Subject: Re: New Study Supports Man Hunting Mammoth to Extinction
From: gerl@Theorie.Physik.UNI-Goettingen.DE (Franz Gerl)
Date: 7 Nov 1996 22:17:13 GMT
rejohnsn@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu wrote:
[...]
:
: It makes intuitive sense that the mammoths may have been hunted to
: extinction. But evidence simply of hunting cannot be taken as evidence
: of hunting-to-extinction. The environment was a lot different ten
: thousand years ago; there are a lot of non-human variables that need to
: be controlled for before we say that humans caused the extinction.
:
Lots of variables is quite vague. The other possible culprit is the
climate change at the end of the ice age. The evidence now is, that
mammoths were not starving, but reproducing vigorously. So what
did push them towards extinction, and the rest of the megafauna
like glyptodonts and giant sloths as well. Any suggestions for these
"variables"?
: Personally, what I think happened is that the mammoths were already on
: the way out when the humans arrived, and that the additional predation by
: humans was enough to push them over the edge sooner rather than later --
: the hastening of an inevitability. If this is the case, saying that
: humans hunted the mammoths to extinction is a half-truth at best, because
: it suggests sustained concentrated hunting of a large population that
: would have survived but for that hunting. This only has precedent in the
: industrial exploitation of various animals in the past two or three
: hundred years.
:
This certainly is not true. Dwarf elephants on Cyprus and Crete,
giant makis and elephant birds on Madagascar, Moas on New Zealand,
wherever prehistoric man arrived the large animals were the first
to go. This is only a matter of scale, the pattern remains unchanged:
The large and easily accessible animals disappear.
: Of course, the hunting hypothesis assumes that people arrived in the New
: World only 10 or 12 kya, a date which is being challenged harder every day.
:
More often than not these claims seem to have an agenda beyond simple science.
I am not holding my breath until a real convincing site shows up.
: What would be interesting to know is, when did mammoths go extinct in the
: Old World? If the hunting-to-extinction hypothesis is right, and the
: date of human migration is right, you would expect mammoths had gone
: extinct earlier in the old world than in the new.
:
The last dwarf mammoths on an isolated Sibirian island were killed off by the
Inuit about 4000 years ago. I would be curious whether the age difference
on the mainland-extinctions has been resolved as well.
Greetings, Franz
Subject: Re: The Coming of the Greeks
From: Saida
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1996 17:21:10 -0600
Thanks for the list, Miguel. It's a keeper and does prove the point,
but...
This conversation is one in which I am just lurking, but, I wonder, are
you sure the German "hell" comes from their "loud" and has nothing to do
with helios or holos? The German "hell", in general, has to do with
things that are "acute", such as "hellhorig", which means "sharp-eared".
Loudness is perhaps not the idea here. Acuity and brightness would
seem to fit the bill better.
Saida
> >I'm referring, for instance, to the fact that philologists have maintained
> >that the initial "s" in a hypothetical form "sawel-yo-" of an equally
> >hypothetical PIE root *sawel, which meant sun, converted to the initial "h" of
> >the Greek word for the sun "helios" but came into Latin unchanged as "sol".
> >This sound shift -- which has come to be treated as a linguistic Law -- could,
> >however, only have been considered a law by ignoring, among other things:
>
> >1) The striking semantic and phonetic resemblance the root of the Greek word
> >for "bright, light" "selas" bears to the Latin word, "sol", for "sun" --
> >which, in addition to being defined narrowly as "a star at the center of this
> >planetary system" is defined only slightly more broadly as "the visible light
> >emitted by the sun"; and,
>
> Greek selas is a variant of the word heile: "sunlight" given above.
> The combination *sw- gave hw- > hw- > h- in some Greek dialects, but
> remained as sw- > s- in others. Compare also the two variant words for
> "pig" in Greek: hu:s and su:s (*swu:s), and several other examples.
>
> >2) The fact that the German word for bright, light, "Hell" which -- AFAIK, has
> >not and cannot be attributed to the Proto-Indo-European *sawel by such a sound
> >shift -- happens to be identical to the root of Greek "helios", thereby
> >suggesting strongly that "Hell" and "helios" were both derived from a
> >prehistoric root of the form .
>
> You obviously haven't read the Odyssey in Greek:
>
> auto:n gar sphetere:isin atasthalie:isin olonto,
> ne:pioi, hoi kata bous Huperionos E:elioio
> e:sthion...
>
> E:elioio (*se:weliosio) tells us that "he:lios" is not the ancient form
> of the word. The root is (h)e:elio- in Homer: obviously, when compared
> to the other IE languages, derived from *se:welio-.
>
> Likewise, if you knew something about the history of German, you would
> find that the original meaning of "hell" was "loud", not "bright". (The
> word is of course connected with a root *kel- ("to shout"), as anyone
> who knows anything about the Germanic languages knows). No relation to
> "sun" at all. And adjectives are not written with a capital letter inGerman.
Subject: Re: The Coming of the Greeks
From: kalie@sn.no (Kaare Albert Lie)
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 1996 00:27:08 GMT
Saida wrote:
>Thanks for the list, Miguel. It's a keeper and does prove the point,
>but...
>This conversation is one in which I am just lurking, but, I wonder, are
>you sure the German "hell" comes from their "loud" and has nothing to do
>with helios or holos? The German "hell", in general, has to do with
>things that are "acute", such as "hellhorig", which means "sharp-eared".
> Loudness is perhaps not the idea here. Acuity and brightness would
>seem to fit the bill better.
F. Kluge: Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache
confirms that 'hell' comes from 'loud'. In Middle High German
'loud' is the prevailing meaning, in Old High German the meaning
'bright' is unknown. It is related to Greek 'kalein' and Latin
'clamare'.
>> >I'm referring, for instance, to the fact that philologists have maintained
>> >that the initial "s" in a hypothetical form "sawel-yo-" of an equally
>> >hypothetical PIE root *sawel, which meant sun, converted to the initial "h" of
>> >the Greek word for the sun "helios" but came into Latin unchanged as "sol".
>> >This sound shift -- which has come to be treated as a linguistic Law -- could,
>> >however, only have been considered a law by ignoring, among other things:
>>
>> >1) The striking semantic and phonetic resemblance the root of the Greek word
>> >for "bright, light" "selas" bears to the Latin word, "sol", for "sun" --
>> >which, in addition to being defined narrowly as "a star at the center of this
>> >planetary system" is defined only slightly more broadly as "the visible light
>> >emitted by the sun"; and,
>>
>> Greek selas is a variant of the word heile: "sunlight" given above.
>> The combination *sw- gave hw- > hw- > h- in some Greek dialects, but
>> remained as sw- > s- in others. Compare also the two variant words for
>> "pig" in Greek: hu:s and su:s (*swu:s), and several other examples.
>>
>> >2) The fact that the German word for bright, light, "Hell" which -- AFAIK, has
>> >not and cannot be attributed to the Proto-Indo-European *sawel by such a sound
>> >shift -- happens to be identical to the root of Greek "helios", thereby
>> >suggesting strongly that "Hell" and "helios" were both derived from a
>> >prehistoric root of the form .
>>
>> You obviously haven't read the Odyssey in Greek:
>>
>> auto:n gar sphetere:isin atasthalie:isin olonto,
>> ne:pioi, hoi kata bous Huperionos E:elioio
>> e:sthion...
>>
>> E:elioio (*se:weliosio) tells us that "he:lios" is not the ancient form
>> of the word. The root is (h)e:elio- in Homer: obviously, when compared
>> to the other IE languages, derived from *se:welio-.
>>
>> Likewise, if you knew something about the history of German, you would
>> find that the original meaning of "hell" was "loud", not "bright". (The
>> word is of course connected with a root *kel- ("to shout"), as anyone
>> who knows anything about the Germanic languages knows). No relation to
>> "sun" at all. And adjectives are not written with a capital letter inGerman.
______________________________________________________________
Kåre Albert Lie
kalie@sn.no
Subject: Tarim Basin in China Daily
From: rus@desktopdata.com (Russell N. Sheptak)
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1996 16:38:15 -0800
(condensed and adapted from a China Daily report on the Chamber World
Network newswire)
radiocarbon dates on the Chawuhugou tombs from Xinjiang makes them
2500-3000 years old, and among the earliest bronze-age ones in China.
One big question they raise is to what degree they reflect an indigenous
local culture, and to what degree they reflect borrowing from other
Eurasian cultures. For example, burials from Hami, in the NorthEast part
of the Tarim basin, show an affinity with north China, while those from
the western part of the basin show affinities with the Ferghana culture
from Asia Minor.
A recent project headed by Liu Yutang, of the Xinjiang Archaeological
Institute, believes that in the Chawuhugou tombs they have found
indications of a local culture.
Chawuhugou peoples buried their dead in the walls of steep gullies formed
by the spring runoff from the mountains. The burial chamber would
gradually taper, the walls often fortified with pebbles and small rocks,
and the opening was usually covered with a stone slab or log. Often
boulders were piled in a triangular form on the surface.
Animal sacrifices were buried separately from the human remains. The
early tombs only held a single body, but later ones held up to four
bodies. Most of the time the dead were placed on their back, with their
arms spread and legs bent, "as if riding a horse". The animal sacrifices
were frequently horse heads.
Common grave offerings included a bronze knife, a pottery basin, a ladle,
and a small cup with a spout. Many of the cups are burned black, possibly
from being placed near the fire.
Liu Yutang analyzed the pottery, which made up about 40% of the recovered
material, and concluded it bore no relation to the pottery in adjacent
parts of china, and thus represented a local product.
Liu's theory is disputed by Shui Tao, a Nanjing University professor, who
published his own hypothesis in the China Cultural Relics Gazette in
August.
Shiu's argument boils down to:
(1) Chawuhugou tombs are not just located next to water
(2) pebble lined shaft tombs are not unique to this area
(3) individual, group, and child-adult burials are found throughout china
(4) the "horse riding position" could be an east or west influence.
(5) the burial objects are not uncommon. "Only the shape and decoration
of the clay ware is characteristic."
Shiu goes on to explain that there are basically two kinds of pottery in
the tombs. The large "fu" and "bo" containers show an affinity with those
of the western Tarim basin. Shiu says the long-necked pot and cups with
handles are more closely afilliated with the cultures in the eastern Tarim
basin. Shiu continues that it is precisely this admixture of influences
that leads the Chawuhugou to develop its own Bronze age.
The article ends with a quote from Sun Hua, professor of archaeology at
Beijing University, calling for more study.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rus Sheptak internet: rus@dnai.com
2679 Simas Ave. rus@world.std.com
Pinole, CA 94564 rus@desktopdata.com
Subject: Re: The Origins of the White Man
From: wvanhou237@aol.com
Date: 8 Nov 1996 04:02:41 GMT
In article <327fe48d.18132390@netnews.worldnet.att.net>, fmurray@pobox,com
(frank murray) writes:
>but let's put aside the pity of an existence that some choose to live
>within and deal directly with the question at hand...you wrote:
>
>>........................... the well documented statistic of the fact
that
>>white people By nature are the most violent people on the face of
the
>>earth, the present and historical statistics shows evidence of these
>>facts.
>
>i challenge you to present such statistics...
>
>frank
>
Carefull there Frank. Statistics are such tricky things. As
evidenced by our
recent election cycle , you can "prove" anything you want with statitics.
All you
have to do is be selective, inventive, or forgetfull. I'm sure friend
Groovy can and
will be all three.
Whatever the amount of melanin in his skin, or the cross-section
of his
hair Mr. You is "prima-facie" a Racist, (note the upper case "R")
However, since
we pride ourselves on our democratic principles, let's all be equal
oppertunity
racists.
Pride of place for the first mother-of -all-mothers is asumed to
be somewhere
in East Africa by some paleo-anthropologists. They've found some pretty
old bones
there. How they got mDNA from fossils is beyond me. Be that as it may, the
boys
from the "yellow peril" country have come up with some pretty convincing
bones
too. Maybe even older than the leaky ones from Olderway Gulch. Now I think
that
we violent, aggressive, guys from the cold country have got to get busy
and find
ourselves an "Eve" locked in mortal combat with the last of the T-Rexes.
Back to Africa! Friend Groovy seems to contend that in Egypt
of any cultural signifigance is "black". What is "black"? Nubian? Bantu?
Coptic?
From my reading, the first neolithic people with what might be called an
organized
"culture" were Saharan people forced into the Nile Valley by a dissicating
climate.
With somewhat later centers arising along the lower Nile. Since a melanin
count
is unavailable, what would keep those Saharans from being of a
circum-mediteranian
brotherhood?
That's enough for this post. But I will have more to say later
about the
advantages of being violent and aggressive.
W F VAN HOUTEN
Older. But wiser ?
Subject: Re: Etruscans [was: Re: The Coming of the Greeks]
From: mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal)
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 1996 03:01:36 GMT
ayma@tip.nl wrote:
>mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal) wrote:
>>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.
>***I would not agree with the "surely", but that's because i find the
>the work of Woudhuizen, showing Etruscan to be a Luwian language,
>rather akin to Lycian, very convincing. Not just in many nouns, names
>and verbs but also in endings and lexical items.
Well, I don't find it all that convincing myself.
>> 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).
>
>**Which are not likely to be borrowings, i would feel.
Indeed not. That's why I think there *is* a connection between Etruscan
and IE, but it's much remoter than Woudhuizen thinks.
>>Other things are
>>completely different (pl. in -ar, past tense in -ce, many lexical
>>items).
>***The idea that -ar indicates a plural is not sufficiently sound
>(even though fairly generally accepted), according to Woudhuizen
>it's more likely an inflection (dativus).
No, it's a plural. Just one example:
Laris Avle Larisal clenar ...
Laris (and) Avle, sons of Laris ...
The noun "clan" (son) makes the plural "clenar", that is abundantly
clear from all the funerary inscriptions.
>... the Anatolian languages did have some oddities compaired to
>other IEs, like f.e. the numeral 4 - Hittite meiu, Luwian mauwa, both
>from an IE root *mei, also to be found in Greek meioon. Apparantly 4
>carried in Anatolia the notion of 'one less of a full hand'? Well the
>link between Luwian mauwa and Etruscan muvalch = 40 presents itself.
Beekes ("De Etrusken spreken", 1991), gives muvalch = 50 (mach = 5).
I can't confirm or deny.
>The Etruscan huth=4 would not be a total alien in your list of IE
>forms of *kwettwores, or would it??
huth can be derived from earlier *kut, and the IE labiovelar *kw (which
was single sound, not k+w) may also be derived originally from k + u.
But that's Pre-Indo-European, taking us back thousands of years:
Anatolian had labio-velars, just like the rest of IE. If a relation
with Etr. huth exists, it must date from very early days (early
Neolithic, I'd guess). Etruscan kw- (E. wh-) words are absent: the
relative and interrogative pronoun seems to have been ipa (Beekes: < in
pa?). Etruscan *kw > p?
>> It may not be too far-fetched to hypothesize that both are
>>descended from a common "Indo-Tyrrhenian" proto-language.
>***Interesting alternative. Would that be:
>Indo-Hittite a Indo-European
> b Tyrrho- Anatolian
> b1 Anatolian
> b2 Tyrrhenian
> b21 Etruscan
> b22 Lemnian
> b23 Raetian
I'm thinking more of:
Indo-Tyrrhenian a Indo-Hittite
a1 Indo-European
...
a2 Anatolian
b Tyrrhenian
b1 Etruscan
b2 Lemnian
b3 Raetian
or maybe:
Indo-Tyrrhenian a Indo-European
...
b Anatolian
c Tyrrhenian
c1 Etruscan
c2 Lemnian
c3 Raetian
>>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).
>***The stele is small indeed, but even in that small sample there are
>close similarities between Lemnian and Etruscan, like
>avis/avils "years", naphoth/nefts "grandson", sialchveis/sialchls
>"sixty", tavarsio/teverath "governor" [Anatolian tawa[r]na/tabarna].
>From the different forms of the related words, it is obviously that
>the two languages are not the same, must have been appart
>for some time, but have a clear common origin. So this
>really refutes the idea that the Lemnian stele is just some monument
>from a Etruscan merchant, an idea advocated by those who want to deny
>the legend that the Etruscans originated from the Aegean.
No, Lemnian was indeed the native lg. on Lemnos, as Herodotus confirms.
Etruscan must have originated in the Aegean. The question is when, and
unfortunately, Lemnian doesn't help to solve that question. The oldest
Etruscan inscriptions date from 700 BC, most are from after 500 BC.
The Lemnos stele is dated to the 6th c. BC. If the Etruscans came from
the Aegean c. 1200 BC, as "Sea Peoples", that would only put between 500
and 700 years of separation between Etruscan and Lemnian. Is that
enough? Can the "Sea People" theory explain the presence of Rhaetian in
the Italian Alps?
>I do not agree with your last line: the last words on the lateral side
>of the Lemnos stele are 'tis thoke', which very likely means 'have
>errected this [stele]", from Luwian 'tu/tuwe' "to erect", so with
>verbal ending -ke, like Etruscan -ce/-ke.
I don't think so: the text clearly reads "tis phoke", and previously
there has been talk of "Holaiesi phokiasiale", probably "Holaios the
Phocaean". In any case, one -ke ending is not nearly enough: there
should be several past tenses in the stele (he did this, or he was that,
or he died at 60 [65?]), which only confirms my suspicion that the -ke
in phoke is not a past tense ending.
I'm not convinced of the translation given by Woudhuizen in "Lost
languages", but I have no alternatives to offer. I really don't
understand the Lemnos stele too well.
In the same book, Woudhuizen also tackles the Pyrgi bilingual, three
golden plaques from Pyrgi (Caere), one bearing an inscription in
Phoenician, two in Etruscan. The Pyrgi bilingue I know better.
The Phoenician text says something like:
"To the lady Astarte. This is the holy place that Thefarie Velianas,
king of Caere has made and given, in the month of offerings to the Sun,
as his private gift (consisting of) the temple and its [enclosure?].
Because Astarte has favoured her faithful in the three years of his
kingship, in the month of Dances [KRR], on the day of the funeral of the
Goddess. And may the years of the statue in her temple be the years of
the stars here."
Woudhuizen translates the Etruscan as:
A.
This temple and this statue, Thefarie Velianas, legislator of the
senate (and) people, has built (it) for the Lady Astarte and has given
the temple-complex(?) to her during (the month) Cluvenia on account of
two obligations: because she has favoured (him) on land: in the third
year (of his reign), (during the month) KRR, on the day of the funeral
of the Goddess, (and) because she has favoured (him) at sea: during the
praetorship of Artanes (and) the sultanate of Achasveros (=Xerxes).
And may whatever (number) of stars yield to (whatever number) of years
for this statue.
B.
Thefarie Velianas has built the precinct for the Goddess Athena (and)
has offered (it) as a sacrifice during the month of offering(s) to the
Sun. May whatever (number) of stars be sporadic as compared to whatever
(number) of years for this temple."
This is what I make of the Etruscan:
A.
ita tmia this temple
ica-c heramasva and this statue
vatieche have been dedicated
unialastres to Uni-Astre
themiasa "caring for" (= curator?)
mech thuta res publica
Thefariei Velianas Thefarie Velianas
sal Sol?
cluvenias offerfeast ? (cleva=gift, offering [see B])
turuce he gave
munistas thuvas of his own gift (thuv- = own [*])
tameresca temple building? (tam-eresca ~ tm-ia, IE *dom-)
ilacve as well as ?
tulerase enclosure? (tular=border)
nac ci avil as three years
churvar Churvar (month) (cf. Phoenician KRR)
tes'iameitale ? she favours him ?
ilacve as well as ?
als'ase ?
nac as
atranes ?
zilacal of the "zilac" (= praetor)
seleitala ? of the goddess ?
acnasvers funeral? cremation? (verse=fire)
itani-m and so
heramve avil the statue year(s)
eniaca just-like
pulum-chva star-count
II.
nac so
thefarie veliiunas Thefarie Velianas
thamuce cleva made a gift
etanal on the idus ?
masan Masa (a month)
tiur month
unias to Uni
s'elace he dedicated
vacal offering ?
tmial of the temple
avil-chval to the year-count
amuce may it be? (-ce = aorist imperative?)
pulum-chva star-count
snuiaph great-er (-aph=comparative)?
I'm not claiming this is a full translation of the Pyrgi texts, and the
middle part of A is still very obscure, but I'm afraid dragging in
Xerxes and his uncle doesn't help much. I think A and the Phoenician
plaque *are* bilinguals, although it's obviously not a word-for-word
translation of one into the other. B seems like a "reader's digest".
[*] Woudhuizen translates thuvas as "two", just like Zacharie Mayani in
his hilarious book "The Etruscans Begin to Speak" (Etruscan=Albanian!).
Woudhuizen should know better: "thu" is "1". Pity of IE *dwo:, but
that's just the way it is.
But why "his own"? The following funerary inscription (TLE 619) should
explain:
"cehen suthi hinthiu thues' sians' etve thaure lautnes'cle caresri
aules' larthial precathuras'i larthialisvle cestnal clenaras'i ..."
Beekes translates: "This subterranean tomb for the first father [etve?]
for the family grave has been built by Aule and Larth of the Precu
family, sons of Larth and Cestnei ..."
"The first father" (thues' sians') makes no sense (neither would
Woudhuizen's "second" father). "Their own father" fits much better,
like it fits to translate "munistas thuvas" as "own (private) gift" in
the Pyrgi inscription (for "munistas" cf. Latin munus, muneris (*munes-)
"service, tax, gift").
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal ~ ~
Amsterdam _____________ ~ ~
mcv@pi.net |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig
Subject: Re: Egyptian junkie pharaohs
From: amherst@pavilion.co.uk (HM)
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 1996 07:25:10 GMT
gates wrote:
>>of the progs content came as any real suprise... it only added weight
>>to the arguement for "Transatlantic Traditions"!
>>
>>However, there are such deep-seated similarities between the two
>>civilisations (Egyptian and Mayan) that I can't help but think that
>>they "re-discovered" each other - hence the travellers being welcomed
>>with open arms on reaching S.America... could it be that they knew
>>that there were "others" around the world because they knew of the
>>great exodus from Atlantis on its destruction and how its peoples
>>scattered globally?
>>
>>On another tack... I need to know about the Egyptians sea-going
>>abilities - can you recommend some sources? What's the earliest known
>>record of this ability etc.....
>>
>>Perhaps Adrian, you feel another book coming on??? I do hope so...
>>
>>Helen Moorfield, UK
>>
>>
>What's the problem? Whateverthe answer is to the questions they are
>guarnreed unanswerable in detail but most people interested in the
>subject know a few things e.g.
>a) Folk from somewhere went to Egypt & they recorded the immigration.
Could you tell me where you get this info from? Where is it recorded?
>As Egypt is up the end of a long lake the incomers
> must have known about the culture and fancied the port in a storm.
Who are the incomers? How would they know about the Egyptian culture?
> There are no records of influxes elsewhere save for a few people in myth, not record, at a
>different time. There can be no correlation between the influx and the
>Siberia meteor for example, or the deluge.
>b) S.A. culture was after the Roman occupation of Egypt according to
>debunkers. So white gods etc. had to come from elsewhere & not even
>Vinland/Scandinavia.
Where/Who says the SA culture came after the Roman occupation of
Egypt?
>c) All such stories carry reports of flying machines which the Indians
>(in India) may have had but they aren't white and the Egyptians didn't &
>aren't caucasian either.
>d) The evidence for Atlantis rests on Homer & could be a reference to
>the incomer story/evidence mentioned for a place near Europe. It is
>much more likely that the fabled Atlantis was on the Pacific coast in
>Chile & no doubt you've all read the articles re that.
I am inclined to be bias toward the site of Atlantis being Antartica.
Homers tale, having been handed down through centuries, is bound to
have its inaccuracies. Particularly intriguing are the old maps (Piri
Reis, Oronteus Finneus, Mercator) that have been found depicting the
southern tip of SA and the coastline of Antartica when it had not yet
been discovered. Not only that but the maps show the outline of
Antartica as it would be ice-free - something we only know today
because of geological/seismological surveys, as it is, of course
covered in miles of ice. How do YOU explain this?
>
>be so for earth movement & ice age reasons back then. Also there is now
>evidence for Pan where a people were terracing a valley in Borneo/New
>Guinea and draining/irrigating it 9000 years ago. (Two geographers
>found the evidence after some archeologists missed it..
Are you a geographer Les? *grin* I like your views - I love to ask
why, why, why - that is how one learns!!
Cheers,
Helen M,
Brighton, UK
>Bye
>--
>Les Ballard Les@gates.demon.co.uk
>c/o BM: Gates of Annwn
>London WC1N 3XX U.K. 44+(0)1708 670431
>Turnpike evaluation. For information, see http://www.turnpike.com/
Subject: Yippe, Yippee, Yipee ! The Pyramid is a RADIO!
From: pmj@netcom.ca(Peter Michael Jack)
Date: 8 Nov 1996 08:53:49 GMT
Well, I guess it's old news to some. But, for me,
I'm a late commer. I only just figured it out.
So, forgive the intrusion. But, here goes. Very
briefly --
The EYE OF HORUS has a very specific meaning.
The eye is represented as a figure with 6 parts.
These 6 parts correspond to the six senses -
Touch, Taste, Hearing, Thought, Sight, Smell.
These are the 6 parts of the *eye*. The eye is the
receptor of *input*. It has these six doors, to
receive data.
The construction of the eye follows very precise
laws. The senses are ordered according to their
importance. And according to how much energy
must be *eaten* by the *eye* for an individual
to receive a particular sensation. All of the
sensory data input is *food*.
In the Ancient Egyptian measurement system,
the EYE OF HORUS represented a fractional
quantification system to measure parts of
a whole. [ Get a book on Egyptian stuff
or scan the internet for Egyptian Math
see for e.g. "Understanding Hieroglyphs"
by H. Wilson, ISBN 0-8442-4604-2 ]
The entire eye measured 1 heqat. And each
of the parts of the eye measured fractions of
the heqat -
^^^^^^^^
===( O )=
/ ||
-/ ||
[ THE EYE OF HORUS ]
These are the parts of the EYE and their corresponding
associated fraction values :-
|| /
|| -/ ===( ^^^^^^^^ O )=
1/64 1/32 1/16 1/8 1/4 1/2
The corresponding sense data are :-
1/64 heqat Touch
1/32 heqat Taste
1/16 heqat Hearing
1/8 heqat Thought
1/4 heqat Sight
1/2 heqat Smell
1 heqat -----
Also, in the Egyptian system there is the unit of the ro.
And by definition 320 ro = 1 heqat. The symbol for the
ro is the mouth, it represented one mouthful. Again
associating these measures with food, or input data.
Now if we consider the ro as the smallest unit of
input energy needed for the input to *register*
as sense data. We note,
320 = 5 x 64 and so in terms of ro we have
5 ro to register a Touch
10 ro to register a Taste
20 ro to register a Sound
40 ro to register a Thought
80 ro to register a Light
160 ro to register a Smell
To see how the drawings of the eye correspond to
the various senses note:-
1. Touch
||
||
1/64 heqat or 5 ro
This part of the EYE represents planting a stick into the
ground. Like planting a stalk that will take root. The
Earth represents touch. Planting itself represents
physical contact and touching.
2. Taste
/
-/
1/32 heqat or 10 ro
This part of the EYE represents the sprouting
of the wheat or grain from the planted stalk. It
is the food we put into our mouth. And so represents
taste. Taste is also = Touch + Shape. That is to say,
the different tastes we experience come from touching
different shapes. So, touch is more a fundamental
sense that taste.
3. Hearing
===(
1/16 heqat or 20 ro
This part of the EYE represents the EAR. The
figure points towards the ear on the face. Also,
it has the shape of a horn or musical instrument.
When we Hear a sound or combination of sounds we
find this to be pleasing or unplesant. The sound
has a taste for us, causing a preference. Sound
requires Touch + Taste and so is a combination of
the lower senses.
4. Thought
^^^^^^^^
1/8 heqat or 40 ro
This part of the EYE represents thought. We often
use our eyebrows to express our thoughts. And this
facial feature is closest to that part of the
forehead we associate with thinking. We raise our
eyebrows to express surprise, for example.
Thought = Touch + Taste + Hearing. If you think :)
about it. Thinking is a kind of surpressed sound.
The language we think in is like the *touch*
of muscle prior to giving voice. And of course,
we have a *taste* for different types of thoughts.
5. Sight
O
1/4 heqat or 80 ro
This is the pupil of the EYE. And so no more
needs to be said. It represents seeing, or
the sensation of light.
6. Smell
)=
1/2 heqat or 160 ro
This part of the EYE points to the nose. It
even looks like a nose. It represents the
sensation of smell.
There is a lot more to this analysis, but
that's the basics.
NOW the Pyramid. I just read the research of T. Nevin
http://www.aloha.net/~hawmtn/pyramid.htm
where he concluded from the base measurement data of
the pyramid that the height of the pyramid is 1/16 of
an inch short of 480 feet. If we accept the hypothesis
that the egyprians used this "old feet" and "old inches"
measures, then the question is why did they deliberately
construct the pyramid 1/16 th shorter than the nearest
roundoff in inches?
Well, 1/16 is the fraction of the EYE that represents
the sense of HEARING! So, could it be that they left this
as a clue to the purpose of the Pyramid? They were
telling us that this is a communications device for
Hearing the messages of the Gods from some other
part of the Universe? Then when you sit in the King's
Chamber, under the right conditions you could hear
the Voice of the individual on the other end.
The oldest wedjat-eye (EYE OF HORUS amulet) we
have is made out of Electrum. Is this another
clue? Seems, that there is a lot of exact science
that got lost and the symbols just became
fetishs for those who didn't understand the
purpose of all the stuff....
Anyway...back to work....
over and out...
pmj
---- End Forwarded Message
Subject: Cat Mask- Someone identify?
From: dturriff@news.dct.com (David Turriff)
Date: 8 Nov 1996 00:29:12 GMT
I am doing a college project, and I am looking for information on a
certain type of cat mask.. I have only a picture. It looks something like
a tager, has almond-shaped eyes, ears that come to a dull point, and two
(yes, only two) unusually thick whiskers.. They are thicker than the
mask's eyes, and run straight across. I know that the Shang dynasty, the
Olmecs, and the Chavins of Peru worshipped cat gods.. could it be from one
of these?
One other artifact, a spotted dog statue, apparently made of wood. Its
mouth is painted across rather than carved, as are its whiskers. It also
appears to be made of segments.. it's body seems to be one piece, both
sets of legs another, and it's head and tail two more pieces, all
attached together. I was thinking it was from India.. any thoughts?
Subject: Re: The Coming of the Greeks
From: petrich@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 11:31:09 GMT
In article <55t94l$jgv@halley.pi.net>,
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:
>Berlant@bellatlantic.net wrote:
>>You wouldn't, perchance, be referring to the words that philologists selected
>>in a flagrantly unscientific manner to falsely raise to a linguistic Law still
>>another of the hypothesized sound shift they would had to have scrapped had
>>they been forced to bring all the relevant words to bear on it?
[A large number of examples of Greek h- corresponding to other-IE s- ...]
>>As you and Mr. Vidal should be aware, the existence of just one counterexample
>>to a law, such as a linguistic sound shift law, is sufficient to invlidate it.
>You are taking the word "sound law" far too literally. Most sound laws
>have a few exceptions.
And sometimes there are reasons for those exceptions, such as
analogy. This is the reason that Germanic for "4" has f- instead of the
expected h-, making it more like "5", and that Slavic for "9" has d-
instead of n-, making it more like "10". See Mark Rose's big page of
number words for more (http://www.tezcat.com/~markrose/numbers.html).
... The Classical Greek word "be:" (the sound made
>by sheep), should have become "vi" in modern Greek. Instead, it is
>still "be:".
I'm sure that the reason here is that this word is an imitation of
what a sheep sounds like (in English, baa), and that is unlikely to have
changed much over the last 2000 years.
... Given your sloppy etymologies, I'm
>amazed that you should think it so.
Maybe Mr. Berland simply likes seeming like a heretic.
--
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