Newsgroup sci.archaeology 49967

Directory

In article <566fke$itj@halley.pi.net> mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal) writes:
>
>It is often said that English is a Franco-Saxon creole.  This is highly
>exaggerated.  I think the terms substrate, adstrate and superstrate are
>more useful. 
>
This was indeeed fashionable at one time, but in recent literature on 
creolization this has been abandoned, as far as I know.  Indeed, it is a 
question if pidgins and creoles antecede colonization and the kind of social 
disruption that this entailed.  Mixed languages and creoles are not the same 
thing.  There is a fanbulous version of Cree from Canada in which the whole 
lexicon, or almost all of it is French, but the grammar remains mostly Cree, 
it I remember correctly.  I can find the reference for you if necessary.

ayma@tip.nl wrote:
>Whatever  'thu' and 'esal' would be, 1 and 2 or 2 and 1, the last does
>have a Lydian equivalent  'isl-' .
Rereading this, I don't understand what you're saying.  Lydian  is
a numeral of unknown meaning?  Must it be 1 or 2 or are other
alternatives possible?  If so, may I suggest "1,000"?  I'm not sure
whether Lydian shares with Luwian the sound law /ki-/ > /i-/ (e.g. Hitt.
kessari- "hand", Luw. issari-, isri-; Greek kheir, IE *ghesr-), but if
it does, the word may be cognate with IE *gheslo- "1,000", Skt. sahasram
(*sm-gheslom "one thousand"), Greek khilioi (*ghesli-), Lat. mi:lle
(*smi: (gh)sli: ?).
Further reflections on the Etruscan/Lemnian numerals:
Mayani (not a very reliable source) says there are also ancient dice
arranged like:
1-2, 3-4, 5-6
and:
1-6, 2-4, 3-5
The first arrangement is useless for the thu=2 thesis, the second one
would lead to:
1=zal, 2=thu, 3=ci, 4=huth, 5=sa, 6=mach.
I'm not very happy with this arrangement, but, assuming we can trust
Mayani on this, it does have one thing going for it: it is an attested
dice arrangement, which the "Beekes dice" is not (or he would have said
so, I presume).
So, to give them all (in Beekes order):
1. thu  (zal? "Mayani dice")
2. zal  (thu? "Mayani dice")
3. ci
4. huth (sa? "modern dice")
5. mach (sa? "Mayani dice")
6. sa   (huth? "modern dice", mach? "Mayani dice")
7. semph
8. cezp
9. nurph
10. sar
20. zathrum
30. cialch
40. ?
50. muvalch
60. sealch
70. semphalch
80. cezpalch
90. ?
100. ?
Upon reflection, I would assign muvalch to 50, with Beekes, despite the
irregularity (one would expect machalch).  "Twenty" is zathrum, an
independent formation (one could see za- as "2 [Beekes]" or as "10", and
-th(r)um as "2 [Woudhuizen]", of course, but the point is that it
doesn't end in -alch).  If "20" is different, then "40" is likely to be
as well (and "20" doesn't even have to be, as Russian dvadcat',
tridcat', sorok "20, 30, 40" show).  The number "40" is probably hiding
somewhere in the Etrsucan corpus unidentified, and it doesn't end in
-alch.
The ending -alch (-alchv(e)i in Lemnian) obviously bears no relationship
to sar "10".  Mayani notes the similarity with Lithuanian -lik (and one
might add Germanic -lif), from IE *-leikw "to be left".  In connection
with the labiovelars, Lemnian -(a)lchv- would make an almost perfect fit
phonetically.  But what makes no sense at all is that Baltic and
Germanic use these suffixes for 11 (one left=eleven), 12 (two
left=twelve), 13 (Lith. try-lika), ..., 19 (Lith. devynio-lika).  I just
don't see what  "30" could be three left of... three hands left
of zero??
A curious thing about Etruscan counting is that the numbers 17, 18 and
19 are "ciem zathrum, eslem zathrum, thunem zathrum" [the last two in
reverse order for Woudhuizen], i.e. 3 from 20, 2 from 20, 1 from 20,
with an -(e)m suffix, which recalls IE *mei- "less", Hitt. meiu- "4".
27..29 etc. work in the same way.  It's really silly of me that I hadn't
noticed this before on the Lemnos stele, but what it says is actually:
"aviz sialchveiz maraz-m (aviz)".  Does that make 65?  The connection
"mara-" ~ "mach" is not a very strong one phonetically.  Could the -m
here be Etruscan -m "minus"?  If so, mara- would have to be 1, 2 or 3.
Maybe 4?  Certainly not 5.  Amazingly, I am inclined to see an
Anatolianism here, where even Woudhuizen doesn't: I would go for 56
(60-4).  Not that I'm so happy with Luw. mawa ~ Lemn. mara "4", but 1, 2
or 3 make even less sense...  Anyway, the guy with the shield looks more
like 56 than 65 to me (of course if "sialchv-" is really 40 or 50
[depending on the dice], that would mean 36 [too young] or 46; or 45 or
55, if -m is simply "and"...).
Some more Etruscan numbers:
TLE 136:
Larth Arnthal Plecus clan Ramthasc Apatrual eslz zilachnthas avils
thunem muvalchls lupu.
Larth, son of Arnth Plecu and Ramtha Apatrua, twice having been zilach,
died 49 years (old).  [once? 48? 38?]
TLE 171:
Avle Alethnas Arnthal cla(n) Thanchvilusc Ruvfial zilach[nce] spurethi
apasi svalas marunuchva cepen tenu eprthnevc eslz te[nu] (eprthieva
eslz)
"Avle Alethna, son of Arnth and Thanchvil Rufia; he was zilach living in
the town of his fathers(?); he functioned as `marun'-ship `cepen' and he
held the `pyrtan'-ship twice (twice `pyrtan')"  [once?]
The above two I feel speak against eslz being "once".  The following has
`thunz':
TLE 324:
Tute Larth anc farthnache Tute Arnthals Hathlials Ravnthu zilchnu cezpz
purts'vana thunz lupu avils esals cezpalchls
"Larth Tute.  Aand he was born of Arnth Tute (and) Ravnthu Hathli.  He
was zilach 8 times and once pyrtan.  Died 82 years (old)." [twice? 81?]
The translation "once" is saved by the preceding "8 times".
TLE 325:
Tutes S'ethre Larthal clan Pumplialch Velas zilachnu ciz zilcti
purts'vavcti lupu avils machs zathrums
"Sethre Tute, son of Larth and Vela Pumpli. He was zilach 3 times.  Died
being zilac and pyrtan 25 years (old)."
Beekes tries to explain this very young three times zilach and even
pyrtan (an even higher function) by blaming it on Roman domination: the
Etruscan dignataries had no real power anymore.  I don't know.  I would
buy "quatre-vingt" if mach could be '4'...
On this unsettling thought, I'll leave it for now...
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal                     ~ ~
Amsterdam                   _____________  ~ ~
mcv@pi.net                 |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig

Rodney Small  wrote:
>A few months ago I posted a message stating that an early edition of the 
>Encyclopaedia Britannica dated the Great Pyramid to 4700 BC.  Martin 
>Stower asked who wrote the Britannica article.  I did not know at the 
>time, but today I went to the Library of Congress to check.  The 
>Britannica edition is the 1910-11 one and the author -- none other than 
>Flinders Petrie.  Does anyone know when the revision to 2600 BC came 
>about, and who was influential in promoting that date?  Thanks.
For Petrie's early adherence to the `long' chronology, see the biography by
Margaret S. Drower.
Martin

edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad) wrote:
>Newsgroup question:
>>                        Is Lucy a Monkey?
>Damn right it is!
>``Lucy"  is nothing more than a member of the ``monkey" family,
>with no connection -- none whatsoever -- to early man.
>The dreamers and hallucinators who led the ``expeditionary" team
>are well aware of the fraud they had attempted to perpetrate by
>claiming it to be a missing link.
>Fact is, the few bits and pieces of what they called ``Lucy" -- to go
>with the vast majority of manmade bonelike additions that were used to
>fill the many gaps -- weren't even found in close proximity.
>Truth is,  ``Lucy" is a mosaic of a few bones that were found over a
>square mile.
>To put it rather bluntly, ``Lucy"  is a mockery of scientific
>integrity (if some still exits in the field of physical anthropology,
>which I sort of doubt)).
Uhm, am I on candid camera?  oh...why did they let Mr. Ed out of
retirement?  He is a talking HORSE for goodness sakes.  Damned Nick at
Nite.  
Hahahahaha.
karen

In article <566c0c$i74@halley.pi.net>, mcv@pi.netÁ says...
>
>ayma@tip.nl wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks for your extensive posting.
This is a fascinating exchange. As I follow the discussion it
appears that much of the translation assumes influences from
places both local and well removed from Central Italy.
I very much appreciate the attempt to give dates as it helps
to see the exchange in its proper historical framework.
I would ask if between c 1600 and c 1200 BC there might have
been some influence from Crete as well as Greece. The Greeks
seem to have been mostly in southern Italy and after c 1200 BC.
>
>Geen dank.
> 
>> mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal) wrote:
>> 
>> >Beekes ("De Etrusken spreken", 1991), 
>> 
>> Beekes' booklet [isbn 90.6283.797.2, in Dutch] btw is a real  gem,
>> simply because of the fact that it makes 'source material' available
>> for the public in handy format, and one would wish this would be done
>> more often in archaeology and linguistics.
>
>Indeed!  I can recommend Beekes' book to everybody (who reads Dutch...).
>
>[Etruscan labiovelars?:]
>> >Etruscan kw- (E. wh-) words are absent: the
>> >relative and interrogative pronoun seems to have been ipa (Beekes: < in
>> >pa?).  Etruscan *kw > p?
>> 
>> ****What about the 'cv'-s in Etruscan? Aren't they likely the way
>> labio-velars were rendered in Etr. script? Like in (Beekes) cvera/cvil
>> "gift[?]". And the name Tanachvil that was rendered
>> in Latin as Tanaquil. But this is just my own speculation.
>> woudhuizen states that there is a kw>k development in Etruscan, and
>> some Anatolian languages show a similar development of labio-velars:
>> IE * kwi - = relative pronoun =  cuiniform Luwian kui-, Luwian
>> hierogyphic chwa- = Etruscan  chva, cve [that is to say,
>> Woudhuizen judges these relative pronouns]
>> IE * -kwe = enclitic copula ['and'] = Luwian hieroglyphic -cha(wa),
>> Lycian -ce, Lydian -k, Etruscan -c(h)/-ke
What is the physical connection that allows Anatolian Luwian
to reach central Italy? Woudhuizen links Luwian with the
Phaistos Disk of Southern Crete. Some of the particulars
of the inscriptions you mention are identical with that artifact.
>
>Etruscan -c "and" seems related to PIE *-kwe (and -m to Hitt. -ma "and,
>but").  But it may be a word-final development.  Initial c(h)v- only
>occurs in cvera/-cvil "gift" in Beekes' wordlist [which doesn't say much
>of course], and I can't think of an IE cognate for it.  I can't see any
>other *kw- words either, not under c-/ch- (pronoun (i)ca ~ IE *ko, ci
>"3" not likely related to *treies), nor under p-/ph- (postposition -pi ~
>IE *-bhi).  The only "clear" cases seem to be  and <-c>, and they
>are contradictory.
>
>["Indo-Tyrrhenian":]
>> >or maybe:
>> >Indo-Tyrrhenian   a Indo-European
>> >                      ...
>> >                  b Anatolian
>> >                  c Tyrrhenian
>> >                      c1 Etruscan
>> >                      c2 Lemnian
>> >                      c3 Raetian
>> 
>> The reason I made my tree like I did, are all the
>> adjective/ethnic/factitive/iterative morphemes
>> Etruscan shares with Anatolian, making it a bit closer to
>> that than to the rest of IE, not? Matter of taste, no doubt, as often
>> with such trees. But you yourself writes:
>> >Etr. 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).
>> The notion "particular" seems better expressed in my tree than in
>> yours? However i realize that tree-models are all too often inadequate
>> for rendering a complex reality.
>
>My second tree (a 3-way split) tries to express that notion, but I still
>feel that Anatolian is closer to IE than to Etruscan.  No doubt Etruscan
>is closer to Anatolian than to IE.  That suggests that Anatolian
>speakers were in contact with Tyrrhenian and IE, but IE not with
>Tyrrhenian.  An initial distribution: Tyrrhenian in the Aegean,
>Anatolian in the Balkans, and IE in "temperate Europe"
>(Sesklo-Starc^evo-Ko"ro"s 6500-5500 BC) fits the linguistic facts.
Why would we look at language associations outside of cultural
associations? If people are talking to each other often enough
to share a language, wouldn't they also trade some artifacts?
Why wouldn't "temperate Europe" be connected to the Balkans
and the Adriatic by its rivers such as the PO? In particular
in a period before people were using domesticated animals
for transportation. For Anatolian speakers to be in contact
the people of the Tyrrhenian or Adriatic sea would the 
contact have been by boat?
>
>[Etruscan-Lemnian-Rhaetic:]
>> If they were one group in 1200, then there would have been 700 year
>> seperate development on Lemnos, and 500 years seperate development in
>> Italy, before either language was written down [ca 500. resp. ca. 700
>> BC] - so a 'gap' of 1200 years....Or am I making a thinking error
>> here?
>
>Yes and no.  Let's just assume 500 BC for both Etruscan and Lemnian to
>make the math easier.  There's only 700 years between each and
>"Proto-Lemno-Etruscan" (which we know nothing about, not even, as you
>say, if it even existed c. 1200 BC: they may have been 2 separate
>lgs/dialects already).  There's an accumulated divergence of "1400
>years", but that's the same as saying "700 years separate development".
I don't follow this. Both have a common point from which they each
diverge 700 years. How is that equivalent to a divergence of 1400
years? Use English as a comparitive example. Take the English spoken
in Scotland and Britain 700 years ago. Are those dialects as relatively
unintelligible to each other today as American English and Anglo Saxon?
>
>> Your point about the Rhaeteans is a valid point, and is one i always
>> thought was one of the few points in favour of the 'native to Italy'
>> thesis. 
>
>Yes.
>
>>However, the Rhaetian evidence is rather scares to draw all
>> too firm conclusions upon. Even  Beekes thinks the elements in
>> Rhaetian are mere borrowed traits from Etruscan, so there need not be
>> a 'racial' link.
>
>Beekes maybe says that because he advocates a recent Aegean origin.
>Chapter 6.4. "De herkomst van de Etrusken" highlights Lemnian, but
>sweeps Rhaetian under the rug, I'm afraid (it's not mentioned, not even
>where he states that Tuscany is such a convenient place for sea-borne
>arrivals).  I'm not saying the Etruscan elements in the Rhaetian
>inscriptions can't be borrowings, but I'm withholding judgement.
Speaking of sea born arrivals, I am interested in the Shardannae
of Sardinia, those folk who had the long horned helmets which seem
to also turn up in Scandinavia. Might they not also have had an
influence on central Italy as well as the Rhone river leading into Gaul?
>
>[Lemnos stele:]
>> >I don't think so: the text clearly reads "tis phoke", and previously
>> >there has been talk of "Holaiesi phokiasiale", probably "Holaios the
>> >Phocaean".
Why is "Holaios the Phocaean" a better reading than 
"Helios the folk festival"? 
words like Holiday, Bachanal, and occasion come to mind...
  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 do not agree  in the 'clearly' and the 'should be' at all, much
>> too firm words.
>
>OK, *I* read a phi, not a theta (and so does Beekes).  There are other
>readings Woudhuizen slips in that I don't like.
>
>This is not easy in ASCII.  Imagine the head of a warrior in profile
>facing left, over what is presumably his shield, a hand sticks out on
>the left side holding a spear.  Around this, different lines of text are
>arranged:
>
>A:
>
> ^       <--\
> |  <------ ^
> |--------> |
>S|<-------- |
>P|-->       |
>E|^  HEAD   |
>A||         |
>R|| SHIELD
******************************
This is used to end each glyph set on one side of the Phastoes Disk.
**************************************
>
>The side of the stele bears another inscription:
>
>B:
>
> | ^ |
> | | |
> | | |
> | | v
> v |
>
**************
A similar glyph is used on the other side of the Phastos Disk
which is considered by some to be a calender
	=||=
	=  =
	=  =
Think of it as the floor plan of a temple with
two rows of pillars leading to a standing stone
or altar
****************
>
>B reads, starting from the top left:
>
> HOLAIEZI:PHOKIASIALE:ZERONAITH:EVISTHO:TOVERONA
> ROM:HARALIO:EPTEZIO:ARAI:TIZ:PHOKE:\
> ZIVAI:AVIZ:SIALKHVIZ:MARAZM:AVIZ:AOMAI
>
>A reads:
>(vertical lower right line:)
> HOLAIE:Z:NAPHOTH
>(top right:)
> ZIAZI:
>(bottom horizontal line and up:)
> ZIVAI
> EVISTHO:ZERONAITH
> SIALKHVEI.Z:AVI:Z
> :MARA.Z:MAV
>(bottom left, two vertical lines)
> VA.M.ALA.SIAL:ZERONAIMORINAIL
> AKER:TAVARZIO
>
>(S and Z are two varieties of s, as found also in Etruscan.
> PH, TH and KH are single letters)
>
>Woudhuizen reads:
>
>1. A. Zivai sialkhveiz aviz maraz-m av(iz aomai)
>   B. Zivai aviz sialkhviz  maraz.m aviz  aomai
>     "Sivai of sixty and five years       died?"
*****************************
Could ZiVai be [ci] vai = three hundred (days) ?
three hundred sixty five [aomai]?
**********************************
>
>comments: I'd connect  with Etr. am(u)- "to be" (amu-ce 
>"he was").  There is an Etr. infinitive(?) in -e.  A past participle
>might work here...
*********************
three hundred sixty five (days have passed) to be (a year)
three hundred sixty five (days have passed)ao(a year)mai(makes)
***************************************************
>
>2. A. Holaiezi  naphoth Zlazi
>   B. Holaiez   phokiasiale
>     "of Holaie [son? of Sla][the Phokaian]"
>   A. vanacasial Zeronai Morinai.c
>     "during the kingship in Serona and Myrina"
>
>comments: the Lycian masc. name Sla is gratuitous, and as I don't see
>any other initial clusters in the text, it goes against the spirit of
>Lemnian.  The text reads "ziazi" (dare I say "clearly"?).
****************************
Just as a possible alternative if "ci" = "zi"
as zivai=three hundred days 
could  zlazi=10; (3 times 3 plus 1 years)
could this mark a tenth aniversary of the founding of two cities?
*****************************
>In "vanacasial" and "morinaic", Woudhuizen slips in two "Etruscan
>spelling" C's which are totally unjustified: the middle "l" is exactly
>the same as the final "l" in "vamalasial" (Beekes reads: "vanalasial").
>The connection with Greek (w)anaks "king, leader" does not hold, I
>think.
>
>3. A. evistho Zeronaith  aker tavarzio
>   B. Zeronaith evistho       toveronarom  haralio
>     "he held? at Serona  ?   governorship municipial?
>
>comments: Woudhuizen doesn't really understand these passages, and
>neither do I.  There may indeed be a connection with the Etruscan
>magistracy "teverath".
>
>4. B. Zivai Eptezio       arai          tiz  thoke
>     "Sivai (son) of Epte for community this erected"
>
>"phoke" or "thoke" has been discussed.I think "eptezio" can be
>connected with "tavarzio" and "haralio", and this -io ending would to me
>seem the likeliest equivalent of the Etr. past tense -ce.  I guess.
>
>[Etruscan numbers:]
>> >[*] Woudhuizen translates thuvas as "two",
>> >Woudhuizen should know better: "thu" is "1".  Pity of IE *dwo:, but
>> >that's just the way it is.
>> 
>> ****He does not think so.  He treats the numerals at lenght in
>> Talanta, volume XX/-XXI, 1988/89.
>> Whatever  'thu' and 'esal' would be, 1 and 2 or 2 and 1, the last does
>> have a Lydian equivalent  'isl-' .
>
>The numbers of course hinge on the famous Tuscan dice:
>
>          SA
>ZAL HUTH MACH  THU
>          CI
>
>The Pyrgi bilingual fixes "ci" as 3.
***************
does "ci" to "zi" seem like a possible shift?
******************
>
>          facing side:
>ci = 3    sa =
>zal =     mach =
>huth =    thu =
>
>Modern dice have facing sides summing 7, which would imply sa=4.
>However, the Greek PN Hyttenia/Tetrapolis, as well as the name "huths"
>written next to one of the 4 Charun daemons on an Etruscan grave
>painting, seem to suggest that huth=4, and sa=6, which is attractive.
>In that case, the rule would be that the difference of opposing sides
>must be three.  According to Beekes:
>
>ci =  3,   sa = 6
>zal = 2, mach = 5
>thu = 1, huth = 4
>
>If zal=1 and thu=2, and keeping ci=3 and huth=4, I see no rule the dice
>could follow, but then my mathematical imagination is very limited.
>What does Woudhuizen say about the dice in Talanta?
>
>[Pyrgi bilingual:]
>> >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 
******************
sians = cians, = 3 years; rather than (scions)
********************
>> >(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").
>> 
>> ***The problem is that the meaning of sians is not really known. There
>> is a divine epitheton 'sans' that *perhaps* could mean 'father'
>> [Beekes p.48], but to think that 'sians' is the same word is one leap
>> further....
>
>True.  That's the essence (and the danger) of Etruscology.
>
>> The translations 'first/second father' could make sense if the boys
>> had a stepfather ['second father'] or the grave was used to put the
>> oldest known ancestor ['first father']  in. Actually, the word 'thues'
>> could well have nothing to do with the numeral, as later in the text
>> 'tunur' is used, a distributive of the numeral, and that is not
>> written with a 'th'. Now the regular forms were thu/thunur, and
>> obviously regional writing varients with 't' did occure; but surely
>> not in the same text? So agree with you here that there is no need to
>> see 'thues'/'thuvas' as a form of the numeral. But whether  the
>> meaning 'own' is attractive..... For which father would they build a
>> grave than their own?! Seems superfluous.
>
>But not impossible.  I expect Latin funerary inscriptions also to use
>"pater suus" sometimes.  And, as I said, it fits in the Pyrgi bilingual.
>It would be interesting to do a search for t(h)u(v)- in Pallottino's TLE
>(Testimonia Linguae Etruscae, AFAIK the last important scholarly book to
>be written in Latin [but there's really very little of it]), to see if
>it occurs elsewhere.
>
>> And you have some suggestions found by neither of the two:
>> - 'tulerase' - temple domain, area set apart for sacred use? - 'tular'
>> = border, rather attractive
>> - 'acnasvers' - burntoffering? - 'verse'=fire
>> - 'tesiameitale' - she favours him? - perhaps  rather connected to
>> 'tes[am]' = "to care for"?
>> - 'sal cluvenias' = offerfeast for Sol - cleva ="gift"
>> - 'snuiaph' = greater?
>> The 'cluvenias'  is attractive, as that would render the words in the
>> Phoenician text more closely. But the Sol is not, as the Etr had their
>> own name for the sungod, and this element 'sal' appears in many text,
>> apparantly as some verb? Perhaps a form of the verb 'selace' later on
>> in the text? Beekes thinks 'sal/sela'  means 'to do'/'to dedicate',
>> Woudhuizen has 'to offrer as sacrifice' [with possible connection with
>> Luwian 'sarla' of the same meaning].
>
>True, "Sun" is usil (IE *sa:wel- as everybody knows by now), and the Sun
>goddess (!) is Ca(u)tha (Might be a Greek loan, cf. Lat. cauterium, <
>Grk kaute:rion "branding iron", from kaiein "to burn").  Still, the
>Phonician says SHAMSH, and this is the only word that I could fit to it,
>at the cost of a god's name borrowed from Italic (and I don't even know
>if the Umbrians, say, worshipped Sol under that name).  I tried very
>hard to see the Etruscan A text as a real bilingual.  But make that two
>question marks after Sol.
>
>> What is the basis of your notion of 'snuiaph'? Only this text and its
>> context? 
>
>Yes.  All I can say is that -aph looks like an ending, and so snuiaph
>"feels" more like "greater" than like "equal", which I think are the
>only two general translations which are adequate at that place.  Again
>something to look up in TLE.
>
>>And why do you render ''-chva' as '-count'? And not as a
>> collective as Beekes does?
>
>I can't translate a collective.  But that's more or less what I meant by
>"-count".  I couldn't just translate it as a plural, not after having
>insisted to you that the plural was -(a)r :-)
>
>
>==
>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal    
steve

In article , petrich@netcom.com says...
>
>In article <565i25$9a2@fridge-nf0.shore.net>,
>Steve Whittet  wrote:
>
>>Care to put a number on it in terms of the number of vocabulary
>>words used?
>
>>Lets try       number of vocabulary words in a culture
>>                       number of cities of 25,000 plus people
>>c 7000 BC
>>c 3000 BC
>>c 1200 BC
>>c 500 BC
>
>>and then compare that with any modern language you care to name.
>
>        Why not study some New-World or Australian or New-Guinean
>languages some time?  These are spoken by people whose technology is (or
>at least had been when they were discovered by European explorers)
>comparable to that of eastern-Mediterranean peoples at the earlier times
>on your list. 
Just plug the numbers in, that should answer the question.
I don't happen to have a dictionary listing the number of words
in a native american language, or for that matter aboriginal
Australian. I think Tagalog is spoken in some parts of New Guinea
and the Philipines. The vocabulary of Tagalog will do, or Vietnamese 
if you prefer. Compare the number of words in those languages to the 
number of words in English, Latin, Greek and Sumerian.
I would be suprised if you do not find a correspondence between
population size and vocabulary size for any culture you care to look at.
>
>-- 
>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
>
>

Peter Stephen Thomas III wrote:
> 
> OX-11 (jacob@omicron.csustan.edu) 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.....
> :
> :
> 
> Please explain in detail how it is possible to determine the sex of a
> being from a single foot print.
> 
> Also please explain how you came to the conclusion about her acrobatics at
> the time this foot print was made.  You speak as if you have video or film
> of her preforming this act.
> 
> Peter THomas
> --
> Bearhugs & Footrubs
> "I'll lose my beard when they shave it from my cold, dead face!"
> Quote from the Razor's Anonymous Handbook
> Peter Thomas is pst@csd.uwm.edu  B3/4 f+ t w- s r k+  (aka Freyr on IRC)
> **************************************************************************
> ** FIGHT THE CDA!!  DON'T LET THEM TAKE AWAY YOUR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION **
> **************************************************************************
Isn't Science supposed to take into account actual OBSERVATION? and not
call into existence unobserved things complicating things?  By actual
observation, one of the greatest causes of mass extinctions is MAN.  We
have gone from being animals in caves to being able to exterminate the
entire planet in a few thousand years.  You have green glass under a
bunch of mud hut 'civilizations' in the middle east, green glass in the
Gobi, in Lybia, Arabia, you have 'forbidden zones' a la planet of the
apes in Australia where the natives think it is death to go out there
and you dig under the sand and find green glass. In 4 billion years lord
knows how many times 10,000 years of 'progress' can come and go, and how
many mass extinctions were caused by some 'civilization' developing and
getting wiped out.  You could have had space going civilizations any
number of times.  So a foot print in a couple hundred million year old
coal seam is no supprise, or machined screws in quartz, or machined
metal objects found in coal.  Your bible thumping fruitcakes who think
the world is only a few thousand years old are off by thousands of
TRILLIONS of years (for the universe at least).  What is missed is that
this planet has been DEGENERATING not evolving.  Heck, even a couple
hundred years ago people KNEW they were immortal spiritual beings who
lived again and again. Even fruitcake Christianity taught/knew this up
till about 453AD when the psychotic wife of a Byzantine emperor had tens
of thousands of people put to death to wipe out this 'herasy' - since if
you knew you were gona come back, being put to the sword didnt make you
back off your political convictions - it was only the most degraded
motives of political control that prompted this you see, this assault on
the truth about Man.  Virtually every culture in the world except recent
west for thousands of years have had this view of man - until your
German 'Man is an animal from mud' Psychiatric/NAZI criminals.  So, it
seems to be much too much to ask people to just confront what is in
front of their face in plain view.  If they found a bunch of buildings
in lava it would be explained away. Roads that go off the coast of
Yucatan and come up on islands  out at sea.  Cave paintings under 400
feet of water off Yucatan with carved heads.  Hell, cave paintings in
the Caucasus of a flying saucer fight and arial attack on a city or base
of some sort.  Funny thing that the language in the Pyranees has NO
INDOEUROPEAN ROOTS OF ANY KIND WHATSOEVER - but is somehow related to
the language near these cave paintings. Indo Markabian? (joke). Or hey,
Banannas - which cant reproduce without MAN? Who genetically engineered
THAT one? 
Or a bag of Phoenecian coins in central america.  Heck, go to Palenque
in Yucatan, under 9 coats of plaster they found Aramaic
inscriptions!!!!! In case you dont know - that was the language of the
near east at the time of Christ.  Or the dates in Mayan calanders of
over a MILLION years ago? Or the account of an atomic war in ancient
Indian texts.  And now think about this - RIGHT NOW ON THIS PLANET THERE
ARE STILL STONE AGE CIVILIZATIONS COEXISTENT WITH ATOMIC POWER.  
And if you REALLY want to blow your mind, start regressing people and
you find out just how LONG people have been around and WHERE.  And why
they are now amnesiac about their own spiritual nature.  
So lets hear more about some of these 'impossible' things dug up.  Get
it out into the open.  Anyone talk to oil field workers - there is a
place for stories.  Any 'theory' that is ACTUALLY 'Scientific' is going
to have to account for ALL the facts and 'anomalies' and the crap they
fed us in school just does NOT cut it.
cyberguy

	I need some help in doing a term paper for my Archaeology degree.
All I need is some sources of archaeological digs in Scotland relating to
the Jacobites and the '45. My one major source turned out to be a
psychic-archaeologist, who read the aura's of artifacts. Obviously, that
is not a valid source. If anyone has any information that could be of
help, or could point me in the right direction it would be greatly
appreciated. Thanks.
Dan Stewart

Eliyehowah (elijah@wi.net) wrote:
: Lurk Invisible wrote:
: > BTW why is god going to let satan back loose in the world after a
: > thousand years in the millenia...bored without him?
: 
: Satan is released in two ways.
: ************
: A voice crying out and going unheard,
: (40 years Oct 7) Nehemiah's (9:1) 50th JUBILEE of Tishri 24 
: God's 1000 years has begun Sep 14 of 1996.
: http://www.execpc.com/~elijah/Ezra1991CE.gif
  In my chronology (see "Game of the Gods") - laid out in Chapter
  20 of the Book of Revelation - the first 1000 years after the
  appearance of Christ was a historyless period, a kind of
  in-gathering of the "Children of God", This period ended with
  the formal organization of the true "Holy Roman Empire" in
  966 AD and thus began the Renaissance (the begining of the period
  when "they lived with Christ for a Thousand years.". This
  period was not ended in a clear cut way but deteriorated with
  the Age of Enlightenment. We can say however it formally ended in
  1966. What began to happen at that time permits no ambiguity
  about thre beginning of the reign of Satan who was released
  "fopr a little season". There is much confusion about the nature 
  of "Saton". All that Satan is, is the God of Physical Universe.
  The Atheist God. As to what will happen now, I will be happy to
  post my projection if there is an interest.  Please include
   in your postings.  PUBLIUS
                                                            : 

Saida wrote:
> 
> Eliyehowah wrote:
> 
> > Satan is released in two ways.
> > First in the manner of man's sin returning. That is to say that
> > the ways that humans must ecologically live to retain the Earth
> > in Paradise and to prevent human aging and death requires that
> > he NOT have many things he does NOW. This means that when
> > 1000 years passes, a dissatisfaction will grow as regards Paradise.
> >
> > Secondly, the actual Satan will be let loose because he disrupted
> > the world when it was ONLY two people, not waiting til it was full
> > to see if ALL humans feel the same as Eve, or feel the same as Adam.
> > He disrupted it because he wanted the position as father or mother
> > as Adam and Eve were given, and as God as his heavenly firstborn
> > creation also shared in fathering all sensient creation.
> 
> I seem to recall another guy who talked like you, even looked like
> you--kind of hairy but cute.  Wound up with his head on a plate because
> of some dancing dame.  Added it to her collection, I guess.  This dude
> really was a voice crying in the wildnerness, but you have the whole
> Internet, it appears.  I'm not asking you to trim your beard--just your
> headers--say, after the first two newsgroups.  The wages of sin, eh?
> Most people are willing to do it for nothing.
YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY INSANE. WHAT - DO YOU LOOK INTO THE BURNED OUT CINDER
OF YOUR OWN IMMORTAL SOUL AS A MODEL FOR EVIL? SATAN IS A CROCK OF FOLK
STORY.

In article , petrich@netcom.com says...
>
>In article <565j2o$9a2@fridge-nf0.shore.net>,
>Steve Whittet  wrote:
>
>>I think Stellas question is where do English, French, German,
>>Italian, Spanish; the Romance languages, Celtic, Anglo Saxon 
>>Old Norse latin, Greek and all the rest of the contributers 
>>to English get their vocabulary from.
>
>>There are several things at work here. First off most of the words
>>in your list have IE antecedants. Where are those coming from?.
..snip...
>>If thats the case, and we track the word back to its original
>>point of origin, chances are it arrived either on horseback
>>or by boat. My premise is that people used the rivers to 
>>transport their goods by boat at least as often as they
>>carried them on horseback.
>
>        There you go again.
>
>        There is a third way to carry stuff: on your back. 
>Have you ever used a backpack?
Actually, yes I have. I have even on occasion lugged a backback
full of rocks through an airport, it can be fun going through
customs. I would not want to transport copper ore in a backback
several hundred miles through the alps. I have also carried
building materials to sites some miles from the nearest road
using a wheelbarrow. It tends to be a bit expensive. I would 
also be hesitant to transport bulk shipments of grain or wine
that way. 
>-- 
>Loren Petrich   
steve

Michael and Kimberly Burkard wrote:
> As far as your sources, I don't recall seeing you answer too many
> people's requests for your sources with anything but abuse. Nobody
> is "destroying" your work save maybe yourself. You are abusive
> and your posts to such groups as alt.mythology, alt.archaeology,
> sci.archaeology, alt.pagan, and others are pretty much the
> same as spamming/trolling on those groups. I can see why
> people have complained to your service provider. I admit
> I have done so myself because I don't feel your posts are
> appropriate in their content especially for the groups you have
> been posting to.
> Nobody is doing *anything* to you, Elijah. You are doing it
> to yourself.
As far as sources go, I hold private email conversations with Xina
and have given her SOME sources (which have NOT been posted)
and so you would not know of. Further, my problem is not with Xina
but with those who wish to post to defend her side of our debate.
She has said in email that she doesnt want your defense anymore than
I myself wish to tolerate your pestering my postmaster. As far as posting
goes, it is I who frequently wishes to share debates as posted rather
than by email. This is NOT as some do, a wish to be open so as to gather
a crowd of witnesses to who says what. But rather the wish to share
the info posted so others can benefit by choosing whose info they
wish to accept.
As far as this header of newsgroups goes, it is a reply to a thread
already existing in all these newsgroups.  I have never pasted or posted
to the groups you mention but only hit a reply key and stuck to the
topic of the post I was replying to.  If that topic is already off it is not
my doing, and you prove that you wish to complain about me not them.
Apparently other posters felt these subjects are of these topic newsgroups.
So dont accuse me of crossposting.
If you can tolerate their post, you can tolerate my reply.
Unless you aim to prove your heart at war; of which labeling people
as spammers and trollers proves the heart of the one speaking.
What makes you think your not guilty of witch hunting the innocent.
It is not for you to tell me I cant reply to a post already off topic by someone else.
And it doesnt make sense to send it to the correct group where it wont be read.
Afterall, your reply itself is no more than a complaint, it is not about any of
the newsgroups you have reatined in the header, and you have sent it to
all these newsgroups instead of editing it down to only alt.complaints.
So clearly you wish to merely choose who speaks freely and who cannot.
Especially since your reply is now guilty of the same thing I do.
************
everyone benefiting from my work please email
my postmaster, my site will move unless those appreciative
send email to counter those trying to destroy it
************
A voice crying out and going unheard,
(40 years Oct 7) Nehemiah's (9:1) 50th JUBILEE of Tishri 24 
God's 1000 years has begun Sep 14 of 1996.
http://www.execpc.com/~elijah/Ezra1991CE.gif
Discover the world's true chronology thru the Bible at
          http://www.execpc.com/~elijah

And so far, no takers.  Their silence speaks volumes.  Actually, there is 
plenty of precedent for scientific theories being surpressed and later 
turning out to be true.  One representative example (uh, can we say it is a 
fact at this point, or is this in question too?  :) that the earth is not the 
center of the solar system.  Oh wait, I guess that makes a different point. 
That's one of the many examples of religious revisionists trying to rewrite 
science to support their religious beliefs.  I'm sure glad that doesn't 
happen in today's modern world...
In article , Steve@vinery.demon.co.uk 
says...
>
>In article <55nhn0$bo6@news2.cais.com>, Alan Weiner
> writes
>>Pls support your premise with some facts.  Name some discoveries that 
>>were surpressed and later found to be valid.
>>
>This is an excellent request which will make most of the anti science
>brigade twitch. The problem is that scientists and non-scientists often
>publish 'theories' & 'results' which are criticised, mocked and
>occasionally attacked with vitriolic venom. And sometines the original

>I intend to support your web site. How can I email your postmaster?
whenever anybody gives you trouble or
needs your help,
all you have to do is mail to.....
postmaster@
and finish it with the last of their mail address.
For example, I am elijah@wi.net
with postmaster@wi.net
Of two services I went to using this for email
because others were claiming my self-defending as abuse and
mailing to my website service.....
My address being also at elijah@execpc.com
and thus postmaster at execpc.com
said they did not like the complaints.
So if someone is out of place with me you can mail their postmaster
in this way, and if you wish to support me, you can also mail mine in this way.
*****  Since postmasters wish to receive very little mail to deal with,  ******
the attack on others (thru their postmasters) will do more in results,
than the compliments to my postmaster. Compliments should be brief.
This will keep others in line,
or it will move the law into governing the moraless chaos of the internet.
I do not expect anyone to agree with my beliefs....
I do not believe that God chooses to interfere with,
or rule the internet. This statement should please atheists
who are always confronted with religions who *DO*
want government to rule using God's morals.
Yet noninterference does NOT mean that Satan should
be permitted to have absolute rule over moral people
communicating God's thoughts over these lines.
I have seen so much foul speech on this NET with no complaints
until someone religious speaks, (and then is not even permitted
to say ALL WILL REAP and DIE FOR SHIT THEY SOW).
If an atheist can slam God
in a Noah's flood post found in a religion newsgroup, then
certainly an Ice Age or evolution post in talk.origins,
archaeology, history, and science can face the fact that
many of us believe that REAL history is in agreement with God.
As prophesied, we already know the world intends to rise up
and surround true believers; trying to eliminate them.
************
everyone benefiting from my work please email
my postmaster, my site will move unless those appreciative
send email to counter those trying to destroy it
************
A voice crying out and going unheard,
(40 years Oct 7) Nehemiah's (9:1) 50th JUBILEE of Tishri 24 
God's 1000 years has begun Sep 14 of 1996.
http://www.execpc.com/~elijah/Ezra1991CE.gif
Discover the world's true chronology thru the Bible at
          http://www.execpc.com/~elijah

In article <565ha7$18c@halley.pi.net>, mcv@pi.netÁ says...
>
>scastro@dino.conicit.ve (Sol Maria Castro) wrote:
>
>>       A student of mine asked me in class if there was any connection
>>between the Celts (we were reading about the origin of Halloween) and
>>the Gypsies. Is there any that you know of?
>
>No, no hay ninguna relacio'n.
>
>The Gypsies speak an Indo-Aryan language, and they probably came from
>Northern India (Kashmir?), through Iran and the Near East. 
The characteristics of the gypsies are quite interesting in this
regard. They are noted horse trainers, traders and theives like
the Hurrians, Mittani, Kasites and Kurds. They appear to have 
transported themselves by means of wheeled carts and wagons
in which they lived. They are reputed to have a flair for
languages and also for tinkering. Their organization is by
household, family, clan and tribe, not by state, even though
they claim to have a king.
>One group moved to Egypt and North Africa to Spain 
>(egiptanos > gitanos, gypsies),
One thing you really have to give the Roman Empire, their
engineers built roads and harbors which made it a lot easier
for people to get around. By 200 BC there are Roman coins
in both China and the Casserite islands (Britain)
The Gypsies probably were a part of the traffic.
I had heard that these were two separate groups and that the 
Gypsies arrived in Europe along with Montanism, Manicheism, 
and Pelagianism as emergent forms of Christianity, or perhaps
fleeing from it.
There is a really insteresting diagram of the spread of
early christian communities on the Egyptian model on page
93 of the "Times Atlas of World History"
It gives Thagaste to the south of where Carthage had been
c 388 AD and Hippo Regulus on the coast c 390 AD.
Thence the trail leads through Sardinia, Corsica and the
Balerics to Casearaugusta in Spain, which is not an Egyptian
community and Primuniacum, Lennium, Massilia, and Vercellae
c 360 AD all of which are on the French/Italian Riviara.
From there they spread up the Rhone to Mons Locogiagensa,
Mons Cainonese, Maus Monostereum in Gaul and Candida Casa
Near Glasgow c 360-432 AD
From there Celtic monasticism spread back through Britain and Gaul
to Germany.
A separate wave spread through Syrio-Anatolia 
at about the same time even as the Goths and 
Black Huns first appear in Europe, c 370 AD.
>the other to the Balkans and from there to Central and Western Europe
>and to Russia (known as tsigany in Russia, zigeuner in Germany).  There
>is an important gypsy community in Wales, but that is the only Celtic
>connection I can think of.
The connection with early forms of Christianity which later
were downgraded to Heresy's and then subject to the Inquisition
is I think interesting. Things like Tarot cards are associated
both with the gypsies and preserving ancient natural philosophy
and alchemical knowledge from the dogma of the church.
>
>
>==
>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal    
steve

On Sat, 09 Nov 1996 13:28:24 GMT, edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad)
wrote:
>Fact is, the few bits and pieces of what they called ``Lucy" -- to go
>with the vast majority of manmade bonelike additions that were used to
>fill the many gaps -- weren't even found in close proximity.
>
>Truth is,  ``Lucy" is a mosaic of a few bones that were found over a
>square mile.
to which, paul myers responded:
>Another conradian spam. followups redirected to talk.origins...if you
>must, follow it there, but otherwise please ignore this clown.
and then in a separate post paul said:
>No...and I'm trying to persuade everyone to ignore this clown and post
>any replies to talk.origins, instead.
and then in a third post said:
>Please reply to any messages from Ed Conrad in talk.origins -- they do
>not deserve any commentary in the sci newsgroups.
along the way rohinton collins added:
>These types of posts are really infuriating. Please could you stop
> posting to sci.anthropology.paleo (or for that matter sci.anthropology 
>and sci.archaeology).
and steve "chris" price put in:
>This is rich!  Can anybody is the sci.* groups take Ed seriously anymore?
several others added mocking words of their own...but none rose to
meet the challenge of ed conrad's claim that:
>Fact is, the few bits and pieces of what they called ``Lucy" -- to go
>with the vast majority of manmade bonelike additions that were used to
>fill the many gaps -- weren't even found in close proximity.
>
>Truth is,  ``Lucy" is a mosaic of a few bones that were found over a
>square mile.
i suggest that if these worthies are to continue to post to sci.
groups,  they should take that "sci." seriously, drop the ad hominem
attacks on ed, and post evidence refuting ed's claim...if ed's claim
is substantially correct, they should so state, and then present
arguments of interpretation...
the argument that: "i don't agree with you, so you had better shut up,
or i'll have you thrown out of here" may prevail within parts of
academia, but this is the net....
frank

On Mon, 11 Nov 1996 00:08:37 GMT, 100714.1346@compuserve.com (GuR)
wrote:
>It would be great, if there is someone, who can give me some
>informations about the outgoing or the ongoing of the discussion of
>this subject.
i think you'll find v. has little support for his theories among
archeologists...his work is generally discarded in whole, which is
unfortunate...
you might enjoy reading his "oedipus and akhnaton"...a short,
brilliantly argued, and largely ignored work...read it as companion to
cyril aldred's "akhenaten"  (same guy, different spelling - best i can
figure, spelling of those ancient names is picked by the same criteria
that a slightly vain, yet insecure, young lady uses to choose which
dress to wear to the party)...where aldred fudges or throws his hands
up in confusion, v. offers solid evidence and argument...i've tried to
find detailed, point by point, knowledgable consideration or
refutation of this book; but without success...
frank

GuR wrote:
> 
> Mr. Velikovski made in his book "The people of the sea" the statemant,
> that the Egyptian Pharao Ramses III. has not lived in the 1200BC, but
> around 375BC. Together with this statements he arrangend the sequence
> of the Egyptian kings since the Hyksos in a new way.
> 
> I have never heard, if his sequence has been proved with
> radioncarbon, thermoluminescens or any other physical method, or if
> his ideas found their way to Egyptology.
> 
> It would be great, if there is someone, who can give me some
> informations about the outgoing or the ongoing of the discussion of
> this subject.
> 
> Thanks in advance, GuR.
If Velikovsky actually said that Ramesses III lived in 375 B.C. then I 
would have to say he was on something.  The evidence shows this could 
not possibly have been the case. Ramesses III was a 20th Dynasty 
pharaoh.  The Great Harris Papyrus, the longest known papyrus from 
ancient Egypt, tells of his deeds, and is dated to the day that Ramesses 
died in 1151 B.C.

In Article, 
 writes:
> In article , Jim Cobbs
>  wrote:
> 
> Actually, it's my understanding that the block that 
> > containting the hole into the shaft originally was not cut all 
> > the way through.  This means that there was absolutely no 
> > visual evidentce from the Q's chambers side that the shaft 
> > entrance existed.  It's existence was guess by an Englishman 
> > in 1873 based on the shafts in the K's chamber.  After some 
> > banging on the wall the hollow cavitity in the block was 
> > discovered and broken into by brute force.
> 
> Waynman Dixon spotted it by "perceiving a crack" in the wall. So why was
> there a crack? 
> 
	Well, the area did take a truely massive earthquake in the 1300s and if 
the last 5 inches of the block where not cut through then there was an inherent 
weakness in the block's face.  It, like quite a few other blocks, are 'cracked' in 
one way or another.  That structure has been there for a LONG time;, and time 
takes it's toll, even withoutt the predations of humans.
	In any case Dixon's gofer cut through  5 inches or so of solid stone to 
reveal the 'shafts' and not through some sealing material such as bricks, etc...

whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>In article <565ha7$18c@halley.pi.net>, mcv@pi.netÁ says...
>>
>>scastro@dino.conicit.ve (Sol Maria Castro) wrote:
>>
>>>       A student of mine asked me in class if there was any connection
>>>between the Celts (we were reading about the origin of Halloween) and
>>>the Gypsies. Is there any that you know of?
>>
>>
>>The Gypsies speak an Indo-Aryan language, and they probably came from
>>Northern India (Kashmir?), through Iran and the Near East. 
>>One group moved to Egypt and North Africa to Spain 
>>(egiptanos > gitanos, gypsies),
[etc.]
>I had heard that these were two separate groups and that the 
>Gypsies arrived in Europe along with Montanism, Manicheism, 
>and Pelagianism as emergent forms of Christianity, or perhaps
>fleeing from it.
>There is a really insteresting diagram of the spread of
>early christian communities on the Egyptian model on page
>93 of the "Times Atlas of World History"
[etc.]
This would all be very interesting, were it not for the simple fact that
the start of the Gypsy migrations is generally dated to the 11th century
AD, and that they reached Europe somewhere in the 14th and 15th
centuries.  Not nearly in time to catch the spread of Early
Christianity.
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal                     ~ ~
Amsterdam                   _____________  ~ ~
mcv@pi.net                 |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig

Eliyehowah wrote:
> As far as sources go, I hold private email conversations with Xina
> and have given her SOME sources (which have NOT been posted)
> and so you would not know of. Further, my problem is not with Xina
> but with those who wish to post to defend her side of our debate.
> She has said in email that she doesnt want your defense anymore than
> I myself wish to tolerate your pestering my postmaster.
(snipped)
To all who have been patient enough to wade through this thread:
I would like to clarify what I did say in email to Elijah.  While I do
thank those of you who support what I have said here in my disagreement
with Elijah, no one but NO ONE has the right to speak for me but me.  I
agree that this thread has gotten somewhat out of hand on both sides. 
It is for this reason, that I intend to state the facts as I have found
them, citing my sources, and in turn I expect Elijah to do the same.  
There will be no abuse, no name calling no personal threats or the like
in this entire debate.  This is archaeology, we are (mostly) adults, it
is therefore to be expected that we behave in an adult and respectful
manner. 
I would like to make a few proposals of my own, if I may:
1)No inflamatory subject Lines:  lets keep it simple and to the point.
2)Citation of all sources used in each article of this  debat:.  Any
assertion or data *not* backed up by appropriate resources in each post
will be considered disqualified.
3)Personal attacks will not be tolerated. 
I hope that we can all live with that. Thanks again to everyone for
thier patience.
Xina
 As far as posting
> goes, it is I who frequently wishes to share debates as posted rather
> than by email. This is NOT as some do, a wish to be open so as to gather
> a crowd of witnesses to who says what. But rather the wish to share
> the info posted so others can benefit by choosing whose info they
> wish to accept.
> 
> As far as this header of newsgroups goes, it is a reply to a thread
> already existing in all these newsgroups.  I have never pasted or posted
> to the groups you mention but only hit a reply key and stuck to the
> topic of the post I was replying to.  If that topic is already off it is not
> my doing, and you prove that you wish to complain about me not them.
> Apparently other posters felt these subjects are of these topic newsgroups.
> So dont accuse me of crossposting.
> If you can tolerate their post, you can tolerate my reply.
> Unless you aim to prove your heart at war; of which labeling people
> as spammers and trollers proves the heart of the one speaking.
> What makes you think your not guilty of witch hunting the innocent.
> It is not for you to tell me I cant reply to a post already off topic by someone else.
> And it doesnt make sense to send it to the correct group where it wont be read.
> Afterall, your reply itself is no more than a complaint, it is not about any of
> the newsgroups you have reatined in the header, and you have sent it to
> all these newsgroups instead of editing it down to only alt.complaints.
> So clearly you wish to merely choose who speaks freely and who cannot.
> Especially since your reply is now guilty of the same thing I do.
> 
> ************
> everyone benefiting from my work please email
> my postmaster, my site will move unless those appreciative
> send email to counter those trying to destroy it
> ************
> A voice crying out and going unheard,
> (40 years Oct 7) Nehemiah's (9:1) 50th JUBILEE of Tishri 24
> God's 1000 years has begun Sep 14 of 1996.
> http://www.execpc.com/~elijah/Ezra1991CE.gif
> 
> Discover the world's true chronology thru the Bible at
>           http://www.execpc.com/~elijah

piotrm@umich.edu (Piotr Michalowski) wrote:
>In article <566fke$itj@halley.pi.net> mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal) writes:
>>
>>It is often said that English is a Franco-Saxon creole.  This is highly
>>exaggerated.  I think the terms substrate, adstrate and superstrate are
>>more useful. 
>>
>This was indeeed fashionable at one time, but in recent literature on 
>creolization this has been abandoned, as far as I know.  
Frankly, I haven't kept up to date with the literature on pidgins and
creoles, and it's not a subject I know much about.  Are you saying that
the xxx-strate terminology has been abandoned where it comes to creoles,
or that it is obsolete in general (I don't think I would agree there)?
I think the *English-French connection* is best seen as superstrate/
adstrate interactions, and not in terms of creolization.  Papiamentu and
Sranan are of course creoles, and yes, creolization implies a lot more
than the usual sub/superstrate interactions.  However, I'm not sure how
the role of Portuguese pidgin is described in the literature: it must
have played some part in the creolization process, but what's left of it
in Papiamentu and Sranan certainly looks and feels like substrate.
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal                     ~ ~
Amsterdam                   _____________  ~ ~
mcv@pi.net                 |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig

On Sat, 09 Nov 1996 21:22:33 GMT, fmurray@pobox,com (frank murray) wrote:
>On Sat, 09 Nov 1996 12:05:18 +0000, Eliyehowah  wrote:
>
>>************
>>everyone benefiting from my work please email
>>my postmaster, my site will move unless those appreciative
>>send email to counter these trying to destroy it
>>************
>
>i can neither say that i've benefitted from your work, nor that i even
>read far into many of your posts...but i can say that i've seen
>nothing posted by you that justifies removal of your right to post on
>sci. arch...
>
>those who dislike reading your posts can skip them...those who dislike
>receiving email from you can killfile that email...those who scurry
>about seeking something to snitch to some authority figure about,
>might better spend that time examining their own need to play
>snitch...
>
I can't imagine any postmaster doing anything about what someone posts on a
newsgroup. Email now, that's another question. That's personal, people like me
have to pay to receive our email whether or not we want to, etc. Postmasters
do zap people's accounts for email abuse.

Eliyehowah wrote:
> As far as sources go, I hold private email conversations with Xina
> and have given her SOME sources (which have NOT been posted)
> and so you would not know of. Further, my problem is not with Xina
> but with those who wish to post to defend her side of our debate.
> She has said in email that she doesnt want your defense anymore than
> I myself wish to tolerate your pestering my postmaster.
(snipped)
To all who have been patient enough to wade through this thread:
I would like to clarify what I did say in email to Elijah.  While I do
thank those of you who support what I have said here in my disagreement
with Elijah, no one but NO ONE has the right to speak for me but me.  I
agree that this thread has gotten somewhat out of hand on both sides. 
It is for this reason, that I intend to state the facts as I have found
them, citing my sources, and in turn I expect Elijah to do the same.  
There will be no abuse, no name calling no personal threats or the like
in this entire debate.  This is archaeology, we are (mostly) adults, it
is therefore to be expected that we behave in an adult and respectful
manner. 
I would like to make a few proposals of my own, if I may:
1)No inflamatory subject Lines:  lets keep it simple and to the point.
2)Citation of all sources used in each article of this  debat:.  Any
assertion or data *not* backed up by appropriate resources in each post
will be considered disqualified.
3)Personal attacks will not be tolerated. 
4) Anyone who has anything to contribute,  using the guidelines above,
please feel free to do so.
I hope that we can all live with that. Thanks again to everyone for
thier patience.
Xina
 As far as posting
> goes, it is I who frequently wishes to share debates as posted rather
> than by email. This is NOT as some do, a wish to be open so as to gather
> a crowd of witnesses to who says what. But rather the wish to share
> the info posted so others can benefit by choosing whose info they
> wish to accept.
> 
> As far as this header of newsgroups goes, it is a reply to a thread
> already existing in all these newsgroups.  I have never pasted or posted
> to the groups you mention but only hit a reply key and stuck to the
> topic of the post I was replying to.  If that topic is already off it is not
> my doing, and you prove that you wish to complain about me not them.
> Apparently other posters felt these subjects are of these topic newsgroups.
> So dont accuse me of crossposting.
> If you can tolerate their post, you can tolerate my reply.
> Unless you aim to prove your heart at war; of which labeling people
> as spammers and trollers proves the heart of the one speaking.
> What makes you think your not guilty of witch hunting the innocent.
> It is not for you to tell me I cant reply to a post already off topic by someone else.
> And it doesnt make sense to send it to the correct group where it wont be read.
> Afterall, your reply itself is no more than a complaint, it is not about any of
> the newsgroups you have reatined in the header, and you have sent it to
> all these newsgroups instead of editing it down to only alt.complaints.
> So clearly you wish to merely choose who speaks freely and who cannot.
> Especially since your reply is now guilty of the same thing I do.
> 
> ************
> everyone benefiting from my work please email
> my postmaster, my site will move unless those appreciative
> send email to counter those trying to destroy it
> ************
> A voice crying out and going unheard,
> (40 years Oct 7) Nehemiah's (9:1) 50th JUBILEE of Tishri 24
> God's 1000 years has begun Sep 14 of 1996.
> http://www.execpc.com/~elijah/Ezra1991CE.gif
> 
> Discover the world's true chronology thru the Bible at
>           http://www.execpc.com/~elijah

Doug or Kathy Lowry wrote:
> > In the books "X-Raying the Pharaohs" and "X-Ray Atlas..." the skulls of > > both Yuaa & Thuyu were compaired to the "Elder Woman" and 
reflected a > > "mother-daughter" connection.  The "Elder Woman" could 
be 40 years old. > > Termed "elder" by her discoverers by streaks of 
grey in her hair. > > (Evidently Clairol wasn't around then. :-)
> > We have a way of forgetting how young the ancients were when they
> > started families.  Amenhotep III was a child when he came to the throne > > and was probably dead by 40 or so.  If he married Tiye when 
she was a > > child, why could't she have given birth to Akhenaten by 
the time she was > > only 20 or so, it would have been her second son. 
If you had a kid like > > hers, wouldn't you have a few grey strands 
too?
Amenhotep III died in or after his 38th regnal year.  He was married to 
Tiye by the second year of his reign.  They were very probably cousins. 
 For a long time, it was thought that the pharaoh had married someone 
from out of the general Egyptian population, but this is starting to 
seem increasingly unlikely and should have been suspect from the 
beginning.  But people will have their Cinderella stories!  I don't know 
the ages of the royal couple when they married, but let us assume an age 
of 14 for Tiye, although it could have been even less.  
Since Tiye survived Amenhotep, we would have to add 36 years to 14, 
which would make her 50 when he died.  Peter Clayton says in "Chronicle 
of the Pharaohs" that Queen Tiye outlived her husband by possibly as 
many as 12 years, so that brings us up to 62 for the "Elder Lady" at 
death.  Round it off to 60.
If it is really true that the mummy's hair is still all dark brown or 
black, something is wrong.  Not many dark-haired ladies can keep the 
grey away THAT long--unless the ancients had some sort of hair wash that 
kept the hair dark--like Grecian formula.  BTW, both the mummies of Yuya 
and Thuya have white hair, turned yellow with henna or embalming 
substances.
Besides the very strong evidence of the hair samples matching, I think 
the face of the "Elder Lady" looks exactly like the small greenstone 
head of Tiye (identified by cartouches)--not the wooden one, which has 
only been identified by the presence of holes in the wig for the double 
uraei, which Tiye normally wore.  Treouble is, there were a couple of 
other queens of this era who looked quite a bit, from their portraits, 
like this mummy, as well.
The mummy of the "Elder Lady" is very likely Queen Tiye, but, if she 
passes the DNA tests, somebody may have to do some chronology 
overhauling.  Maybe Rohl will volunteer.

Andrew (freddy@soonet.ca) wrote:
> Hi I am looking for Inca information for a project.  If anyone could
> provide some or help could you please e-mail me at freddy@soonet.ca
Here are some sources, some of them older, but many that I have found useful:
Moseley, Michael.  he has a number of major works (with bibliographies) on
Inka and Inca- related peoples.
Collier, John, Renato Rosalso, and John Wirth.  The Inca and Aztec States,
1400-1800.  Anthropology and History.  New York: Academic Press, 1982
[this is in the Carleton library].
Hyslop, John.  The Inka Road System.  Cambridge Univ Press, 1984 [also in the
Carleton library].
Katz, Friedrich.  The Ancient American Civilizations.  New York: Praeger,
1972 [also Carleton library].
Keatinge, Richard W., ed.  Peruvian Prehistory: An Overvie of Pre-Inca and
Inca Society.  New York: Academic, 1988. [Carleton library, and was in
bookstore].
Moore, Sally Falk.  Power and Property in Inca Peru.  New York, Columbia
Univ Press, 1973.  [Carleton Library].
Murra, John W.  The Economic Organization of the Inka State.  Greenwich: 
JAI Press. [Carleton library].
See also articles in volumes by Claessen, Henri and Peter Skalnik -- there
are several on the Inka.
These should be of use to you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Derek G. Smith
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Carleton University
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1Y 5B6
Email address: desmith@ccs.carleton.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Deborah June Foisy (bc276@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
> Hello!
> 	I am in an anthropology class in Ottawa, Canada.  We have an essay
> due in the spring.  I would like to do mine on the Piltdown Man Hoax.  I
> already know about the Piltdown homepage.  I have a few articles as well. 
> The university library has a few books but they are rather old.  Antone
> have any info on where I can get fresh articles and info?  Twould be
The older material MUST be consulted and evaluated, espeecially Weiner. 
You might also want to pursue some of Stephen Jay Gould's fascinating and
provocative essays in his essay collections.  Do not discount the role of
Teilhard de Chardin, either -- his work is "older", but is part of the
story.  Why the allergy to "older" works recounting the ubfolding of the
hoax??
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Derek G. Smith
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Carleton University
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1Y 5B6
Email address: desmith@ccs.carleton.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------------

jtwat99@mcmsys.com wrote:
> I was wondering if anyone had maps of Aztec Mexico.  I would like 
> maps with the cities of Texcoco, Tepanecas, Tenochtitlan, and Tlacopan.  If you
> have such maps or know where I can get such maps off the internet please e-mail
> me at 
There is a detailed map of Teotihuacan in Rene Millon's work on that
subject -- title not directly to hand, but easily discoverable in any
university library.  
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Derek G. Smith
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Carleton University
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1Y 5B6
Email address: desmith@ccs.carleton.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In Article<55svo9$32r@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>, 
 writes:
> Path: 
paladin.american.edu!zombie.ncsc.mil!linden.fortnet.org!coopnews.coop.net!csn
ews!boulder!csn!nntp-xfer-2.csn.net!symbios.com!southwind.net!news.sprintlin
k.net!news-chi-8.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-hub.sprintlink.net!news
sprintlink.net!news-pen-4.sprintlink.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet
com!howland.erols.net!panix!news.columbia.edu!merhaba.cc.columbia.edu!tje3
> From: tje3@merhaba.cc.columbia.edu (Tammy Jo Eckhart)
> Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
> Subject: Scythians -- any site reports on research of pst ten years
> Date: 7 Nov 1996 15:37:45 GMT
> Organization: Columbia University
> Lines: 17
> Message-ID: <55svo9$32r@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: merhaba.cc.columbia.edu
> 	Trying to find site reports for Scythian graves that have been
> examined these past few years.
	Check out Crawford Greenewalt Jr. out of U of CA, Berkley.
I don't have the stuff right at hand, but he has recently published some stuff.
Surf the net.

In article <3287553b.34560842@netnews.worldnet.att.net>, fmurray@pobox.com
wrote:
>On Sat, 09 Nov 1996 13:28:24 GMT, edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad)
>wrote:
>
>>Fact is, the few bits and pieces of what they called ``Lucy" -- to go
>>with the vast majority of manmade bonelike additions that were used to
>>fill the many gaps -- weren't even found in close proximity.
>>
>>Truth is,  ``Lucy" is a mosaic of a few bones that were found over a
>>square mile.
>
>to which, paul myers responded:
>
>>Another conradian spam. followups redirected to talk.origins...if you
>>must, follow it there, but otherwise please ignore this clown.
>
>and then in a separate post paul said:
>
>>No...and I'm trying to persuade everyone to ignore this clown and post
>>any replies to talk.origins, instead.
>
>and then in a third post said:
>
>>Please reply to any messages from Ed Conrad in talk.origins -- they do
>>not deserve any commentary in the sci newsgroups.
>
>along the way rohinton collins added:
>
>>These types of posts are really infuriating. Please could you stop
>> posting to sci.anthropology.paleo (or for that matter sci.anthropology 
>>and sci.archaeology).
>
>and steve "chris" price put in:
>
>>This is rich!  Can anybody is the sci.* groups take Ed seriously anymore?
>
>several others added mocking words of their own...but none rose to
>meet the challenge of ed conrad's claim that:
>
>>Fact is, the few bits and pieces of what they called ``Lucy" -- to go
>>with the vast majority of manmade bonelike additions that were used to
>>fill the many gaps -- weren't even found in close proximity.
>>
>>Truth is,  ``Lucy" is a mosaic of a few bones that were found over a
>>square mile.
>
>i suggest that if these worthies are to continue to post to sci.
>groups,  they should take that "sci." seriously, drop the ad hominem
>attacks on ed, and post evidence refuting ed's claim...if ed's claim
>is substantially correct, they should so state, and then present
>arguments of interpretation...
>
>the argument that: "i don't agree with you, so you had better shut up,
>or i'll have you thrown out of here" may prevail within parts of
>academia, but this is the net....
You aren't aware of Ed Conrad's history. There were quite a few attempts
to take him seriously and actually look into the science behind his 
claims, so these are not unjustified rejections of his ideas. His response
to unbiased evaluations of his "specimens" has been a reprehensible series
of claims about conspiracies and corrupt, lying scientists.
These recent claims about Lucy have also been demolished as a lot of
baseless, false accusations by several of the regulars in talk.origins.
Note also that I did not say he should stop posting, but that these kinds
of silly claims should be confined to TO.
-- 
Paul Z. Myers                 myers@astro.ocis.temple.edu
Dept. of Biology              myers@netaxs.com     
Temple University             http://fishnet.bio.temple.edu/
Philadelphia, PA 19122        (215) 204-8848

fmurray@pobox,com (frank murray) wrote:
>you might enjoy reading his "oedipus and akhnaton"...a short,
>brilliantly argued, and largely ignored work...read it as companion to
>cyril aldred's "akhenaten"  (same guy, different spelling - best i can
>figure, spelling of those ancient names is picked by the same criteria
>that a slightly vain, yet insecure, young lady uses to choose which
>dress to wear to the party)...
Just a side comment: frank, the *various spellings* are not so much
the "vain, yet insecure" issue that you mention, but the fact that
Egyptian (ancient) had no vowel sounds at all....not unlike Classical
Arabic.  So, glottal stops and vocalization are largely *guessed at*
by Egyptologists.  So, we have such spellings as Ramses, Ra-messes,
Romesses, Ramoses, et al (ad nauseum)....;)
No, if that *darn Rosetta Stone* had just come with a "phonetic key",
we'd be in business!!
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  

Saida wrote:
> 
> Doug or Kathy Lowry wrote:
> 
>
> > > We have a way of forgetting how young the ancients were when they
> > > started families.  Amenhotep III was a child when he came to the throne > > and was probably dead by 40 or so.  If he married Tiye when
> she was a > > child, why could't she have given birth to Akhenaten by
> the time she was > > only 20 or so, it would have been her second son.
> If you had a kid like > > hers, wouldn't you have a few grey strands
> too?
> 
> Amenhotep III died in or after his 38th regnal year.  He was married to
> Tiye by the second year of his reign.  They were very probably cousins.
>  For a long time, it was thought that the pharaoh had married someone
> from out of the general Egyptian population, but this is starting to
> seem increasingly unlikely and should have been suspect from the
> beginning.  But people will have their Cinderella stories!  I don't know
> the ages of the royal couple when they married, but let us assume an age
> of 14 for Tiye, although it could have been even less.
> 
> Since Tiye survived Amenhotep, we would have to add 36 years to 14,
> which would make her 50 when he died.  Peter Clayton says in "Chronicle
> of the Pharaohs" that Queen Tiye outlived her husband by possibly as
> many as 12 years, so that brings us up to 62 for the "Elder Lady" at
> death.  Round it off to 60.
> 
> If it is really true that the mummy's hair is still all dark brown or
> black, something is wrong.  Not many dark-haired ladies can keep the
> grey away THAT long--unless the ancients had some sort of hair wash that
> kept the hair dark--like Grecian formula.  BTW, both the mummies of Yuya
> and Thuya have white hair, turned yellow with henna or embalming
> substances.
> 
> Besides the very strong evidence of the hair samples matching, I think
> the face of the "Elder Lady" looks exactly like the small greenstone
> head of Tiye (identified by cartouches)--not the wooden one, which has
> only been identified by the presence of holes in the wig for the double
> uraei, which Tiye normally wore.  Treouble is, there were a couple of
> other queens of this era who looked quite a bit, from their portraits,
> like this mummy, as well.
> 
> The mummy of the "Elder Lady" is very likely Queen Tiye, but, if she
> passes the DNA tests, somebody may have to do some chronology
> overhauling.  Maybe Rohl will volunteer.
The grey hair was cited as her being termed "elder" and was brought up 
in the book, "Egyptian Mummies" by G. Elliot Smith and Warren R. Dawson 
in 1924.  There is a certain rejuvinating aspect to having all the 
moisture removed from one's body.  Wrinkles are not evident on the body 
in question.  Since she was never removed from the tomb of Amenhotep II, 
Smith and Dawson had to rely on a visual examination to determine her 
age.
I beleive Tiyi's marriage occurred in the second year of his reign.  She 
may have been older than he, but they were still very young.  If she 
were 9 or 10 (the probable age of Ankhsenpaaten when married to 
Tutankhaten), she could still have been a widow at 45.  Ay (thought by 
Aldred to be the brother of Tiyi) did outlive them all and was probably 
not what I (age 55) would consider "ancient" when he died.

On Thu, 7 Nov 1996, Eliyehowah wrote:
> Satan is released in two ways.
> First in the manner of man's sin . . . 
	Well who released you?  You turkey!
Hail The Citizens of the Infernal Empire!
Hail Satan!

Steve Whittet (whittet@shore.net) wrote:
[many silly things deleted, leaving only the silliest:]
: Levels of social organization provide a good way to judge its 
: effectiveness. Essentially, things like social stratification,
: politics, trade, industry, science, which require language,
: build language. 
: All of these things are associated with urbanization. The rise
: of urban centers is thus a good clue as to where language is
: developing. Placing language building among the steppe nomads
: does not work. Of the two mechanisms we discussed for the spread
: of language, boats and horses, which seems to you most closely
: associated with urbanization?
: I think both Mallory and Rebfrew are off target here.
: steve
I'm afraid you are off target, Steve, if you believe that language only
develops in the context of urbanized societies. An absurd statement, even
by your standards, and one that is in direct contradiction with just about
anything understood about the development of language in humans, and about
the ethnographic record. 
Do you suppose that every one of these New Guinean hunter-gatherer groups
are getting their languages from their urbanized cousins? Who do you
suppose these cousins are? Which urbanized group are the Yanomamo in
Brazil getting their language from (a language which is every bit as
complex as our own)? 
Of course, there's a sequencing problem as well. If people don't get real
language until they become urbanized, how do they get urbanized in the
first place? Are neolithic villages urban enough for you? Do you have a
clue what you are suggesting?
You also have a problem with an incredibly old-fashioned, evolutionary
conception of cultural development, in which all the delights of being
human, such as language, are reserved for city-dwellers like ourselves.
Everybody else is just a rung or two down the evolutionary ladder,
incapable of even speaking, except in the clicks, grunts and
gesticulations you wrote about in an earlier post.
The idea that language sophistication is related to level of
social integration is just plain silly, in light of the ethnographic
record. Frankly, it's an insult to self-respecting, linguistically
proficient hunter-gatherers and nomadic pastoralists everywhere.
What language is related to is being human, not to being urbanized.
Why don't you stick to measuring the Great Pyramid? Your anthropology is
antediluvian.
Ben

In article <5678ls$jp7@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>, rg10003@cus.cam.ac.uk says...
>
>Steve Whittet (whittet@shore.net) wrote:
>[...]
>: Here is how Hannibaal choose the men to lead his army
>: Hannibal divided his army into four parts.
>: His first division were all smart and lazy. 
>: He put them in charge of the elephants
>: His second division were all smart and hard working. 
>: They were the elephants.
>: His third division were all stupid and lazy. 
>: He let them drive his elephants, but gave them a hammer and mallet
>: so they could drive a stake through the elephants skull
>: if the elephants charged their own troops.
>: His fourth division were all stupid and hard working. 
>: He put them at the head of his army.
>: After dividing his army up Hannibal gave his first
>: division their orders. Charge he said...
>: Hannibal then went on to conquor Rome."
>: We should consider this method of selecting our leaders
>
>Hmm, Steve, that doesn't work either, Ronny Reagan is the prime example for 
>that.
>
>Ralf
>
I don't recall who it was that said
"Blaming Ronny Raygun for Star Wars 
is like blaming Ronald MacDonald
for a bad hamburger" but presumably
you will allow that he worked hard
at his day job as an actor and thus
deserved to go at the head of the army...
That is at any rate where I would place
all the politicians.
...where if the stupid lazy beaurocrats 
with the $400 dollar hammers once again 
failed to stop the charge of the 
elephants....Ronny Raygun would
be a hamburger...
solving the problem
steve

What on earth is this thread doing on soc.culture.egyptian???????!!!!!!
it's amazing how some take such liberties.  
Please get out, you're only gaining ennemies to your cause, whatever it is.
George

Frank,
After the 200th iteration of Conrad's hysterical and bogus conspiracy
claims, I think people can be forgiven for taking a harder line with him.
If *you* really want to understand what's going on, I suggest you check
the talk.origins archives, or use DejaNews to find out what's really going
on with Conrad and his Lucy-Evil Establishment Scientists Conpiracy
claims.
Not every crank deserves to be taken seriously, even on the Net. Conrad
has been answered responsibly over and over and over again, and persists
in spamming his lies all over the place. If *you* would like to learn
something about Lucy, then check the talk.origins FAQ and archives (a
great place to start is with the Ediacara home page). 
Myers is right.
Ben

Saida  wrote:
> This is the second time I have read about "yaws" and "bejel", the other 
> time being in an article in this group having to do with the demise of 
> Tutankhamun.  Although I know what syphilis is, I confess my 
> unfamiliarity with the other terms.  What are they?
Both are treponemal infections.  The Trep. pertenue of Yaws is
morphological indistinguishable from the Trep. pallida which causes
syphilis but the diseases resulting are different.   Yaws is endemic,
non-venereal and often contracted in childhood. 100 percent infection
of an area can occur.  It occurs in the Far East and in Central and
South America.   
Bejel is a similar trep. infection found in the Arab Middle East.  It
also is a much less destructive disease than syphilis and is
non-venereal.   I wouldthink that both represent modification of the
virulence of a treponeme from long presence in a population.  There is
some historical evidence to suggest that syphilis, in the period just
after Columbus` voyages was a more acute and destructive illness,
resulting in quite rapid death,  than is seen today.   
--  
Alexander MacLennan  sandymac@sandymac.demon.co.uk