong in a archaeology NG...
However, I would draw the line at linguistics, which, noting the number
of posts on sci.arch, certainly could fill its own NG.
Just my $.02
MB Williams
Dept. of Anthro., UMass-Amherst
Subject: Re: Nefertiti (was Re: BLACKNESS in Egyptian Art, Murals, etc. (REPOST))
From: Saida
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 08:59:50 -0600
Jeffrey L. Jones wrote:
>
> > In <54q5s3$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"?
> >
>
> Here's a good test! take those "olive skinned" Egyptians, especially from
> ages ago, and toss them into a Klan rally and see if they exit with
> membership cards.
Some test! I have skin as pale as you can get, but, with my ancestry,
I'd NEVER get a membership card under those conditions.
Besides, from what I've seen on TV, it appears the main requirement to
become a Klan member is to be butt-ugly. The Egyptians are and were a
good-looking people.
Subject: Re: Ancient China
From: mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal)
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 17:07:13 GMT
rbp233@primenet.com (Randolph Parrish) wrote:
> What struck me was the remarkable resemblance to Latin American
>>finds, especially in the use of jade and the sculptures. A connection seems likely since
>>it is widely assumed that native Americans and hence (I presume) native latin Americans [sic]
>>came form Asia. Is this a common view?
> Many scholars have noticed this and also agree. Also,
>linguistically, there are probably many more connections than have
>been realized (or studied).For example, 'Petaluma' is the name of a
>town in California. It means, 'flat table' in a local Indian dialect,
>and refers to a flat-topped mountain in the region. The same word,
>'petaluma', also occurs in the language of a Siberian tribe, for 'flat
>table'.
I'm afraid this is not very useful information. Which local Indian
dialect? Which Siberian tribe? Does mean "table" and
"flat" in the Califormia dalect? Or is "table" and "flat"
in the Siberain dialect?
>Since many/most Native American languages are
>related to one of three major groups, there is probably much more work
>to be done in this field.
Greenberg thinks there are only three independent groups: Eskimo-Aleut,
Na-Dene (Haida, Tlingit & Athabaskan) and Amerind (all the rest).
More conservative estimates put the number of independent genetic groups
at 63+10+82 = 155, roughly. There certainly is much more work to do in
this field...
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal ~ ~
Amsterdam _____________ ~ ~
mcv@pi.net |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig
Subject: Re: What Topics Are Acceptable To Be Posted On sci.archaeology?
From: Marc Line
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 15:57:39 +0000
On Mon, 28 Oct 1996, at 15:20:14, Xina cajoled electrons into this
>All:
>
>Lately it has come to my attention that there are certain among us that
>do not appreciate our discussion of Egyptology, Religion, Mythology, or
>Linguistics on this newsgroup, feeling that these subject are not really
>related to sci.archaeology in thier subject matter. Could someone
>please clarify for me if these things are indeed unrelated to
>sci.archaeology? Is there an FAQ somewhere that we can refer to if
>there is a question as whether or not a particular topic is relevant to
>the group.
>
>Im putting this question out there for you long time participants as
>well as the newer ones. Any help that you could give to put this matter
>to rest would be most appreciated!
>
>Ankh udja seneb!
>
>Xina
Xina dear
Don't let the self-opinionated, self-absorbed, self-appointed thought
police bother you unduly. Always remember, specialisation is a trait of
insects. (big grin)
You have seen my credentials! ;) However, for those who don't know me,
I've been a humble field archaeologist since 1983 and since 1987, site-
director of a major project, the excavation of a Romano-British
building, "unique in the known Romanised world."
During that time I have had occasion to familiarise myself with a great
many subjects which, on the face of it, do not pertain to the
archaeology per se. Some which spring immediately to mind would be:
Geomagnetic susceptibility and resistivity.
Organic chemistry.
Ceramics and properties of tempering fillers.
Polyemerase Chain Reaction techniques and limitations.
Carbon 14 and Chlorine 36 dating methodolgies.
Agriculture, horticulture and viticulture.
Pigment chemistry.
Biology.
Osteology.
Climate and weather patterns.
Map-making.
Military tactics.
Economics.
Social stratification.
Language.
Mythology.
Dowsing.
Art and schools of mosaicists.
Religious practices.
Burial rites.
Operating bulk earth moving plant.
Photography, scale planning, surveying and draughtsmanship.
Diet and the absorption of trace elements.
Dendrochronology.
Conservation techniques.
Thermoluminescence dating.
etc. etc. etc.
Even anthropology comes into it occasionally. (grin)
It is one thing to study a subject in a clean, warm, publicly funded
classroom. It is another thing entirely to actually get out there up to
the knees in icy water, covered in mud, hands blue with the cold, often
alone, cleaning down a section for recording. To spend several years,
unpaid, actually doing it rather than talking about it, does tend to
lead to a somewhat more rounded attitude than would come, say, from an
anthropology student at a University somewhere.
As for Egyptology, I should say that were we to ignore the religious,
mythological and linguistic elements of the culture, we might just as
well ignore the culture since it was the religion, the mythology and the
Medu Neters which defined the culture.
Multiplicity of thought has always been a problem for some people and I
dare say that will always be the case. I, for one, cast my vote firmly
in favour of broad parameters of discussion. After all, those who don't
like it don't have to read it. Furthermore, they are always at liberty
to subscribe to s.a.m. should they find the scope of discussion here to
be broader than that which their intellect, or interest, can
accommodate. So, in conclusion, I should be inclined to resist any
pressure to narrow the terms of reference. This is a brave new world
and I should not wish to see it become a Brave New World!
Love
Marc
XX
Subject: Re: Nefertiti (was Re: BLACKNESS in Egyptian Art, Murals, etc. (REPOST))
From: misry@eskimo.com (Ahmed Zayan)
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 17:49:36 GMT
In article <553ib0$7jg@news.inforamp.net> The Hab writes:
>1@2.3 (Hussein Essawy) wrote:
>>In article <3274E9E4.2749@PioneerPlanet.infi.net>, Saida wrote:
>>[cut]
>>: 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."
>>[cut]
>>
>>Saida,
>>
>>Not trying to start another war, but I hope you were not implying that
>>only the Copts are descendents of ancient Egyptians.
>>
>>My belief is that present day Egyptians regardless of religion are
>>descendants of the ancient ones.
>
>True. All Egyptians are decendents of the ancients. Maybe he means that
>the Copts are culturally more similar???
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
smililar... that is very funny :) :)
Not true. Ancient Egyptian were pagan society, when Christianity came to
Egypt, some Egyptain converted to the new religion. Naturally, they did not
want to do with the old religion & culture. Remember they never had any
chance to control or power over the entire population. Remember, Egyptian
During the early era of this new religion, Christian were prosecuted for
their new believes, they used temples in remote area in upper Egypt as
hidding place. All figures and faces on those temples were distroied and
disfigured. Go check it for your self.
BBG is confused about the whole UN thing, he think its another pyramid
and still looking for the treasures.
Subject: Re: Luwian script
From: mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal)
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 20:03:43 GMT
Beever wrote:
>In a recent posting to this group, a question was asked regarding the
>antiquity of the Anatolian script used to write the "Luwian" language.
>I am aware that the Karatepe inscription and others from the
>"Neo-Hittite" sphere (e.g. Carchemish, Zincirli) can be securely dated to
>the First Millenium. I believe the language of these inscriptions is
>generally called "Luwian".
>I have seen a long inscription in this script (or at least a very similar
>script) at Bogazkoy (Hattusa) and have been told it dates to Suppiluliuma
>II (early 12th Cen.)
>What is the earliest example of an inscription in this script?
>What is the language of the Hattusa inscription?
According to I.M. Dunaevskaja, "Jazyk Xettskix ieroglifov", Moscow,
1969, the oldest examples are Hittite seals from the early 15th. c. BC.,
slightly predating the earliest known Hittite cuneiform texts (tablets).
The earliest connected hieroglyphic inscriptions are more recent, 14th
c. The seals can be read, but unfortunately only consist of logograms
and personal names. I have one here in front of me which reads: "GREAT
STORMGOD GREAT KING Mu-wa-ta-li" ({d}UTU LUGAL Muwatalli). The longer
II millennium texts are insufficiently understood (in 1969, at least),
and cannot decide the issue whether the language is Hittite or Luwian.
In principle, I would expect the inscriptions from the Hattusa region to
be written in Hittite. We know that the Hittites had two words for
"scribe": the usual {LU2}DUB.SAR ("man-tablet-write") and
{LU2}DUB.SAR.GISH ("man-tablet-write-wood"), and similarly E2-DUB-BA-A
"house of tablets" vs. E2 LU2-{MESH} DUB.SAR.GISH "house of the
wood-scribes"). It is suspected that these wooden tablets (none of
which has survived, for obvious reasons), were inscribed using some
variety of Hittite Hieroglyphics.
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal ~ ~
Amsterdam _____________ ~ ~
mcv@pi.net |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig
Subject: Re: Great Pyramid Dimensions.
From: Martin Stower
Date: 29 Oct 1996 19:56:49 GMT
sudsm@aol.com (SUDSM) wrote:
>
>Rodney, & Martin:
>
>Martin Stower wrote:
>
>> Petrie measured to the chiselled line, which is the only thing defining
>> the west end of the SW socket. Davidson and Aldersmith went 17.5 inches
>> _beyond_ the chiselled line, in the absence - by their own account - of
>> any determinate feature to delimit such a measurement.
>.
> There is nothing strange about the 17 1/2 inches. Davidson did not
>go an extra 17 1/2 inches beyond the layout line for the SW socket, which
>line is the only definig element still measurable for the position of the
>SW socket.
According to Plate XX of Davidson and Aldersmith's _The Great Pyramid,
Its Divine Message_ (1924) that's exactly what he did; while the text
(p. 119) states:
. . . In the case of the S.W. socket, the socket surface was
carried to UX, 17 1/2 inches to the West of the point Z on the
diagonal ZK. The point Z, defining the diagonal alignment is,
however, indicated by a chiselled line WZ cut by the original
workers for this purpose.
- i.e. the arrangement (according to Davidson and Aldersmith) is:
U W
|
|
| N
|
| ^
| |
| |
| chiselled line |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X Z
<- 17 1/2 " ->
>From SE socket to said line was measured by Royal Engineer's survey and
>the more accurat Petrie survey. The result, in both cases, as stated by
>Petrie, and Davidson, was 9140.7 + or _ .07", which is the figure Davidson
>used.
Where does Petrie state this? According to Petrie's own account of his
survey, in _The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh_ - see p. 11 in the 1885
edition (also available in a facsimile edition, 1990) - his measurement
was 9123.9 inches, with a probable surveying error of + or - 0.3 inches
To get Davidson and Aldersmith's figure, you need to add 17.5 inches -
which IMO is exactly what they did do.
Again, according to Davidson and Aldersmith's Plate XX, the R.E. survey
obtained a value of 9140 inches - which, if true, would be remarkable,
it being exactly the figure required by Smyth's theory. Trouble is, I
don't think it is true: according to Kingsland's _The Great Pyramid in
Fact and in Theory_, the R.E. survey obtained a figure of 9130 inches as
the mean of all four sides and - to the best of my recollection - Proctor
reports the same figure.
Col. Sir Henry James (1803-1877), who was in charge of the R.E. survey,
wrote a book, _Notes on the Great Pyramid of Egypt, and the Cubits Used
in Its Design_ (1860), which gave little comfort to Smyth's followers
and prompted a rejoinder from one St. John Vincent Day, in his _Papers
on the Great Pyramid_ (1870) - none of which suggests confirmation of
Smyth's figure by the R.E. survey (as per Davidson and Aldersmith).
Sorry, but you're going to have to quote something more reliable than
Davidson and Aldersmith.
>It is 17 1/2" beyond the existing W side of the core masonry now standing.
No, it's 17.5 inches beyond the chiselled line, which marks the extension
of the pyramid's diagonal to a point well beyond the surviving core masonry.
>It should be kept in mind that Sir Wm. Petrie was trying to disprove
>his father's belief in the theory expounded by Piazzi Smyth.
The suggestion being that the young Petrie was - in contrast to his father
- strongly biased against Smyth. This oft-told tale is a myth. Petrie
became a leading Egyptologist later; he didn't start off with any such
`orthodox' agenda.
It was Flinders Petrie himself who introduced his father to Smyth's
theories; his first published work was a defence of those theories.
He disagreed with Smyth on one specific point: the attribution of
prophetic significance to the pyramid - and not through any objection
to prophecy as such: on religious questions, Smyth and the Petries
were very much in sympathy. (For details, see the excellent biography
by Margaret S. Drower.)
Thus the young Petrie was independent and critical in his approach to
Smyth's theories, but by no means entirely out of sympathy with them.
What happened was that the figures he obtained so carefully disagreed
with what Smyth predicted.
>He recognized the "hollowing in" feature of the core masonry, but did
>not extend that to the casing.
There wasn't the slightest reason for him to do so. William Kingsland
provides a concise and entertaining demolition of this nonsense:
Another feature of the Core Masonry, which was first observed by
Sir Flinders Petrie, is a distinct hollowing in of the middle
portion of the sides. It is not obervable unless special lines
of sight are taken, though it amounts to as much as 37 inches on
the north face. Sir Flinders Petrie conjectures from this that
the Casing Stones toward the middle of each face had a greater
depth from front to back than those approaching the corners. Mr.
Davidson, on the other hand, contends in his work, The Great
Pyramid, Its Divine Message, that the Casing Stones were also
hollowed in to correspond with the hollowing-in of the Core. . . .
The amount by which this hollowing-in alters the base length he
calls the ``displacement factor,'' and makes it an important
factor in his theory of the Pyramid as a scientific as well as
a prophetic structure. . . . There is not the slightest evidence
of this displacement in the line of Casing Stones now exposed on
both the north and south sides of the Pyramid, and this is now
recognised by Mr. Davidson. In a letter to me he says: ``You
will find, however, that the record of prophetic interpretation
of the whole series confirms my interpretation of the Great
Pyramid's structural intention [italics mine, W.K.],
which depends entirely upon the hollowing-in feature as an
intention.''
But if an ``intention,'' why not an actuality? Mr. Davidson himself,
so far as I am aware, has offered no explanation: but one of his
adherents told a friend of mine that the explanation was that ``God
allowed the builders to make a mistake!'' Comment on this is hardly
necessary. In an address given in the Central Hall, Westminster, on
October 8th, 1931, and subsequently published as an advertisement in
the Morning Post, he admits this ``builders' error.'' But how
can we admit it to be an ``error''? [_The Great Pyramid in Fact and
in Theory_, vol. 1, pp. 25-26]
How, for that matter, can we take Davidson seriously?
>He therefore argued against the layout line being for the SW
>socket, but nevertheless measured the 9140.7" though he thought that
>was 17 1/2" too long.
What on earth does this mean? As far as I can make out, that Petrie's
real figure was 17.5 inches less than 9140.7 - in fact, 17.5 inches less
than 9141.4 (= 9140.7 + 0.7). Someone else added the 17.5 inches. OK -
if it's acceptable to make arbitrary additions to Petrie's figure, and
say that Petrie _measured_ the result, then I undertake to prove that
Petrie `measured' any distance you like.
>Davidson (& Fr. Aldersmith, who did not live to see the first
>edition of the Davidson - Aldersmith work published) accepted the 9140.7"
>mesurement as correct for the S socket-to-socket measurement, because if
>one side was 9141.109" then the perimeter was 36524.2 P" where the
>primitive inch (P") was 1.0011 British inches (c. 1924).
Now this I can agree with: they `accepted' the measurement because it
fitted their theory. In their own words:
. . . Petrie gives the oblique distance XM as 9141.4 B" [sic]. Now
the true geometrical Pyramid base side 36,524.24/4 P" = 9131.06 P"
= 9141.1 B". From this it is obvious that this distance over the
two sockets was the original setting out dimension for the corner
to corner distance of the Pyramid's base side. [_The Great Pyramid,
Its Divine Message_, p. 119]
[. . .]
Martin
Subject: Re: Roman aqueduct question?
From: Jonathan Ferguson
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1996 03:52:19 -0800
R. Gaenssmantel wrote:
>
> mellyrn@enh.nist.gov wrote:
> : They were mostly for the baths; did they also provide drinking water,
> : and if so were there worries about poisoning or other contamination?
>
> I'm not aware of the Romans descriminating between drinking and bathing water.
> They had quite a huge consumption of water (mainly due to the baths), but I
> would assume they drank the water as well (after all they already had some form
> of plumbing).
They did discriminate between them when it came to rationing water in times of drought.
There are structures where aqueducts meet towns (Pompeii, etc.) for giving preference to
one outlet over another. It's too late at night for me (and a couple of Scotches too
late) to go find the term for these structures or a source, but if anybody really needs
to know, just tell me later.. What these structures did was to have the outlets for
different uses at different elevations. If water levels began to get low, the pipes to
the private houses of the rich (nearest the top) were thus cut off from water supply
first. Next came water for the public baths. At the bottom, never dry unless there was
no water, were the lines for the public fountain. Thus the public fountains used for
drinking and other purposes in most homes were given preference. Of course, unscrupulous
rich Romans would sometimes tap into these public fountain pipes, but that's another
matter.
So the answer is yes and no. Roman did use the same water for drinking and baths, but
did discriminate between them in terms of priority.
Some baths (as with one at Herculaneum, I believe) continued to use well-drawn water
after the introduction of aqueduct water supply, but again, that's another discussion.
Going to bed,
- J. Ferguson
Subject: Re: Nefertiti (was Re: BLACKNESS in Egyptian Art, Murals, etc. (REPOST))
From: JOHN CLARKE
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 15:28:25
In article <32761BE6.12AC@PioneerPlanet.infi.net> Saida wrote:
>> Here's a good test! take those "olive skinned" Egyptians, especially
> from
>> ages ago, and toss them into a Klan rally and see if they exit with
>> membership cards.
>
>Some test! I have skin as pale as you can get, but, with my ancestry,
>I'd NEVER get a membership card under those conditions.
>
>Besides, from what I've seen on TV, it appears the main requirement to
>become a Klan member is to be butt-ugly. The Egyptians are and were a
>good-looking people.
As crude as it may sound, it is actually a very good test.
I believe the point is that no Egyptian past or present is
considered to be white by the general population.
Now, if you choose to believe the classsifications of
taxonomists from the past whose system of classification
of peoples into racial groups was based on securing a
glorious past, then you are welcome to those happy
illusions. The fact of the matter is that those definitions
don't extend much beyond the paper they were written on.
The fact of the matter is that these people and you are
not nor will ever be considered white by Europeans and
Americans. However, if by some mass consciousness shift
white Europeans and Americans begin to consider you and
your people as white, then you will be white.
On reading your posts, I can't help but wonder if the Anglophilic
residue of colonialism has afflicted your yearnings as it has
so many third world peoples. This is not a slight against you;
I'm simply tracking this worldwide phenomenon.
Take care.
-John
Welcome to the USENET continuum.
I will be your host in this strange but wonderful journey through
the far reaches of cyberspace.
Subject: Re: Ancient Egyptian
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 29 Oct 1996 20:19:17 GMT
In article <553dpk$lc1@halley.pi.net>, mcv@pi.netÁ says...
>
>whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>
>>In article <552dq9$ifn@halley.pi.net>, mcv@pi.netÁ says...
>>>
>>>pmanansala@csus.edu (Paul Kekai Manansala) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <54t6kq$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.
>
>>Hi Mike,
>
>>...the logic here. ...only evidence for
>>language is written. ...no written language which predates the
>>Naquada.
>
>>...immigration in and out of Egypt spread
>>over a period of at least 6,000 years.
>
>[...]
>
>>...people ...brought ...elements of their
>>own languages with them? Look how rich American English has become
>>from the borrowed words of its immigrants, why should Egyptian not
>>shown some evidence of its heritage as well?
>
>But it does!
>
>>Did the Egyptian language stay static, fixed in the form it had
>>at the time of Egypts state formation, for all the millenia of its
>>existence, or did it develop dialects which were not reflected in
>>its formalized hieroglyphic script?
>
>Egyptian changes gradually through time, even the formalized writing
>system cannot conceal that fact. The Coptic dialects are another proof.
So, allowing the movements of people I mentioned are reflected in
Egyptian, then it is reasonable to allow that Egyptian is one of the
many languages influencing both Semitic and Indo European languages.
If there are linguistic fingerprints in Egyptian from India and
Mesopotamia, Palestine and Crete, then we can procede on to say there
was some cultural contact between these places.
>
>The fascinating thing however, and if you would take the time to study
>some introductory textbooks on historical linguistics you'd find that
>out for yourself,
The last one I read was Mallory, "In Search of the Indo Europeans"
where I found that at least one of the major premises of his book
was based on confusing the location of the Andronovov and Afanaseivo
cultures, which are 3500 miles apart.
Esteban,
The name Stephen or Esteban goes back quite a long way. Care to
comment on its etymology? I wonder if it is related to the word
"turban"
"s" folded cloth= guard, protect
"tep" = head
"hn" = provide, equip
A turban is a folded cloth used to protect the head and to
provide some cool shade from the rays of the sun in the desert.
> is that despite all these multi-cultural and
>multi-ethnic influences and borrowings, despite all the language change
>and phonetic decay and mangling of grammar, despite formalized and
>confusing writing systems, American English is still English, and not a
>confused and amorphous hodge-podge.
Tell that to the British...:)
> It is quite easily ID-able as a Western Germanic language,
>desecended from Proto-Indo-European, spoken,
>but not written, thousands of years ago.
But that's the whole point Mike, German shows up around 200 BC,
PIE dates to at least c 4,000 BC, isn't there a bit of a gap there?
The people who become German move around a bit during that
period of time. So does everyone else. Most of those people are
not organized into states but move around as households, families,
clans, tribes, brotherhoods and individuals.
The movements of people who use rivers and seas as a means of
transportation go right through the territories of other loosely
organized households, families, clans, tribes, brotherhoods and
individuals.
I bet most of them didn't even go through customs at the border...
>The tell-tale signs are all over, and learning to identify them
>is not rocket-science, it's quite easy, once you know and recognize
>the basic principles. Try it.
What I see is a lot of people filing off the corners of square
pegs and then declaring exultantly that they fit round holes.
>
>The same with Ancient Egyptian. Sure, the language's phonetics and
>grammar change, often radically, from Old Kingdom Egyptian to Coptic.
>Sure, the Egyptians borrowed Semitic words and Nubian words and Greek
>words, and whatnot, and it is a fascinating, and historically relevant,
>subject in itself to trace the different borrowings to their sources.
Yes, we agree, it is a fascinating, and historically relevant, subject
in itself to trace the different borrowings to their sources.
>But still, the core remains unmistakeably Egyptian,
Egyptian seems to have borrowed a good deal from its neighbors.
The fingerprints of those neighbors still remain.
I find that interesting.
>unmistakeably Afro-Asiatic,
Let's allow that Hamitic-Semitic, or Afro Asiatic amounts to
a whole palm print, I still want to look at the fingerprints
of the neighbors.
>and that tells us something crucial about the history of
>the Egyptians as well.
It tells me that they should be considered a part of they
heritage we presently tend to take back only as far as
Classical Greece and Rome.
>
>
>
>==
>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
steve
Subject: Re: Nefertiti (was Re: BLACKNESS in Egyptian Art, Murals, etc. (REPOST))
From: Saida
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 15:11:34 -0600
John Clarke wrote:
> As crude as it may sound, it is actually a very good test.
> I believe the point is that no Egyptian past or present is
> considered to be white by the general population.
>
> Now, if you choose to believe the classsifications of
> taxonomists from the past whose system of classification
> of peoples into racial groups was based on securing a
> glorious past, then you are welcome to those happy
> illusions. The fact of the matter is that those definitions
> don't extend much beyond the paper they were written on.
> The fact of the matter is that these people and you are
> not nor will ever be considered white by Europeans and
> Americans. However, if by some mass consciousness shift
> white Europeans and Americans begin to consider you and
> your people as white, then you will be white.
I don't give a rat's patoot who considers me what. All I know is, if I
don't seek shade in the summer, I turn a painful, red color. Nuff said?
>
> On reading your posts, I can't help but wonder if the Anglophilic
> residue of colonialism has afflicted your yearnings as it has
> so many third world peoples. This is not a slight against you;
> I'm simply tracking this worldwide phenomenon.
>
> Take care.
I am not a Third World person, for your information--never have been,
nor any of my ancestors. Perhaps your problem is that you are tracking
this "worldwide phenomenon" from another planet.
>
>
>
> -John
>
> Welcome to the USENET continuum.
>
> I will be your host in this strange but wonderful journey through
> the far reaches of cyberspace.
Subject: Egyptian Foreign Connections
From: Saida
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 15:36:01 -0600
Here is something written by a certain D'Blossiers Tovey, LL.D, in his
"A History of the Jews of England" in 1738:
"The late and ingenious Mr. Waller (Richard) thinks there may have
actually been Jews (in England) as far back as the early years of the
Roman Invasion. The grounds for this theory lie in the discovery, about
60 years ago, of a curious Roman brick. The brick was excavated during
the construction of a house in Mark Lane, London. On one side of the
brick there is a bas-relief, depicting Samson driving the foxes into a
field of corn. It seems that the brick was actually part of an arched
vault found on the site, which was discovered still fiklled with burnt
corn. Waller's theory is that, since Hercules was the Roman Guardian of
the Granaries, the Romans had applied the story of Samson to their own
god and has et the brick there in Hercules' honour. Waller is convinced
that the brick had been far too elegantly executed to be the work of the
Bass Empire, and he adds that the Romans--still less the Britons--could
not possibly have known the story of samson so soon after the spread of
the Gospel. The only reason he can give is that a number of Jews must
have come here soon after the final destruction of Jerusalem. And it is
even possible, he says, that, since London was a trading port even in
Caesar's time, they could well have settled there and, in the arch of
their own granary, depicted the famous story of their deliverance from
the Philistines."
I find this rather a fascinating story, although I am not at all sure
about the Jewish policy of depicting persons in art at this time in
history. Nevertheless, there were persons in the 18th Century who did
not appear to doubt that people could travel to England from the
Mediterranean area even before Julius Caesar arrived there. This brick
story reminded me of another instance in which I read that Egyptian
beads and perhaps other Egyptian artefacts had been found in a British
barrow. Rack my brain as I will, I can't recall where I saw this!
Subject: Re: What Topics Are Acceptable To Be Posted On sci.archaeology?
From: rejohnsn@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 12:58:19 -0600
On Tue, 29 Oct 1996, Xina wrote:
> rejohnsn@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu wrote:
>
> > Chill out. It was just a request. Do you go off like this every time
> > someone asks you to do something you don't want to do? God, Xina.
> > That's what delete buttons are for.
>
> I would say the same to you, Madame. It wasnt me who had the problem
> with the thread(s) in the first place.
I did NOT have a problem with the thread *in the first place*. I had a
problem with the thread *last weekend*. And it is not I who have
introduced two new threads on this group to show how conniving and
oppresive I am, in addition to dozens of unwarranted insults fed by
stereotypical anti-academic bias.
> To you no discussion of biblical
> archaeology, egyptology, language or religion is appropriate to
> sci.archaeology
And where do you get off making such a generalization? Some such
discussions have archaeological relevance, others don't. It depends on
what is at issue. It is my opinion that as of last weekend, the
discussions in that thread were no longer addressing issues to which
archaeology can contribute. Consequently, I felt that the thread was no
longer relevant to sci.arch. That doesn't mean it never was, or that it
won't be again -- only that it wasn't at the time. Please don't put
words into my mouth.
> unless we add pretentious bits about what we are
> studying and our up and coming accolades. I obviously do not agree with
> this stance. Do you have a problem co-existing with those of us who are
> a little more specialized in our topics?
So is the problem as much with the fact that I am a grad student as with
the request? What is so pretentious about including my affiliation in my
.sig? Lots of people do it. Not having it there wouldn't change my
opinions.
> I appealed to the group, who have been here for the two years that I
> have been on, to clarify for me, since you obviously have an incredibly
> limited view of what archaeology is and isnt, to please clarify what
And you know me as little as you seem to think I know you. I, too, have
been around for two years, and if you had ever read any of my other
posts, you would know that my view of archaeology is not so limited as
you think. Indeed, since you have not read many of my posts, it is
perhaps a not unwarranted conclusion that you have not read many of the
theoretical or North American threads. If so, whose view of archaeology
is the more limited?
As far as "insipid whining", I hardly consider self-defense in the face
of slander to be so much. You know little about me, and have apparently
made little effort to find out, yet you accuse me of much. You made an
instantaneous judgement about me, and have absolutely no desire to
consider that perhaps you overreacted. I should say that the concern for
"laurels" of which you accuse me is more appropriately directed towards
yourself.
Cheers,
Rebecca Lynn Johnson
Ph.D. stud., Dept. of Anthropology, U Iowa
Subject: Re: Luwian script
From: piotrm@umich.edu (Piotr Michalowski)
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 20:02:55
In article <3275259D.2C8D@sierranet.net> Beever writes:
>In a recent posting to this group, a question was asked regarding the
>antiquity of the Anatolian script used to write the "Luwian" language.
>The question was deflected with a reference to the Phaistos Disk.
>I am aware that the Karatepe inscription and others from the
>"Neo-Hittite" sphere (e.g. Carchemish, Zincirli) can be securely dated to
>the First Millenium. I believe the language of these inscriptions is
>generally called "Luwian".
>I have seen a long inscription in this script (or at least a very similar
>script) at Bogazkoy (Hattusa) and have been told it dates to Suppiluliuma
>II (early 12th Cen.)
>What is the earliest example of an inscription in this script?
>What is the language of the Hattusa inscription?
>________
The Hittite Hieroglyphic script was used almost exclusively for monumental and
seal inscriptionsin Luwian, while the cuneiform script was used for clay
tablets in Hittite. The hieroglyphic script was used for Luwian, and the
oldest dated example is from about 1520 BC on a seal of Isputahsu, who lived
at the time of king Telepinu. The early examples are all stamp seals, later
there are larger monumental inscriptions. The text you are asking about, if I
understand you correctly, is the longest such inscription, on Nisantas in
Boghazkoy, containing the remnants of the annals of Suppiluliuma II, but it is
in such bad shape that little can be made of it. After the fall of the
Hittite New Kingdom, the hiroglyphs were used in the so-called neo-Hittite
states, during the period roughly between 1000-700 BC. A few lead strips from
Assur with letters and some inventories from Anatolia indicate that it might
have been used for non-monumental uses, but that these have hardly survived.
Subject: Re: Nefertiti (was Re: BLACKNESS in Egyptian Art, Murals, etc. (REPOST))
From: The Hab
Date: 30 Oct 1996 02:24:18 GMT
"Jeffrey L. Jones" 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"?
>>
>
>Here's a good test! take those "olive skinned" Egyptians, especially from
>ages ago, and toss them into a Klan rally and see if they exit with
>membership cards.
Hehehehehe....This is (basically) what I, as an Egyptian, used to say to
misguided Egyptians who thought that being "Caucasian" (sic) meant being
"white". There are not many who believe this, but some do....most likely
in the upper classes who had some dealings with those lovely British
Imperialists. But that's another story...In other words, EGYPTIANS ARE
NOT AND NEVER WERE "WHITE".
The Hab
Subject: Re: What Topics Are Acceptable To Be Posted On sci.archaeology?
From: rejohnsn@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 12:33:36 -0600
On Tue, 29 Oct 1996, Katherine Griffis wrote:
> rejohnsn@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu wrote:
>
> >Jesus H. Christ on a bicycle, Xina. One measly private post asking you
> >to be careful about posting to multiple newsgroups, and you act like I am
> >trying to censor you personally. Relax. I sent similar messages to all
> >the people I percieved as principals in the thread.
>
> The point is, Ms. Johnson, it's not YOUR place to decide this. It's
> not mine, and it's not Xina's. It's not *anybody's* on this NG. That
Excuse me, but since this IS an open forum, I am no more capable of
making that decision than is anyone else. I had an opinion,
I sent posts to that effect, and people remain free to consider them or
not. The only decision I made was to post requests.
> Besides, you did MORE than "privately e-mail" folks: you posted a
> similar message (called "BLACKNESS -- CAREFUL!") on the Egyptian
> newsgroups about the "BLACKNESS IS..." thread, which only God knows
> how it got to sci.arch. But it's here, it's commented upon by
> Sci.arch readers, and really, it's relevant to the discussion of
> Egyptology, as I pointed ou in another post on this NG.
How MANY times do I have to SAY this? As of this weekend, I thought the
thread was no longer relevant to sci.arch. Yes, it was relevant before!
I didn't think it was relevant any longer -- that's my opinion! So, I
asked those people who WERE NOT posting to the thread from FROM SCI.ARCH to
take sci.arch out of their headers. Since I was not speaking to sci.arch
readers, I took sci.arch out of the header of my post. I now see that
doing so may have been the reason people think I took it upon myself to
make a unilateral decision, since by leaving sci.arch out of the headers
the sci.arch readers of that thread did not know that I did it. For that
I am sorry -- my reasoning was to avoid appearing hypocritical to the
non-sci.arch posters. But I stand by my right to make the request.
As you observe, God only knows how the thread got here. I just wanted to
try to stop it from becoming the kudzu of sci.arch.
> Threads die as they will. Ride it out, and YOU chill for awhile. I
Now this is where I take umbrage. Read the public posts, and I can also
send you some private ones I have received. Xina indulges in personal
aspersions to an astonishing degree. I have responded to them quite
civilly, I think. By "ride it out, and...chill for awhile," do you mean I
should allow her to continue to slander me unanswered?
Cheers,
Rebecca Lynn Johnson
Ph.D. stud., Dept. of Anthropology, U Iowa
Subject: Re: What Topics Are Acceptable To Be Posted On sci.archaeology?
From: S.NEMETH@IX.NETCOM.COM (Stella Nemeth)
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 02:23:34 GMT
mbwillia@ix.netcom.com(Mary Beth Williams) wrote:
>Part of the problem is the divergent views between US and European
>academics of what constitutes archaeology -- in the US, archaeology,
>including theory and methodology, is usually associated with
>anthropology departments -- if you're interested in Egyptian, Greek,
>Roman, etc., history/art/language, you'll usually have to associate
>with Classics departments. In Europe, anthropology departments are
>less common, and usually focus on cultural/biological issues, so
>archaeology is aligned with history/classics departments.
In no way, shape or form does the study of Egypt belong in a
"Classics" department. In a history department, perhaps. But Egypt
wasn't a "Classical" culture. They didn't speak Greek or Latin until
quite late in the game.
Also, although it is obviously true that those archaeologists that
study the Americas are associated with anthropology departments,
probably no matter where they study, I find it hard to believe that
Americans that study Egyptian history have to do it in an anthropology
department. I guess I've got a question for Frank Yurco as to what
department at the University of Chicago he is associated with.
I also wonder, now that some of the writing systems used in the
Americas can be read, whether those areas of the Americas will decided
to move their disciplines out of anthropology departments and into
history departments. After all, those peoples actually have some
history to be studied now that the writing they left can "speak". You
can't do that in an anthropology department. Anthropology doesn't
have the right tool kit.
Stella Nemeth
s.nemeth@ix.netcom.com