Newsgroup sci.archaeology 49748

Directory

Amen
William Edward Woody wrote:
> 
> In article <327DFC80.6A70@wi.net>, Eliyehowah  wrote:
> > William Edward Woody wrote:
> > > I seem to recall something about turning the other cheek. And something
> > > about catching more flies with honey instead of vinegar. And I also seem
> > > to recall that Jesus said something like:
> >
> > Is it the slapper who demands that the Christian turn the other cheek !
> 
> First, when did *I* slap *you*?
> 
> I simply pointed out the areas where you inadvertently offended me, either
> by implying that I was not a religious person, or that I was somehow in
> need of salvation--that I was a sinful person.
> 
> You do not know me; we have never met. To presume that I am not a
> religious person, or that I am a sinful person--these are offensive
> to me.
> 
> But I *never* 'slapped' you, other than pointing out where you have
> inadvertently offended, and how in my opinion, your words are contrary
> to my understanding of the Teachings of Jesus Christ. And how people
> who have also similarly twisted these Teachings, and used their
> prejudice (because they assumed anyone not like them are somehow in
> need of salvation) caused my aunts and uncles and relatives to be
> shot at and killed in cold blood.
> 
> > While you use vinegar, are you insisting others treat you with soothing honey?
> 
> If I am trying to convince another person that my path is correct, I
> would always stick to honey. When you accuse another of being a sinner,
> you only create an enemy. But when you allow Jesus Christ to shine from
> your heart, then only the Love of the Lord can flow--and your words will
> not only create a friend, but may even show them the True Path.
> 
> Your heated words do not reflect the Love of the Lord. They only show
> the hateful words of an angry little man who is trying to demonstrate
> his godliness--and failing.
> 
> If you are properly cloaked in the Love of Jesus Christ, other people's
> vinegar will not sting. Other people's hate will not reach your heart.
> Other people's sin will not reach your life.
> 
> But other people's words *have* stung you: your cloak is little more
> than the egotistical illusion of the man who does his alms loudly
> at the street corner for all to hear. Jesus said that yea, you will
> have your reward. But the true Christian does his alms secretly in
> his heart where he can show his love, instead of in public where he
> only shows his need for the approval from others.
> 
> > Honey NEVER christianized a criminal. Truth does. You dont repent
> > from crimes by making hideous actions legal and no longer viewed as crimes.
> 
> Nor do you convert the wicked by hitting them with hatered and evil
> thoughts--hatred and evil are not part of the Kingdom of God.

rg10003@cus.cam.ac.uk (R. Gaenssmantel) wrote:
>Steve Whittet (whittet@shore.net) wrote:
>: 4.) How would they get their wheel to also incorporate the value Phi
>: in the proportion of the apothem to the run?
>From a mathematical point of few this proportion can only incorporate the 
>number pi if either the apothem or the run already contain that number (pi 
>cannot be expressed by divisions unless one of the numbers involved is a 
>multiple of pi). 
This is mathematics, not linguistics.  I think Steve really means Phi
((sqrt(5)+1)/2, the "Golden Number"), not Pi.
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal                     ~ ~
Amsterdam                   _____________  ~ ~
mcv@pi.net                 |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig

>Speaking of human remains...Remember the freeze-dried bronze-age man
>found in the Alps a few years back. PBS did a once over lightly special
>on him. I assume much of the research has been done, but where can I
>find an account of the 'findings' on this guy? Any good books out, or
>articles? With near-morbid fascination of the very old, tj
Do a WWW search for    ICEMAN  .
Regards
Some people can stay longer in an hour than others can in a week
gblack@midland.co.nz

Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:
> 
> Eastward to Sanskrit would be more in line with current views.
Current view sees which peoples/language going east to Sanskrit?  Can
you describe a little more of this?  
Is there any reason why they couldn't have upped and left on boats?
> >How about the same for IE arrival in Greece?  When would this
> >have been, IYO?
> 
> When?  Linguistics is rather good at relative dating (e.g. we know that
> in Sanskrit "catvaras" the change from e>a was more recent than the
> change from k>c: ketwor- > cetwor- > catwar-; we know that Tocharian
> can't be Alexander's Greek because s- had become -h in Greek, etc.), but
> it's no good at absolute dating, I'm afraid.  We haven't stumbled on the
> linguistic C-14 yet.
Relative dating is extremely useful I would think...
Let me get this straight.  It is the current popular linguistic
viewpoint that none of the IE languages have seeded from one another,
but that they all seeded more-or-less directly from proto-IE?
Seems rather arbitrary to me.  I would imagine that the influences would
have been much more complicated than that.
Hypothetical situation: Let's say that you have a simple IE people
living in Greece c7000bce.  They speak an IE that is pretty close to
PIE.  They are soon being heavily influenced by proto-Hittite(?) and
this begins to affect their spoken tongue.  By c3000bce they are
prospering and they are being influenced by migrations coming and going
from these lands by differing IE groups with related tongues; and at
this time they encounter a new influence from enterprising sea traders
arriving from Biblos, Sidon, etc.  These new people recognize the
strategic value of Crete and the Aegean islands and are trying to set up
shop there.  They are better educated and very eager to teach the IE
natives of Greece.
What you now have is an originally Almost-PIE people who were influenced
early on by an early HIttite.  This mix is constantly remixed by waves
of various IE peoples (perhaps certain ones more often).  *This* mix is
then heavily influenced by an early Canaanite, and also by Egyptian. 
Time rolls by and this mix is perhaps once again exposed to different IE
elements (say, Thracians, Scythians, Etruscans, etc.).
Can you still say that Greek was seeded directly from proto-IE?
> As to Greece, the answer from the linguistic evidence is: before 1300
> BC, when the first Greek texts were written.  Working back from there,
> it's the archaeologists job to find evidence for immigration/invasion/
> discontinuity, unfortunately not exactly archaeology's strongest point.
> Current candidates are the transition from Early Helladic II/III, c.
> 2200 BC, or the transition from Late Neolithic/Early Helladic I, c. 3000
> BC.  Renfrew's notion of an Early Neolithic Proto-Greek, c. 7000 BC, is
> linguistically absurd, as it fails to explain the abundant similarities
> between Greek and Sanskrit, which suggest that the Proto-Armeno-Greeks
> were in close contact with the Proto-Indo-Iranians until relatively
> recently, somewhere North of Greece and near the S. Russian steppe.
Funny how we need to find what happened to the early Indians that
dissappear around 2200bce (during a time of troubles that would easily
cause a people to migrate) and we need to find where from the early
Greeks arrived sometime after 2200bce...
Although I certainly don't they are the same.  I just think that their
stories are related.
> 
> Another datum from linguistics (toponymy to be exact), is that there
> seem to have already been Indo-Europeans in Greece _before_ the Greeks,
> as indicated i.a. by the name Parnassos (connected with Hittite and
> Luwian parna- "house", and the Luwian adjectival ending -assa).  We also
> know, from inscriptions found on Lemnos, that a language similar to
> Etruscan was spoken.
So, the non-Greek name-endings were reminescant of the time when
Anatolia was a major power and influence...  This seems to explain to me
that the non-Greek name-endings ARE NOT evidence of a Greek arrival
after 2200bce; which is what I have suspected already.  The IE element
was there much further back.  (as evidenced by the contioued use of
Megarons).
-- 
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/

Loren Petrich wrote:
> S. W. wrote:
> >
> >1285 BC battle of Kadesh, 1200 BC seige of Troy,
> >1200 BC emergence of Phoenicians.
> 
>         What's the relevance of this, or are you squirting ink again, 
> O Steve Whittet the Squid?
The relevance is only there if you can see it.  Perhaps he wrote it for
my benefit.  :)
-- 
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/

On Sun, 3 Nov 1996, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:
> Another datum from linguistics (toponymy to be exact), is that there
> seem to have already been Indo-Europeans in Greece _before_ the Greeks,
> as indicated i.a. by the name Parnassos (connected with Hittite and
> Luwian parna- "house", and the Luwian adjectival ending -assa).  We also
> know, from inscriptions found on Lemnos, that a language similar to
> Etruscan was spoken.
Umm, Etruscan?  I was under the impression that it was an isolate 
like Basque and Sumerian.  Now you seem to be implying that it is
indo-european.  Am I not up to date or have you misspoken?
--Peter Metcalfe

>NOTE: THE FOLLOWING IS NOT SPAM!
>http://alamut.alamut.org/c73/kuhn/rbrthnow.htm
>http://alamut.alamut.org/c73/kuhn/sxsmbl.htm
>http://www.irdg.com/pc93/kuhn.htm
oooooookay...well, we'll just have to see about that, won't we?
I'm off to check!  Review forthcoming...
Gwynne ni Brid
(who's a Witch posting on alt.pagan)

Alan M. Dunsmuir wrote:
> 
> In article <327B2BBF.2451@iceonline.com>, Satrap Szabo
>  writes
> >So, historical linguistics would be demeaned by the nonsensical
> >historical linguistics being published here.  That is quite an insult to
> >the intelligent and well-reasoned linguistic posters that post here.
> >You should apologize.
> >
> You should learn to read English or think logically. 
I think I do both quite well, thank you.  YOU were the one condemning
linguisics on sci.arch.  And now you admit that it was only to further a
stupid personal attack!  That you didn't really *mean* it.  I don't
suppose you care to take responsibilty for your words (as in, consider
that others who are not regulars are reading them too).
> My insult was not
> aimed at any of the "intelligent and reasoned linguistics posters", with
> whom I would be delighted to share cyberspace either on a dedicated
> newsgroup or here, whichever is there preerence.
Luckily humans are psychic, eh?
> My problem is precisely that one faced by Basil Fawltey who, wanting to
> publicise his hotel's 'Gourmet Evening', composed a local press
> advertisement which included the phrase "No riff-raff". But I wouldn't
> expect you to understand that.
You should remember that Basil's plans are always faulty, and they
rarely ever work as planned.  And I sure do understand, but rules and
regulations have to be universal, and your selective urgings are what
contribute to general anarchy, misunderstandings, inconsistencies, etc.
In other words *you* contribute to the riff-raff.
And I have to agree with Saida.  You never contribute usefuly to the
discussions in this group; only occasionally interjecting to hurl an
insult or three.  Useless.
-- 
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 <32805D77.15C8@iceonline.com>,
Satrap Szabo   wrote:
	To answer your questions, I suggest that you read some good 
discussion of the Indo-European question like J.P. Mallory's book _In 
Search of the Indo-Europeans"
	[MCV:]
>> Eastward to Sanskrit would be more in line with current views.
>Current view sees which peoples/language going east to Sanskrit?  Can
>you describe a little more of this?  
	Most likely some Central Asian offshoots of the Kurgan cultures, 
such as the Late Yamna.
>Is there any reason why they couldn't have upped and left on boats?
	Going overland was easier, especially if you have a lot of cattle 
and horses.
>Let me get this straight.  It is the current popular linguistic
>viewpoint that none of the IE languages have seeded from one another,
>but that they all seeded more-or-less directly from proto-IE?
	That's right -- they have some common origin.
>Seems rather arbitrary to me.  I would imagine that the influences would
>have been much more complicated than that.
	Imagine a group of people spreading and splitting. That explains
the origins and relationships of the IE languages quite well. When one
group interacts with another, there is, of course, crosstalk :-)
-- 
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

Satrap Szabo  wrote:
>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:
>> 
>> Eastward to Sanskrit would be more in line with current views.
>Current view sees which peoples/language going east to Sanskrit?  Can
>you describe a little more of this?  
Indo-Iranians from Central Asia came into Iran and India somewhere in
the 2nd millennium.  Given that Indo-Iranian is closely connected to
languages in Europe (Greek especially), their ultimate origin must be
(Eastern) Europe.
>Let me get this straight.  It is the current popular linguistic
>viewpoint that none of the IE languages have seeded from one another,
>but that they all seeded more-or-less directly from proto-IE?
Yes, they are all descended from PIE.
>Seems rather arbitrary to me.  I would imagine that the influences would
>have been much more complicated than that.
>Hypothetical situation: Let's say that you have a simple IE people
>living in Greece c7000bce.  They speak an IE that is pretty close to
>PIE.  They are soon being heavily influenced by proto-Hittite(?) and
>this begins to affect their spoken tongue.  By c3000bce they are
>prospering and they are being influenced by migrations coming and going
>from these lands by differing IE groups with related tongues; and at
>this time they encounter a new influence from enterprising sea traders
>arriving from Biblos, Sidon, etc.  These new people recognize the
>strategic value of Crete and the Aegean islands and are trying to set up
>shop there.  They are better educated and very eager to teach the IE
>natives of Greece.
>What you now have is an originally Almost-PIE people who were influenced
>early on by an early HIttite.  This mix is constantly remixed by waves
>of various IE peoples (perhaps certain ones more often).  *This* mix is
>then heavily influenced by an early Canaanite, and also by Egyptian. 
>Time rolls by and this mix is perhaps once again exposed to different IE
>elements (say, Thracians, Scythians, Etruscans, etc.).
>Can you still say that Greek was seeded directly from proto-IE?
Yes.  All you have to do is look at the Greek language.  There are
loanwords, to be sure, and words of "unknown origin", but the vast
majority of the Greek vocabulary, including all the core items, and the
whole of the grammar, can be derived from PIE directly by applying the
typical Greek soundlaws and changes.  There's nothing Anatolian, Semitic
or Egyptian about it.
>> Another datum from linguistics (toponymy to be exact), is that there
>> seem to have already been Indo-Europeans in Greece _before_ the Greeks,
>> as indicated i.a. by the name Parnassos (connected with Hittite and
>> Luwian parna- "house", and the Luwian adjectival ending -assa).  We also
>> know, from inscriptions found on Lemnos, that a language similar to
>> Etruscan was spoken.
>So, the non-Greek name-endings were reminescant of the time when
>Anatolia was a major power and influence...
Not necessarily.
>  This seems to explain to me
>that the non-Greek name-endings ARE NOT evidence of a Greek arrival
>after 2200bce; which is what I have suspected already.  
The fact that Anatolian probably, and Tyrrhenian certainly, were once
spoken in Greece, coupled with the fact that Linear A probably isn't
Greek either, all do seem to indicate that Greek is not aboriginal to
Greece and came from outside.  The close linguistic ties of Greek with
Armenian and Indo-Iranian within IE point specifically to the
Balkans/Southern Russia.  The evidence as presented by Gimbutas and
Mallory is very clear.  There were population movements from the Pontic
steppe east and westwards from 4,000 BC onwards.  I think they are
describing the spread of the Indo-Greek dialect, not of Indo-European
itself, but in any case the origin of the Greek language lies there.  
>The IE element
>was there much further back.  (as evidenced by the contioued use of
>Megarons).
Which "IE element"?  The Anatolians (Hittites) were IE too.
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal                     ~ ~
Amsterdam                   _____________  ~ ~
mcv@pi.net                 |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig

Eliyehowah (elijah@wi.net) wrote:
: ** BIBLICAL COAL THEORY **
: The increase of radiation by 12 times after the water above our nitrogen 
atmosphere
: dropped, has also increased C-14 by 12 times. Being toxic we age 12 times 
faster
: and live 12 times less. This is revealed in C-14 data lists.
: Human chronology is basically aligned against Egypt being viewed as the
: most stable filled centuries of history in contrast to China, India, Europe, 
etc.
[...]
Well, C-14 is not toxic. C-14 is chemically undistinguishable from C-12. 
Toxicity is a chemical property.
C-14 is radioactive, yes, but it's got a half-life of 5 479 years. Therefore 
it's less critical than some of the other stuff you take up each day. If the 
increase in exposure was in such an easy linear relationship to the life time, 
the builders of the first nuclear bomb wouldn't have survived to see the end of 
the war. Similarly in Uranium mining reagions the average life expectancy would 
be somewhere in the mid-teens.
I suggest you get Feynman's lectures on physics and read up some of the 
fundamental properties of radiation and radioactivity.
Ralf

Peter Metcalfe  wrote:
>On Sun, 3 Nov 1996, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:
>> Another datum from linguistics (toponymy to be exact), is that there
>> seem to have already been Indo-Europeans in Greece _before_ the Greeks,
>> as indicated i.a. by the name Parnassos (connected with Hittite and
>> Luwian parna- "house", and the Luwian adjectival ending -assa).  We also
>> know, from inscriptions found on Lemnos, that a language similar to
>> Etruscan was spoken.
>Umm, Etruscan?  I was under the impression that it was an isolate 
>like Basque and Sumerian.  Now you seem to be implying that it is
>indo-european.  Am I not up to date or have you misspoken?
No, I just should have started a new paragraph after -assa).
Etruscan is not sufficiently understood to make definite claims about
its affiliations.  The little that is known seems to indicate that it is
surely not IE.  In some respects, however, it seems rather similar to IE
in general and Anatolian in particular (genitive endings in -s(i) and
-l(a), pres. ptc. in -nth, some lexical items).  Other things are
completely different (pl. in -ar, past tense in -ce, many lexical
items).  It may not be too far-fetched to hypothesize that both are
descended from a common "Indo-Tyrrhenian" proto-language.  Lemnian is
clearly related to Etruscan, but since there is only one largish text
(the Lemnos stele), it is hard to establish the closeness of the
relation (e.g. there are no verbs ending in -ce on the Lemnos stele).
Herodotus claims the Lemnians are descended from Attic "Pelasgians".  
A third branch of Tyrrhenian was the Rhaetic language, known from a few
inscriptions in N. Italy / Alps.  It seems closer to Etruscan proper
than Lemnian was.
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal                     ~ ~
Amsterdam                   _____________  ~ ~
mcv@pi.net                 |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig

In Article <55o735$5hc@galileo.polito.it>, aarca@inrete.it (Andrea Arca') wrote:
> TRACCE
>        Rock Art Online Bulletin
>        no. 5, 1996 November
>
>        IS ONLINE at
>        ->
>http:/www.geocities.com/Athens/2996/tracce5.html
>
That should be:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2996/tracce5.html
     *
Robert Mark
USGS
rmark@usgs.gov

Angus Mann wrote:
> 
> On 03-Nov-96 04:07:01 Eliyehowah  wrote:
> 
> >>Dear sir
> >>Regards your site and the statement that the Egyptians did
> >>not have the wheel.
> 
> >Cant respectfully call me sir if you claim anywhere that
> >I said the Egyptians had no wheel. If this were so, then
> >how did they roll the cubit to obtain pyramid length?
> 
> He probably assumed what I did - that you believed they used The Force to do
> this.
	I'm probably coming into this discussion late (a curse on my news
server) and I'm certainly no Egyptologist but didn't the Egyptians have
chariots (at one point or another)?  To my knowledge, chariots function
extremely poorly without wheels.

petrich@netcom.com (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>In article <32805D77.15C8@iceonline.com>,
>Satrap Szabo   wrote:
>	To answer your questions, I suggest that you read some good 
>discussion of the Indo-European question like J.P. Mallory's book _In 
>Search of the Indo-Europeans"
And, if I may add, Hans Krahe _Indogermanisches
Sprachwissenschaft_ and also Walter Porzig _Die Gliederung des
indogermanischen Sprachgebiets_, for a basic understanding of the
linguistic questions involved.
Or some equivalents of those two works in English - if that
exists?
______________________________________________________________
Kåre Albert Lie
kalie@sn.no

The prevalent format of popular works on archaeology seems to be text 
interspersed with photos and illustrations and I think it works very 
well.  I've just finished "The Complete Valley of the Kings" by Nicholas 
Reeves and Richard Wilkinson (Thames & Hudson) and highly recommend it. 
It is a worthy companion to "The Complete Tutankhamun" and even manages 
to show some DIFFERENT photos, old and new--not the same ones you see in 
Egyptology books over and over again.  It even has a "centerfold", which 
has got to be the most striking photo of an Egyptian mummy ever taken, 
also one I hadn't seen.  It is Seti I, taken shortly after his 
discovery.  For some reason, the pharaoh looks like he is lying amid the 
rubble of a bombed-out city in WWII, perhaps a very thin person killed 
while sleeping. The king's amazing face looks like someone who died the 
day the photographer snapped the picture--a totally eerie photo, one 
that denies 3,000 years ever passed.
Another telling photo is of the face of the coffin found in KV55.  The 
golden face of the person originally buried in the coffin has been 
mostly adzed away and underneath there is only wood which has 
deteriorated to what resembles cigar-ash.  In Reeves' book, one can 
clearly see that this former carved portrait had an elongated face and 
long nose reminiscent of the features of Akhenaten.  In fact, Reeves 
states he believes the mummy found in the coffin IS that of the heretic 
king and not Smenkhare, the latter having been the choice for quite some 
time.  Hmmm...
I wonder what Reeves knows.  He writes: 
Page 94    "The present whereabouts of her (Hatshepsut's) mummy are not
known--unless the body recently exhumed from KV60 by Donals Ryan (p.187)
should prove to be hers.  A box recovered from the royal cache (DB320)
in 1881 is inscribed with the woman-pharaoh's name, and contains a
mummified liver or spleen..."
Looks like they could do another "Queen Tiye" type test on Ryan's
mummy--probably already have.  I don't think the mummy from KV60 is
Hatshepsut, though. My own reconstruction of the mummy's face doesn't 
look very Thutmosid or, at least, doesn't correspond very well to the 
portrait of Hatshepsut from the sculpture at the Met, which I think is a 
true likeness and very like Thutmose I cranio-facially. 
I noticed that Reeves, when talking about the "Elder Lady" from KV35, is
very careful to qualify her identification with a question mark.  Either
he, like me, takes the position of the late Cyril Aldred in saying that
nothing can be positively stated about this mummy until the DNA results
come in, OR the results have already leaked out into the Egyptological
network and Reeves knows full well the lady didn't match and simply
doesn't want to give out the info. It is rather odd because most authors 
of recent works haven't hedged that much--just got used to calling the 
"Elder Lady" Queen Tiye.  Reeves says SOME believe her to be this queen 
but it is rather obvious HE does not.
Marianne

Steve Whittet (whittet@shore.net) wrote:
[...]
: Ok, call me stubborn 
I certainly wouldn't disagree
: but I see the progression back and forth
: as almost effortless, begining with q
: In  many languages "q" has the sound of "k", or "c"
: Quadesh and Kadesh for example,
: Abquaq pronounced Abcake.
: q becomes k; quoran, koran
This is not a change of sound. This is the European incompetence to distinguish 
to quite different sounds. Only resently - and for scientific - reasons it 
became common practise to use a letter like 'q' (which does not exist in 
Arabic) do describe a sound that doesn't exist in any European languages.
An analogous claim would be to say j can become k because Bejing was initially 
misspellt as Peking by the Europeans. 
If the Arabic sound commonly transcribed with 'q' would change into anything 
else, then only into a hamza, since that's the way it is usually pronounced in 
Egyptian Arabic.
: q becomes c el Qahira; Cairo
Basically the same problem as abaove, since the original letter/sound in Arabic 
is the same. Germans would tend to use a 'k' the English would rather use a 
'c'. I'm not sure which of the two the French folloewed.
: k becomes c Karnak; Cairo
I believe Karnak is in Arabic also spellt with the same letter.
but Cairo has nothing to do whatsoever with Karnak. Cairo is a european 
bastardisation of the Arabic 'al-qahira', the victorious.
: k becomes kh; Karnak; Khartoum
Karnak has also nothing to do with Karthoum.
: kh becomes ch; Khufu; Cheops
Another case for bastardisation, or incorrect understanding of the language 
rather than sound sthifts.
: Kh becomes h; khartoum; hadramat
???????????????
: ch becomes sh; chinook; shine
???????????????
: sh becomes su, should; sugar
???????????????
Ralf

Saida wrote:
A really wonderful review!  Thank you for that, I will be sure to check
it out at my local bookstore! :)
Re: The Elder Lady/Queen Tiye question:
> he, like me, takes the position of the late Cyril Aldred in saying that> nothing can be positively stated about this mummy until the DNA results
In Bob Brier's "Egyptian Mummies book Im pretty certain that he states
that DNA tests were conducted on samples of hair taken from the mummy of
the Elder Lady and from a lock of hair taken from the tomb of King
Tutankhamun that had been determined was in fact from his grandmother
Queen Tiye, and a definite match had been made.  I would be interested
to know what this author *does* know that might refute that claim or if
Bob Brier mis-read the information. 
Regards,
Christina

Emmett Jordan wrote:
> 
> George Bush and his military planners tried to turn Los Angeles
> into Alexandria the Second with nuclear tests in Nevada. They did
> succeed in inducing one earthquake that experts claimed was separate
> from the explosion, but LA did not slide into the sea. If someone
> runs a test closer though, it will.
Being as I am familiar with Dr. Kate of the Siesmology Lab at Cal-Tech,
I think this comment borders on the absurd. Nice try though.  My partner
and I missed that quake a week to the day.
Xina

Xina wrote:
> 
> Saida wrote:
> A really wonderful review!  Thank you for that, I will be sure to check
> it out at my local bookstore! :)
> 
> Re: The Elder Lady/Queen Tiye question:
> 
> > he, like me, takes the position of the late Cyril Aldred in saying that> nothing can be positively stated about this mummy until the DNA 
results
> 
> In Bob Brier's "Egyptian Mummies book Im pretty certain that he states
> that DNA tests were conducted on samples of hair taken from the mummy of
> the Elder Lady and from a lock of hair taken from the tomb of King
> Tutankhamun that had been determined was in fact from his grandmother
> Queen Tiye, and a definite match had been made.  I would be interested
> to know what this author *does* know that might refute that claim or if
> Bob Brier mis-read the information.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Christina
Bob Brier was referring to the lock of hair from Tut's tomb that was 
microscopically compared to hair from the head of the "Elder Lady".  The 
hair samples were a perfect match in that they appeared to come from the 
head of the same individual, but the test had nothing to do with DNA.  
According to Aldred, a great Amarna period scholar, there was some blood 
testing done between the "Elder Lady" and Yuya and Thuya which did not 
argue particularly well for her being their daughter.
The reason Aldred and others had reservations about the test is that 
there is no way to be certain that the lock from the tomb, although 
found in a little case with the name and titles of Queen Tiye on it, 
actually had come from the head of this queen.  Added to that, the mummy 
in question was judged by some to have died too young to be Queen Tiye. 
Cyril Aldred, for one, thought appr. fifty years should have gone by 
from the time Tiye married Amenhotep III to the date of her death.  Yet 
the "Elder Lady" has dark hair without any grey in it.  For more 
information about the problems with this identification, look in Deja 
News for my article "A Tale of Two Tiyes".
Recently, however, DNA samples were taken from the royal mummies for 
analysis and, I'm sure, the "Elder Lady" must have been tested, also, as 
female mummies are of the highest importance in this study.  The results 
of the testing have not been published yet.

Saida  wrote:
>GROOVE YOU wrote:
>>                                                                                    "Oh what a bore," more
>> eurosemantics...anything to try and  sidestep, misdirect or out and out
>> lie about the truth. " What truth you make ask ?"'...The truth of the fact
>> that Egypt and all of the first civilizations that sprang from the nile
>> are all black african civilizations, Now frank I geuss you tell me that
>> the collumns in Ipet Isut are not black , that they are reddish in color
>> in your typical eurosemantical sidestepping fashion..LOL....LOL...
>
>
>Go do your LOLLING someplace else.  You are one tiresome, boring 
>individual.
You forgot racist and illiterate.
I do not subscribe to any daft theories ascribing bloodthirsty behaviour
to persons of _any_ skin pigmentation, but is not GROOVE YOU's 
argument rather dented by the massive genocide in Rwanda and
Burundi ? The hundreds of thousands dead in Rwanda are not the
product of "typical eurosemantical sidestepping".
I would hasten to add that I do _not_ consider those with darker skin
to be more predisposed to such atrocities than the rest of us, just
quoting an example to illustrate a teeny flaw in his racial theories.
Michael Daly

On Wed, 30 Oct 1996, Gary Lavigne wrote:
> 	What is the glossy black coating on fossilized bones?
> 	One person described it as "varnish". Is it a natural 
> 	resin?  Is it deposited on the bone from surrounding 
> 	material, or does it come from the bone itself during
> 	the process of becoming a fossil.
Not that we ARCHAEOLOGISTS are necessarily up to date on what 
PALEONTOLOGISTS are doing, but here's a shot.
A fossilized bone is not a bone.  It is a rock.  More specifically, it is 
a rock that has the shape of a bone because the organic material in the 
original bone has been replaced by minerals.
Since a fossil is stone, the range of colors is limited only by the range 
of colors possessed by the minerals of the world.  Many such minerals are 
black, even glossy black.  There are lots of fossils that are glossy 
black because of the minerals of which they are composed.  This has 
nothing to do with the fossil itself, but with the geology of the area in 
which fossilization occurred.  It is not a 'resin', but a characteristic 
of the fossil's component minerals.
Cheers,
Rebecca Lynn Johnson
Ph.D. stud., Dept. of Anthropology, U Iowa

On 2 Nov 1996, Rich Travsky wrote:
> Joseph Zorzin  writes:
> >Rich Travsky wrote:
> >> What Fisher has found is that mammoths living at the end of the
> >> last ice age gave birth every four years - the same as for modern
> >> day elephants that are *not* starving but *are* being hunted.
> >
> >But showing that the mammoths were hunted doesn't prove that the hunting
> >caused the extinction.
>
> Correct. It supports it (as per the subject line), not necessarily
> proves it.
No -- it only supports the idea that mammoths were being hunted.  It 
provides no information about whether that hunting contributed to 
extinction.  Evidence of hunting is evidence of hunting.  So far, 
evidence of hunting is not generally accepted as evidence of 
hunting-to-extinction.  This study only supports the extinction bit as 
far as the evidence of hunting supports it.  I don't see that this study 
resolves anything, because we already knew that mammoths were being hunted.
Cheers,
Rebecca Lynn Johnson
Ph.D. stud., Dept. of Anthropology, U Iowa

OX-11 wrote:
> 
> therre is an even more interesting fossil -- in the upper rio grands
> valley of new mexico, there is the imprint of a bare human female footprint
> in a sandstone outcropping that is around 10 -60 million years old. The
> girl was walking and tripped. seh overcorrected by extending her foot and
> made the imprint in the once soft mud of the riverbank.  It left a deep
> impression clearly visible. You can even see the potho;e she stepped
> into, and the splash marks extending out from it.....
This post is an old creationism example that humans lived at the same 
time as dinosaurs.  To actually see the prints, you realize that any 
being could have made them, two footed or four footed.  But to say that 
it was a girl that made them, is a new one on me.  I am extremely 
interested to find out the sex of an individual just by their foot 
prints.  From what I understand, if you had available to you all the 
bones of the human body, the only one that would tell you the sex, would 
be the pelvis.  There seems to be some missing info in your post to let 
us know how the sex of the individual was determined in the footprints.
Jim Akerlund

In article <55nob4$of7$1@gollum.kingston.net>, profner@mulberry.com 
(Peter Rofner) says:
>
>Requesting help.
>
>Can anyone direct me to the proper place where I might post details
>about new archaeological tools that I have designed, fabricated, and
>field tested for use in field work?  Would details be of interest to
>users of this Newsgroup?
>
>Thank You
>
>Peter Rofner
>
Let's have it.

Geoffrey  wrote:
>Angus Mann wrote:
>> 
>> On 03-Nov-96 04:07:01 Eliyehowah  wrote:
>> 
>> >>Dear sir
>> >>Regards your site and the statement that the Egyptians did
>> >>not have the wheel.
>> 
>> >Cant respectfully call me sir if you claim anywhere that
>> >I said the Egyptians had no wheel. If this were so, then
>> >how did they roll the cubit to obtain pyramid length?
>> 
>> He probably assumed what I did - that you believed they used The Force to do
>> this.
>	I'm probably coming into this discussion late (a curse on my news
>server) and I'm certainly no Egyptologist but didn't the Egyptians have
>chariots (at one point or another)?  To my knowledge, chariots function
>extremely poorly without wheels.
True, they do....
However, the Egyptians were introduced to wheel *after* the Pyramid
Ages by the Hyksos (which was Eliyehowah's issue (that they MUST have
a wheel to make a pyramid)), who swept down into Egypt and conquered
it by *using the chariot*.  Until the Hyksos, the Egyptians did not
use wheel at all from the drawings/paintings within the iconography,or
horse, and especially NOT together.
From about the New Kingdom onwards, yes, you see them...there are
several chariots in Tutankhamen's tomb, for example, and God knows,
you couldn't have had the *Battle of Kadesh* with Ramses II without
it.
Regards --
Katherine Griffis (Greenberg)
Member of the American Research Center in Egypt
University of Alabama at Birmingham
Special Studies
http://www.ccer.ggl.ruu.nl/ccer/PEOPLE2.HTML  

    > I have spent the summer working my way through the librarys books on
    > Egypt.
    > I just read  by Dr. Joseph Davidovits, 
    > 1988.  Could someone tell me if his theory was taken seriously enough
    > to be further investigated or just put off as another crack pot idea.
    > 
    > Thank you in advance for any information.
    > 
    > Sorry but I can't access (or find) dajanews.
    > 
    > Rick Abernathy
The name is dejanews.  
             ^  
----
Keith Grenville
Cape Town, South Africa
Telephone/Fax (021) 72 9471

THE CAPE TOWN EGYPTIAN SOCIETY was very successfully launched on 4th November.  
It is the first and only "Egyptian" society in South Africa and probably the 
only one in all of Southern Africa.  
The CTES will encourage and support the work of the South African Cultural 
History Museum with regard to the Egyptian Collection, and further the 
understanding and appreciation of ancient Egypt in particular - also its 
neighbouring societies and civilizations, and modern Egypt. 
The first meeting will be at 19h00 on November 26th at Josephine Mill, 
Newlands, Cape Town.
Further information: 
The Secretary,  PO Box 232, Plumstead, 7801, Cape Town, South Africa.
----
Keith Grenville
Cape Town, South Africa
Telephone/Fax (021) 72 9471

On Tue, 5 Nov 1996, Peter Rofner wrote:
> Can anyone direct me to the proper place where I might post details
> about new archaeological tools that I have designed, fabricated, and
> field tested for use in field work?  Would details be of interest to
> users of this Newsgroup?
I'd be interested to know what they are.
Cheers,
Rebecca Lynn Johnson
Ph.D. stud., Dept. of Anthropology, U Iowa

Hello,
I suggest that all people interested in archaelogy and antique history
have a look at this web site:
		http://www.webcom.com/mourey
There are very important discoveries included in this site.
See you soon!
P. Mourey.

Jacques Guy  wrote:
>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:
> 
>> *-s > -k [Armenian]
>> This is a yet unresolved mystery.
>What do you mean by that? It is not difficult
>to find plausible intermediate sound changes,
>made of chains attested in other languages
>e.g. s -> sh -> x -> k ( s -> sh in Auvergnat
>and Portuguese, sh -> x in Castillan, etc...)
The last step, x -> k (or h -> k) is rather uncommon.  I can't think of
any good language internal examples for it, although it is of course
common for a language that does not have /x/ to adapt it as /k/, as with
English "Khartoum", or Catalan "maco" (< Sp. majo).
The real mystery is that in Armenian, initial s-, medial -s- and final
-s normally drop (there are a few cases of initial h- derived from s-,
which suggest that /h/ was the intermediary stage).  A good example is
the word *snusos "daughter-in-law", which becomes  in Armenian,
genitive  (*snusosio > *(h)nu(h)o(h)i(o)).
The final -s of the nominative sg. and the genitive sg. has been lost.
But the plural -s (also in verbal endings -mk` (*-mos) , -yk` (*-tes))
remains as -k` (i.e. aspirated /k/).  Why?  
Many explanations have been offered: the -k` is a (non-IE?) suffix quite
unrelated to -s, the -k` is a "reinforcement" of final -h under
grammatical pressure to maintain the distinction between sg. and plural,
etc.  None of it too convincing.
The only solution I can think of is that final -s after (long) -u- (in
the u:-stems and the o-stems [*o:s> us]) became labialized *sw, and
spread from there to the other nouns.  We know that all labialized
voiceless consonants (*sw, *tw, *kw) merged into *kw in Armenian, and
give k` [or palatalized c`] (e.g. k`oyr < *swesor "sister", k`un <
*swopnos "sleep"; k`an < *kwam "than", c`ork` < *ketwores; k`ez <
*twe-ghe "you (acc.)").  It is interesting to note that a /k/
(unaspirated k, usually corresponding to PIE *g) appears before suffixed
-n in some nouns such as jukn /dzukn/ "fish" (*ghdhu:s), mukn "mouse"
(*mu:s), armukn "elbow" (*arHm-us?) unkn "ear" (*(a)us-, pl. akanj^k` <
*), cf. akn "eye" (*okw-: one would expect *ak`-n).  Other u(:)-stems
appear as pluralia tanta (mawruk` "beard" (*smakru-), srunk` "shin"
(*kru:s)).
Finally, there are some cases of -s > -r in Armenian (vb. 2sg. pret.
-ir, -er, certain -u stems like asr "fleece", t`anjr "thin"), maybe
through *zw > *dw.  We know that initial *dw in Armenian develops to
(e)rk-, as in the word *dwo: > erku, which is another mystery in itself.
[followups, if any, to sci.lang]
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal                     ~ ~
Amsterdam                   _____________  ~ ~
mcv@pi.net                 |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig

kalie@sn.no (Kaare Albert Lie) wrote:
>petrich@netcom.com (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>>In article <32805D77.15C8@iceonline.com>,
>>Satrap Szabo   wrote:
>>	To answer your questions, I suggest that you read some good 
>>discussion of the Indo-European question like J.P. Mallory's book _In 
>>Search of the Indo-Europeans"
>And, if I may add, Hans Krahe _Indogermanisches
>Sprachwissenschaft_ and also Walter Porzig _Die Gliederung des
>indogermanischen Sprachgebiets_, for a basic understanding of the
>linguistic questions involved.
>Or some equivalents of those two works in English - if that
>exists?
Robert S.P. Beekes, "Comparative Indo-European Linguistics" is recent
work I can recommend.
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal                     ~ ~
Amsterdam                   _____________  ~ ~
mcv@pi.net                 |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig

Does anyone know if the Basque names for farm animals, crops and basic farm
implements seem to resemble Indo-European ones? The similarity of the various
Indo-European words for 'sheep', for example, is used to suggest that
Indo-European speakers were farmers and herders, and that they moved into
Europe replacing hunter-gatherer populations or cultures who spoke other
language groups (such as the ancestor of Basque). But if indeed the ancestral
Basque-speakers were hunter-gatherers when the Indo-Europeans first got to
them, they must have learnt farming and herding from the new arrivals. So
wouldn't we expect them to have picked up some basic words for animals and
crops from the Indo-Europeans? Is there any evidence that this occurred? If
not, does that imply that in fact the Basque-speakers were the early neolithics
and that the Indo-European languages are more recent arrivals in Europe?

In article <3280E03F.6EE6@netins.net>, Xina  wrote:
>In Bob Brier's "Egyptian Mummies book Im pretty certain that he states
>that DNA tests were conducted on samples of hair taken from the mummy of
>the Elder Lady and from a lock of hair taken from the tomb of King
>Tutankhamun that had been determined was in fact from his grandmother
>Queen Tiye, and a definite match had been made.  I would be interested
>to know what this author *does* know that might refute that claim or if
>Bob Brier mis-read the information. 
>
I thought they used some kind of spectograph to compare the hair samples, not 
DNA tests.  This is not conclusive evidence to all people.  The German 
eqyptologist Renate Germer wrote an article in a German egyptology journal 
about this "identification" and why she does not regard it as conclusive.
Facially speaking, from the photos I have seen of the Elder Lady mummy, she 
resembles Hatshepsut far more than Tiye IMHO.  Of course, since Hatshepsut is 
one of my favorite ancient egyptians, my opinion could be a little skewed .
Amazon  

rejohnsn@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 30 Oct 1996, Gary Lavigne wrote:
> 
> >       What is the glossy black coating on fossilized bones?
> >       One person described it as "varnish". Is it a natural
> >       resin?  Is it deposited on the bone from surrounding
> >       material, or does it come from the bone itself during
> >       the process of becoming a fossil.
> 
> Not that we ARCHAEOLOGISTS are necessarily up to date on what
> PALEONTOLOGISTS are doing, but here's a shot.
> 
> A fossilized bone is not a bone.  It is a rock.  More specifically, it is
> a rock that has the shape of a bone because the organic material in the
> original bone has been replaced by minerals.
> 
> Since a fossil is stone, the range of colors is limited only by the range
> of colors possessed by the minerals of the world.  Many such minerals are
> black, even glossy black.  There are lots of fossils that are glossy
> black because of the minerals of which they are composed.  This has
> nothing to do with the fossil itself, but with the geology of the area in
> which fossilization occurred.  It is not a 'resin', but a characteristic
> of the fossil's component minerals.
One other possibility comes to mind: desert varnish.  It is a black
coating of iron or manganese oxides often found on suficial rocks in 
arid environments.  Can you tell us where the fossil was found, Gary?
Regards,
August Matthusen

In article <55rcfq$hpr@halley.pi.net>,
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal  wrote:
>Robert S.P. Beekes, "Comparative Indo-European Linguistics" is recent
>work I can recommend.
	I got that one recently from http://www.amazon.com , and I agree 
on the recommendation. I especially recommend it for a certain well-known 
squidlike obfuscator (he knows who he is).
-- 
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

Alan Weiner wrote:
> 
> :)  I surmized as much.  I'm a scientist myself (with degrees in
> Mathematics, Biology, and Computer Science) I think what's going on is the
> split (which seems to be rampant in this and other scientific newsgroups)
> between scientific methodology and faith.  Personally, I believe there are
> better forums to debate (if you want to call it that :) science vs religion.
> 
> >>
> >
> >>3) Do you really believe that there is a monolithic scientific
> >>conspiracy that is actually the reason why your religious beliefs are
> >>not confirmed by scientific evidence?
> >>
> >
>I find it very interesting that, for lack of a better term, 'creationists' are trying to use scientific trappings to further their cause. Maybe I'm dense, but I thought religion (at least Christian) is about faith. Why go to the bother of trying to prove what you are supposed to have by faith? I think this means that the scientific process is 2nd nature to at least us Westerners. We were weaned on cause and effect, have actually gone a bit mad about it in some cases, and its spilling over into religion. It's like denying the exsistance of Martians, yet delivering your denial in a Martian language. I actually take it as a good sign! tj (who was raised in extreme isolation of the concept of 'god'...never accepted, never denied, never even mentioned. Until I was 14 I thought people went to church to show off nice clothes and see their friends and sing!)
Falsehood, n. A truth to which the facts are loosely adjusted to an
imperfect conformity.    the Devil's Dictionary   A. Bierce

Hi
I'm trying to find articles/information regarding the sphinx and how it
was built, why and when.  If you have ANY information regarding the sphinx
or websites where I could find useful info could you please mail me.
Thanks
Cathy Puskas
cpuskas@sfu.ca
--

Thus Satrap Szabo:
[Is it] the current popular linguistic viewpoint that none of the
IE languages have seeded from one another, but that they all seeded
more or less directly from proto-IE? 
Seems rather arbitrary to me....
Well, it's hard to answer your question without a clarification of
what you mean by "seeded". But here are some things that I think
would be part of the "current popular linguistic viewpoint".
- All of the IE languages are directly descended from proto-IE. That is
they have been handed down from generation to generation from this common
ancestral language, gradually diversifying into their present forms. There's
no "more or less" about it -- it's the _definition_ of what we mean by
"Indo-European language". 
- Some of these languages can be grouped into "branches" like Celtic, Slavic
and Indic which have had a partially shared history separate from the rest
of IE. Some of these branches may be groupable into bigger-branches (Indo-Iranian,
Balto-Slavic).
- Did all these languages or all these branches develop in total isolation
from one another after the original dispersal? Emphatically not! Early contacts
among the emergent "branches" gave rise to the overlapping innovations
dealt with by Schmidt's "wave theory" of 1872. (I'm looking at the nifty
diagram on p.305 of Anttila's Introduction to Comp & Hist Ling.) At later
stages we have Iranian and Germanic loanwords in Slavic, Latin words in
Germanic, and so much of this and that in Albanian that it took them
quite a while to find the Albanian underneath it all. And much much more.
- But not everything goes. Greek is not a form of Sanskrit. Latin is not
a Germanic language. Identifying and sourcing these intra-IE diffused
elements is hard stuff. Not being a specialist in it myself, I'll say
no more at this point. And now back to the Greeks....
Ross Clark.