Newsgroup sci.archaeology 50743

Directory

Summary:                   
Keywords: 
     This evening, CBS "60 Minutes" included a segment on
  'Afro-Centrism' - a kind of cult among American Blacks based
  on the belief that the Ancient Egyptians were Black and that
  the Classical and Western Cultures trace their roots to African
  Blacks.
     Evidently the originators of this concept are either aware
  that this is a hoax or are ignorant of the facts, not having
  seen the Tutankhamun Exhibit when it toured the U.S. or
  visited the Cairo Museum and Luxor to learn the truth.
     Blacks need to somehow establish a viable Cultural base
  but not this way. Sooner or later the facts will surface and the
  reaction will be bad news all around.  This program was the
  first attempt to set the record straight but it was not specific.
  A picture is worth a thousand words:  The October 1963
  edition of "National Geopraphic" has on page 642 a photo that
  proves it is all a hoax.  Anyone who is interested in a copy,
  E-mail me your Fax number.  My number is 954-525-8800
     Prior to the conquest of Egypt by the Asiatic HYksos, Blacks
  were not allowed in Egypt nor were Asiatics. The Hyksos not
  only allowed Blacks in, they brought them in as slaves. The
  original Egytians were a homogeneous, sun-tanned, White Race.
  Many of them fled from the Hyksos to the Aegean area where
  they formed the Mycenean Culture. After a couple of hundred
  years, when the Egyptians were able to overthrow the Hyksos,
  the Myceneans helped them.  If you think I'm making this up,
  visit the State Museum in Athens and they'll show you proof.
     The best bet for Black Africans is to somehow emulate other
  Peoples who became crypto-Western though they are not White.
  PUBLIUS at 

Hi, my name is Frank Spangler.  For the last two seasons I have
volunteered my services as a videographer for the Madaba Plains Project in
Jordan.   I am thinking of producing a CD-ROM that would contain about 600
of the best images that I have captured in Jordan.   These would be 24 bit
color, bit map file images (640x480) and could be used for screensavers,
computer wallpaper, journal illustration, presentations or royalty free
publication and limited use in your own CD-ROM authoring.  Subject matter
would include archeology, food systems of Jordan, Bedouin life, and
Jordanian landmarks (Petra, Jerash, Desert Castles, etc.).  No text or
narrative is planned at this time, just images.  File names would help
identify images as well as a front-end "thumbnail" on-screen album. 
Price would be $29.95 US
In order to make this project viable I need at least 100 orders.
If you would be interested in a CD-ROM like this please E-mail me at
Fspangler@AOL.com
Thanks
Frank Spangler

Stella Nemeth wrote:
> 
> August Matthusen  wrote:
> 
> >Oliver Galloway wrote:
> 
> >> Another reason for the long
> >> survival of the Sphinx despite its eroded condition is that the Sphinx
> >> has been buried (up to its neck) in desert sand many times over the
> >> years.
> 
> >Peer-reviewed journal reference?
> 
> There is no need for peer reviewed journal references for the fact
> that the Sphinx has been buried up to its neck in desert sand.  There
> are plenty of 19th Century drawings and the stele found between the
> paws of the Sphinx when it was cleared in this century to prove that
> this has happened more than once.
Occasions of finding the sphinx buried have been documented.  No 
argument there.  I get tired of seeing claims that this somehow
implies it was buried for almost all of its existence.  Because
people keep claiming this, I keep seeking a reference for this 
"fact".  For some reason beyond my understanding the reference 
is not forthcoming.
> If you are asking for peer-reviewed journal references for the idea
> that burial has preserved the Sphinx, you are more likely, as I'll bet
> you already know , to get journal references for the opposite idea.
> That in fact, the "eroded" condition is a result of being buried in
> wet sand for most of its existence.
Yep, but the knowledge of that possiblity is just a subtle 
troll on my part :-).  People that have read West and Hancock
seem to have difficulties with the premise of multiple working
hypotheses and testing hypotheses.
Regards,
August Matthusen

ever the helpful s.a Indo-guy...
In article <57a5jd$f2n@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>, S.NEMETH@IX.NETCOM.COM
(Stella Nemeth) wrote:
>Mike Wright  wrote:
>>...This also undercuts the assumption that language becomes more
>>and more sophisticated as time goes on. I'd certainly put Chaucer or
>>Shakespeare up against the (mythical) average computer programmer in
>>terms of their ability to express sophisticated ideas about human
>>relationships. And I'd put the writers of the early Buddhist sutras up
>>against the average rocket scientist when it comes to analyzing the
>>human condition.
>
>I agree about all of those points, although I don't actually know any
>Buddhist sutras.  I'm gathering that Buddhist sutras belong to the
>wisdom literature genre.  If correct, that genre of good advice goes
>way, way back.  There is a really neat group of Egyptian variations
>that we have loads of copies of because Egyptian schoolboys were set
>to copying them as part of their school work.
Um, the Buddhist ones ain't much like the Egyptian ones, that's for sure!
The oldest sutras (or suttas), in any event, are more like a category than
a genre, kind of like how the Jews call the books of Kings "prophets". 
The surviving school of lesser-vehicle Buddhism has a three-"basket"
scripture, the Tipitaka; others varied in this regard; but one of the
"baskets" was, usually, and is, the Suttapitaka, I think I recall.  The
surviving suttas vary a whole lot.  Some are very abstruse philosophy
(probably most).  Some are rules for living, usually for the "monk",
sometimes for the layman.  Some are narratives, for a notable example, the
Mahaparinibbanasutta, which tells of the Buddha's release (death).  (This
one is usually to be found in any collection of suttas in translation.) 
One thing they generally have in common is the most extraordinary amount
of repetition I've ever seen in any text (and ancients generally just
*loved* repetition, it aided the memory so...).  They're also usually
rather more structured as to content (e.g., narrative form, or logical
argument) than the wisdom texts of Egypt.
Another "basket" in the modern scripture is Vinayapitaka, rules of
monastic life.  The third is Abhidhammapitaka, basically the *.misc of the
scriptures.  In it are a couple of documents called Dhammapada and
Suttanipata that are a *whole* lot closer to your usual wisdom text in
form (also much less repetitious):  less structured, more aphoristic. 
However, they're nothing like the Egyptian genre in that the latter is
generally quite uninterested in abstract philosophy, and the Buddhist ones
are jammed with it.
I'm perfectly aware that you aren't asserting a direct link between the
two.  Actually, if you were asserting an indirect one, I could help out by
mentioning that there's a lot more abstract stuff and structure in the
Hebrew and especially the Akkadian wisdom traditions, from what I've seen
(ye gods, Job!), though still not the full-scale philosophical argument
Buddhism offers.
Pardon begged of any sci.lang readers who've read these in the originals
(I am, as always, going by translations here).
Joe Bernstein
-- 
Joe Bernstein, free-lance writer and bookstore worker joe@sfbooks.com
speaking for myself and nobody else    http://www.tezcat.com/~josephb/

On Mon, 25 Nov 1996 02:57:12 GMT, S.NEMETH@IX.NETCOM.COM (Stella
Nemeth) wrote:
>
>There is no need for peer reviewed journal references for the fact
>that the Sphinx has been buried up to its neck in desert sand.  There
>are plenty of 19th Century drawings and the stele found between the
>paws of the Sphinx when it was cleared in this century to prove that
>this has happened more than once.
>
there's also the odd fact that herodotus makes no mention of the
sphinx...i've difficulty imagining him touring the giza complex
without noticing it, and more difficulty imagining him seeing it and
not mentioning it...might it have been completely buried at times??...
frank

S.NEMETH@IX.NETCOM.COM (Stella Nemeth) wrote:
>kalie@sn.no (Kaare Albert Lie) wrote:
>>BTW - those who spend their time counting words, assert that
>>Ibsen in his plays used a considerably larger vocabulary than
>>Shakespeare did. Now - what does that tell us about the quality
>>of their plays? Or about the urbanity of those two authors?
>Nothing.  It doesn't demonstrate anything about the urbanity of either
>author.  Ibsen wrote durn good plays.  So did Shakespeare.  And both
>of them do very well in translation too.
Thanks .... that was exactly my point, too ... :-)
>But it does provide a demonstration that Ibson, who wrote a couple
>hundred years later than Shakespeare, had a larger vocabulary
>available to him than the earlier author had.  Hum....  Isn't that
>what Steve was trying to explain earlier?
The next time you visit the library, take a look at Böthlingk &
Roth multi-volume Sanskrit dictionary. Or, if that one is not
available, Monier Williams' dictionary will do. I have never
tried to count words in Sanskrit - and never will! - but that
rather old language has a foooooormidable vocabulary! How does
this fact fit into the theory?
>Out of curiousity, is Ibsen known for inventing a substantial
>proportion of the vocabulary he used?
No.
______________________________________________________________
Kåre Albert Lie
kalie@sn.no

Here is an interesting report that I would like to see some
comments on. I found it in Norwegian, so my retranslation into
English may not be very exact.
It is an extract from "Mourts Relation", printed in London in
1632, telling about those who settled in Plymouth
(Markland/Vinland) in 1620.
"30. November. After walking 5-6 miles into the forest without
seeing traces of people, we returned by another route. We came to
a flat area, and found a mound, like a grave. But it was larger
and longer than any other we had seen. It was also covered by
some woodwork, so that we wondered what might be under it. We
decided to open it.
	First we found a mat, and under that, a good bow. Further another
mat, and under that a board, three quarters of a yard long, and
painted, with three points at the end, resembling a crown. Inside
the mat we found bowls, troughs, dishes, and some small artifacts
resembling drinking cups. Further we found a new and beautiful
mat, and below that two bundles - one large, the other one
smaller. We opened one of them, and found a large amount of a
fine and well preserved red powder, and in this the bones and
skull of a man. On the head there still was beautiful, yellow
hair, and some of the flesh still stuck to the skull. It was
bundled up with a knife, a packet of needles, and two or three
old things of iron. It was laying inside something that looked
like a sailors frock and knee-long trousers of cloth. The red
powder seemed to be some means of embalming, it gave off a
strong, but not unpleasant smell, and was finer than flour.
	We opened the smaller bundle, and found the same powder and the
bones and head of a small child. Among the bones lay strings and
ribbons with fine pearls. There was also a small bow, three
quarters of a yard long, and some toys.
	We brought some of the most beautiful things along with us, and
covered the grave again. 
	Among us there were different opinions on who this might have
been. Some thought it might have been an Indian chief or king.
Others said that all Indians had black hair, and none were seen
with brown or yellow hair. Some thought it might have been a
highly regarded Christian who had died among them. Others though
they had killed him in triumph."
The ochre burial was an Indian custom. Common people were burned,
only the higher classes were given a bone burial in a separate
chamber. The pearls were valuable to the Indians.
Thus it seems highly probable that this was a wealthy man
(pearls) of the higher classes (bone burial), probably a chief,
who had lived and was buried with his son according to Indian
customs (ochre burial). But his hair was yellow, he had some iron
artifacts, and he was dressed in European fashion.
I have not seen this report in the original. Can someone confirm
it?
If this grave was found ca. 1620, how long would it have taken
for the remains to reach such a state as described? When did this
person die?
Who was he?
______________________________________________________________
Kåre Albert Lie
kalie@sn.no

S.NEMETH@IX.NETCOM.COM (Stella Nemeth) wrote:
>I'm not sure what "Like what?" refers to.  Steve says there is no
>archaeological evidence for the cultures you are postulating. Are you
>asking him to provide archaeological evidence for cultures that he
>says don't exist?  Those are the questions you need to answer.  What
>cultures are you claiming spread the IE language(s)?  Where did this
>cultures exist?  When?
These are legitimate questions. As yet they have no definite
answers. In order to answer them, it is necessary to have a
detailed knowledge BOTH of linguistics and of archaeology. Steve
consistently ignores everything that is known about the IE
languages, so his speculations are wider off the mark than one
might have thought possible.
My preliminary guess is that there was a primary agricultural
spread, accounting for most of Europe (roughly along the lines
that Renfrew draws), and a secondary spread from the Kurgan
cultures, bringing Indo-Iranian languages to the east and Greek
to the west. This guess is open to revision, however.
______________________________________________________________
Kåre Albert Lie
kalie@sn.no

Apparently, I must emphasize two things about my demand:
1) My claim that "cultural affinity" is all but impossible to determine
allows for the class of hypotheses that involve temporary occupation of a
territory by a culture which is subsequently displaced or so completely
assimilated that their geographically remote cousins preserve greater
cultural affinity.  
2) My claim that "lineal descent" is all but impossible to demonstrate is
due to the greater constraints on DNA patterns created by the demand for
"lineal descent" (as compared with degree-of-relatedness) combined with
the antiquity of the remains.  This makes meeting those constraints with 
legal certainty unlikely compared to the likelihood of establishing simple
degree-of-relatedness.
As to the "reasonableness" of the hypothesis that an ancient ethnocide or
genocide caused a displacement of this man's kin and culture to the point
that that I am more closely related to this man than other claimants under
NAGPRA:  
There are ample precedents s of this sort of thing in history including not
only "caucasians"  (whatever that word is supposed to mean) such as the
Aryans, Tarim Basin people and mainland Japan Ainu who may have closer
living kin and/or cultural affinity with peoples geographically separated
from their remains, but also the people we presently refer to as Native
Americans.  The process has been occuring within living memory and even as
we speak, especially those who were displaced to far-flung reservations. 
Imagine, for a moment, a morally outrageous situation in which a future
descendant of Colonel Custer's kin, having caused all memory of Native
Americans to be lost, claims the exposed skeletons of some Native
Americans.  My stance disallows that moral outrage from occuring in this 
situation.  The stance of NAGPRA claimants does not prevent such an outrage.
Please understand, it is not my purpose here to assert a claim based on
"race" (whatever that means), but on degree-of-relatedness, which has a
clear scientific/legal definition -- and I am happy to lose my claim to
those who are more closely related by this operational metric.  Nor am I
asserting with certainty that a displacement of my distant kin did in
fact, occur during the Cascade period.  I merely assert that it is
reasonable to hypothesize that it COULD HAVE occured given the antiquity
and unusual character of the remains and the known precedents for such
displacement. 
Those who wish to assert that "cultural affinity" or "lineal descent" is
demonstrated by the physical location of the remains have put forth no 
convincing arguments that the hypothesis I put forth above is a priori 
false -- something they must do to make such an assertion legally operative.
They must either accept the burden of proof to a reasonable legal certainty, 
abandon the spirit of NAGPRA in this case or grant me my test.
-- 
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
                 Change the tools and you change the rules.

The English translation of the book "Veneti - First Builders of European
Community", by Jozko Savli, Matej Bor and Ivan Tomazic,
has been recently published in Canada.
It describes some fascinating findings about the Veneti, their language
and their descendents. 
It can be ordered to the address:
Ivan Tomazic
Bennogasse 21
A-1080 Wien
Austria
ISBN  0-9681236-0-0
Prize:  US$ 25 + postage (US$ 4 for ordinary mail, US$ 11 for
air mail to USA)
Matej Pavsic

Message posted on behalf of Gordon Roberts.
Erosion at Formby Point (on the Sefton Coast, Northwest England) is 
exposing strata of Holocene sediment, deposited between c. 5000 and 3500 
years B.P.  Within some of these laminated silts, the sun-hardened 
footprints of animals (aurochs, red deer, roe deer, unshod horses, 
canidae), birds (cranes, herons, oystercatchers, gulls) and humans (men, 
women, and children) have been preserved.  To date, 154 human footprint 
trails have been recorded and analysed.  The exposures are ephemeral.  
Once uncovered, these ancient mudflats and their imprint-bearing strata 
are destroyed by subsequent tides and longshore currents.  Such open, 
archaeological sites are rare.  Other locations of human and/or animal 
prints in Holocene environments are known to include the Severn Estuary 
and Jersey (Channel Islands) in the U.K., and the Pampean Coast of 
Argentines.  The author of this report would welcome receiving 
information regarding similar sites worldwide.
Please contact Gordon Roberts at this e-mail address or directly at his 
home address of:  100 Harington Road, Formby, nr. Liverpool, L37 1PZ, 
U.K.
For further information regarding the Sefton Coast try 
http://www.connect.org.uk/merseyworld/sclife

Steve
Living as near to Plimouth Plantation as you did when he worked there, it is a
wonmder that you didn't know of Paul Lipke's _The Royal Ship of Cheops_
published by the National Maritime Museum, Greenwich, Archaeologociasl Series
# 9/ BAR International Series 225 - 1984.  (Now he's big om triremes.)
I've done the conversions to Feet and tenths of feet, waiting for more
time to do the conversion to inches too.  I'll key in some to this post
and you can save it if you wish...
Tom Simms
On 21 Nov 1996 19:54:23 GMT, whittet@shore.net writes:
>
>
>I had to go back and get this off Deja News since I missed it on 
>sci.archaeology
>****************************************************************8
>       
>A British friend of mine, Robert Partridge, just came out with a 
>fascinating new book "Transport In Ancient Egypt" (Rubicon Press) He is 
>also the author of "Faces of Pharaoh".  The current book addresses a 
>rather neglected topic and is highly readable.  I'll say more about it, 
>perhaps, when I've finished reading it.  It will probably appear in US 
>bookstores any day now.
>
>For you nautical and/or Old Kingdom enthusiasts, I'll post the 
>dimensions of Khufu's boat, uncovered near the Great Pyramid.  BTW, 
>carbon dating of a piece of the quantities of rope found with the 
>timbers gave a date of around 2040 B.C., although the 4th Dynasty is 
>generally placed earlier at around 2600 B.C.  You out there, David Rohl? 
>
   Khufu is placed by Baines and Malik at 1551-1528.  What with just a bit of
   modern hydrocarbon contamination, the dating is insdie the park, IMO.
>I admit to being skeptical of that dating, do you have a cite?
>
>Despite having previously assumed the boat pits to be contemporary
>with the Great Pyramids mortuary complex, if forced to choose
>between adjusting the date and allowing they were not contemporary,
>I think I would go with they were not contemporary.
>;->
>
>Principal Dimensions of boat:
>
>Stupid metric system...Lets use the Egyptian foot
>(of 300 mm/Egyptian foot which is my best estimate for 
>the unit of 4 palms I think the Egyptians used here)
>
>Overall length              43.63 metres  143.14' or 143' 1 5/7"
>
>[144 feet  gives me  43,200 mm. possibly with some shrinkage 
>due to having dried out for 4 1/2 millenia but also a little 
>warpage and some loose joinery]
>
>ratio of length to beam intended as 1:8, beam should be 5.400 m
>[18 feet of 300 mm/foot]
>
>Maximum beam                5.66 metres     18.57' or 18' 6 7/8"
>
>ratio of beam to draft intended as 1:4, draft should be 1.35 m
>[4.5 feet of 300 mm/foot]
>
>Draft                       1.48 metres         4.86' or 4' 10 1/2"
>
   Her freeboard at max. beam was .30 metres or .98' or 11 3/4" !!!
>The reconstruction probably is a little out of proportion due to
>the shrinkage of the wood in the long axis being greater than in
>the short axis and the joints not fitting as tightly as they were 
>intended to. The ceiling beams which determine the beam have no
>doubt shrunk more than the frames in section but are probably 
>loose in their joints which determine the  draft. When put back 
>together the wider than intended beam decreases the draft 5"
>or about one inch in one foot which is comparable to the amount 
>of shrinkage you see in wide pine board floors.
>
>Total dead weight           150 tons
>
>Cabin:
>
>Length                      9 metres
>[30 feet of 300 mm/foot presumably overall]
>
>Small chamber length        2.22 metres  
>[ 1/4 the length of 30 feet = 7 1/2 feet of 300 mm/foot = 2250mm] 
>intended as also having the ratio of 1/3 the size of the larger cabin
>inside measure to inside measure perhaps
>
>Large chamber length        6.78 metres
>
>[should be 6.66 m inside which allows a total of 120 mm 
>or 4.8 inches for walls or 1 5/8" thick plank walls in the short axis.]
>
>Maximum height              2.50 metres
>
>[7.5 feet high with a ten inch ceiling or roof allowing you 
>to walk on it and use it as a deck]
>
>Width fore                  4.14 metres
>
>[I would at first expect it to be twice the 2.2 or 2/3 the 6.78 m 
>giving 4.52 outside, but where the fore end of the cabin in Old Kingdom 
>vessels should be about amidships it would have most probably been 3/4 
>the beam or 13.5 feet of 300 mm = 4.05 m inside giving a deck amidships
>of 2 feet 1 palm, comparable to what you would find on a modern schooner]
>
>Width aft                   2.42 metres
>
>[likely 2.22 m inside giving a wall thickness of 3 1/2" in the long axis]
>
>Length of steering oars     6.81 metres 
>
>23 feet = 6.9 meters, again some shrinkage is likely and this may also
>account for the variation in the length of the oars.
>
>                            6.87 metres
>
>Length of oars              from 6.58 to 8.35 metres
>
   Starboard Steering Oar  -  22.34' or 22' 4"
   Port Steering Oar       -  21.88' or 21' 4/7"
   (To convert, use a calculator, put 39.37 into the memory, enter
   each metric dimension multiple by the constant (the number of inches in a
   meter) and divide each product by 12.  For the decimal feet, multiply each
   decimal by 12, then estimate the proper inch fractions.
>The vessels decks rose fore and aft so there would need to be some
>adjustment in the length of the oars to reach the water depending
>on where you rowed from. From 22 feet to 28 feet  was probably
>intended.
  It is doubtful that more than eight oars were needed.  This vessel was 
  of high aspect ratio (great length to narrow beam), being easily rowed,
  and used only for running downstream.  Upstream it was towed by its sailing
  sister or rigged to sail by herself.
Tom Simms, ex-SSCD, ex-SNAME
>
>Now, then, will some kindly mathematician please put these figures into 
>feet and inches?
>
>I have put them into a unit of 300 mm which was four Egyptian palms
>and compares to a Roman foot of 296 mm and an English foot of 304.8 mm.
>
>saida
>***********************************************************
>
>steve
>
>                                                                                                                                                          

joe@sfbooks.com (Joe Bernstein) wrote:
>The surviving school of lesser-vehicle Buddhism has a three-"basket"
>scripture, the Tipitaka; others varied in this regard; but one of the
>"baskets" was, usually, and is, the Suttapitaka, I think I recall.  The
>surviving suttas vary a whole lot.  Some are very abstruse philosophy
>(probably most).  Some are rules for living, usually for the "monk",
>sometimes for the layman.  Some are narratives, for a notable example, the
>Mahaparinibbanasutta, which tells of the Buddha's release (death).  (This
>one is usually to be found in any collection of suttas in translation.) 
>One thing they generally have in common is the most extraordinary amount
>of repetition I've ever seen in any text (and ancients generally just
>*loved* repetition, it aided the memory so...).  
Yes, it is amazing how many and how long passages are verbatim
repeated. My theory is that those monk scribes really were more
advanced than what is generally known today. They must have used
word processors in their BCs (Buddhist Computers). And then they
must accidentally have switched on the Repeat function, sat down
in deep meditation for hours and forgetting the whole thing,
while their Palm Leaf Printers spewed out palm leaf after palm
leaf of identical texts ..... ;-)
But (serious mode on again) sometimes even those monks found that
enough is enough, and abbreviated long repeated passages with a
..pe..., meaning 'and so forth'.
>Another "basket" in the modern scripture is Vinayapitaka, rules of
>monastic life.  The third is Abhidhammapitaka, basically the *.misc of the
>scriptures.  In it are a couple of documents called Dhammapada and
>Suttanipata that are a *whole* lot closer to your usual wisdom text in
>form (also much less repetitious):  less structured, more aphoristic. 
>However, they're nothing like the Egyptian genre in that the latter is
>generally quite uninterested in abstract philosophy, and the Buddhist ones
>are jammed with it.
In the Abhidhammapitaka you will find a more systematic treatment
of the philosophical and especially psychological teachings
contained in the Suttapitaka. The Dhammapada and the Suttanipata
belong in the Suttapitaka, not in the Abhidhammapitaka. Apart
from that, your description of the Tipitaka is fairly good.
>Pardon begged of any sci.lang readers who've read these in the originals
>(I am, as always, going by translations here).
The originals exist in Pali, closely related to Sanskrit, and in
Sanskrit dialects that differ a little from the classical
Sanskrit. The Pali language is linguistically younger than
Sanskrit, but most of the classical Sanskrit texts are younger
than the Pali literature.
______________________________________________________________
Kåre Albert Lie
kalie@sn.no

In article <57a5j3$f2n@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com> S.NEMETH@IX.NETCOM.COM (Stella Nemeth) writes:
>
>There is evidence of boats.  There is no evidence of pack animals as
>early as there is evidence of boats.  The evidence for crude boats and
>rafts is very early.  There was a recent thread in s.a about boats and
>rafts, for which evidence was cited, before the Neolithic.  There is
>evidence of very elaborate and sophisticated boats at the time when
>there were only very crude carts, and when those were limited to very
>small areas of the Middle East.
There is no doubt that water was a means of travel in antiquity, but if you 
were to look at all the available evidence on trade, diplomacy, military 
movements, etc. that is available to us from detailed writings from Western 
Asia, you would discover that land travel was much more prevelent.  In the 
earlierst times for which we have information, donkeys were the main pack 
animals.  The best example is the Assyrian trade with Anatolia in the 19th 
century BCE.  We have some information on the itiniraries and the means of 
transport.  Caravans went from Assur on the Tigris into Anatolia to Kanesh and 
other trading posts such as Boghazkoy, the later site of the Hittite capitol, 
and texts clearly describe how goods were loaded on pack animals.  This is not 
theiry, but estalblished, documented fact.  Of course some goods were sent by 
water, but aside from wood coming downstream, most water communication inland 
was across small distances.  We even have texts from the Ur III dynasty that 
provide detailed information on the kind of things that were sent by boat, 
where and how long it took. These are all short journeys.  We have some pretty 
good idea of the routes that went across the Syrian desert, into Iran, across 
northern Syria, etc., and while you can fudge things and claim that there are 
rivers there, textual information clearly indicates that mushc of the movement 
was by land.  Although the horse was known in Mesopotamia and Syria as early 
as the 3rd millennium (some would even claim the 4th), it was the donkey and 
the onager that moved people about.

In article , Loren Petrich
 writes
>       It's in Latin, and I translate it as:
>
>       M. Agrippa [and] L. F. Costertium made [this]
Why do you think the verb is singular, Loren?
-- 
Alan M. Dunsmuir
  "Time flies like an arrow -
   Fruit flies like a banana" --- Groucho Marx (as used by Noam Chomsky)

Time magazine's Nov 25 issue is a must.
It explains how nematodes deteriate so that cells stop replication after
100 times, but in 70 year olds they stop after 20-30 times.
Though it doesn't reveal C-14 as the cause, it does show that
his nematodes live 50 days instead of 9 days which means a
human longevity of 420 years.
Genesis says Noah's grandson
Arpakshad lived 438 years  (2368-1930 BC)
Shelah       lived 433 years  (2333-1900 BC)
and Eber    lived 464 years  (2303-1839 BC)
[including Egyptian dynasties 1-4 who died with 12th dynasty possessions.]
POINT:
Those who survive Armageddon must live 400 years
before they can reach 900 years,
and reach 900 before becoming the first humans to live
1000 years. Education about GOD as SCIENCE  which he created,
(and not science as our god)
such as that science which Eve refused from Adam and so
Adam negligently tossed all effort and hope, is what is required
and obligated to receive the free gift of God.
************
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

petrich@netcom.com (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>In article <57a5j3$f2n@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
>Stella Nemeth  wrote:
>>>	Mr. Whittet, don't be a doodoohead. It _used_ to be thought that 
>>>ancestral IE was very Sanskrit-like, but that notion was discredited in 
>>>the 1870's or so. The idea here is that vowels corresponding to *e, *a, 
>>>and *o correspond *very* well in most of the IE langs, but get reduced to 
>>>a in Indo-Iranian.
>>No comment.  I frankly glaze over when all of you start talking about
>>vowels. ...
>	That's how you do comparative linguistics.
I did figure that out.  
>	And at least you know your limitations, which cannot be said of a 
>certain squidlike personage here.
Unfortunately, you've been so focused on someone else's limitations
that you haven't noticed your own.  You've been so busy squirting ink
yourself, that you've haven't noticed that other people are beginning
to get pretty tired of it.
The time will come when you will recognize that flames are pretty
useless.  They stop the conversation.  What are we all here for if it
isn't the conversation?  I'm taking it for granted that at some point
you will have a light bulb experience.
>	[no "Germans" in 200 BCE...]
>>>	It doesn't matter what they called themselves. Latin and Greek 
>>>were across some big mountains back then, and Germanic has some clear 
>>>differences from L and G, notably Grimm's Law of the stop consonants; 
>>>I'll compare English, Latin, and Greek, adding dashes to indicate more 
>>>clearly how the word divides up:
>>[snip, snip, snip]  Word lists make me glaze over even more than
>>vowels do.  
>	How else does one do comparative linguistics?
I'm not trying to do comparative linguistics or any other kind of
linguistics.  I'm trying to get this conversation off the dime.  Right
now I'm trying to translate what Steve is saying to you.  If necessary
I will attempt to translate what you are trying to say to Steve.  But
first you have to actually say something.  
Work with me here!
>>You haven't answered Steve's question.  Or responded to his
>>statements.  Do you agree that there were no Germans prior to 200 BC?
>>I, by the way, have no clue as to what the answer to that ought to be.
>>If there were Germans, by whatever name you wish to give them, what
>>languages were they speaking at that time and what evidence do we have
>>for either the peoples or the language?
>	That has to be extrapolated from the existing Germanic languages,
>since the ancestral Germanic language has gone unrecorded. It's generally
>agreed that the Jastorf culture (or at least artifact style) of northern
>Germany and southern Denmark was that of the ancestral Germanic speakers. 
>I'm sure that Mallory's _In Search of the Indo-Europeans_ can tell more.
Great.  We finally have some data to work with.  Please do NOT send me
off to read that book.  I've already read it and the only thing I can
remember about it was that it was badly organized and had been put
together by an excellent book designer.  It was rather pretty.  But if
I want esthetics, I'll go find an art book.
So, you get to translate Mallory to me.  When was the Jastorf culture?
You've already told me where.  Why do we think that the Jastorf
culture was ancestoral to the German speakers?  Did any of the
literate cultures around the Jastorf culture write about them?  Do we
have indirect evidence about this culture?  What direct evidence do we
have about them?
>>200 BC is well within historical times.  Even if the people in
>>question didn't have writing, the peoples who did have writing might
>>have described them and/or their languages.  
>	It's well within historical times for the Mediterranean basin,
>yes, but Greco-Roman authors had shown little interest in languages other
>than theirs. 
They showed a lot of interest in peoples and cultures other than
theirs.  Also land other than theirs.  And frankly the Romans had so
much interest in the lands these peoples were inhabiting, that they
went after the land and tried to take a good deal of it, and to some
extent succeeded.
It doesn't matter if they wrote about the languages those other
peoples spoke, at this point in the conversation at least.  Right now
we are talking about the cultures and the peoples.  We can discuss the
languages and how they got from point A to point B later.
>>>	Mr. Whittet seems to be claiming that Germanic got its 
>>>distinctions of vowels from Latin and Greek, but it must have got it in a 
>>>way that did not affect the stop consonants, which look more alike in 
>>>Latin and Greek than in Germanic (L,G t ~ E th, L,G p ~ E f, L,G k ~ E h, 
>>>etc.).
>>I don't think Steve is claiming any such thing.  I think Steve is
>>asking you the same questions I just asked you.  There are other
>>languages out there that could be ancestral to the German languages,
>>with lots of Latin thrown in for good measure.  Which ones do you
>>suggest as said ancestors?
>	Like what languages? Trying to figure out which ones will involve 
>doing things that will make your eyes glaze over, I'm sure, but how else 
>is one to do it?
Does it make YOUR eyes glaze over?  You get to do the linguistic
portion of this conversation and I get to do the cultural, art
history, etc. since you don't seem to have a clue about those areas.
Who knows?  Put it all together and we might even get somewhere.
>>Steve tried to get past Greek and Latin in the Egyptian word threads.
>>He seems to be trying to get past Greek and Latin in this thread too.
>>Unless, of course, you are claiming that IE stops dead at Greek and
>>that there is no evidence for anything before it and/or any other
>>families beside the Greek one and the Latin one within IE.
>	The reason I've been using mostly Latin and Greek for my cognates
>-- not necessarily ancestors -- is that that's what my American Heritage
>Dictionary most often lists, and it lists only the ones that have gotten
>into modern English, whether by descent or by borrowing. It does have some
>Celtic, Slavic, and Indo-Iranian ones, but I doubt if it has any Baltic or
>Armenian ones, and I'm sure it has no Hittite ones. I could go further and
>use Buck's Dictionary of Synonyms in the Principal Indo-European
>Languages, but I got that book only recently (it's out in paperback, and
>can be ordered from http://www.amazon.com). 
Yes.  Isn't amazon.com wonderful?  The folks at
rec.crafts.textiles.needlework love it too.  The owner seems to have
found a real niche.    Let's hope he gets to stay in business.  My
online needlework resource has gone down the tubes. 
I won't be getting the book.  You have it.  We will use yours if we
need it.
We are indeed making progress.  We've got a culture that is probably
the culture that produced the ancestor of the German languages.  Now
let's talk about it.
Just how much do you know about the Jastoff culture?  When were they?
You've already said northern Germany and southern Denmark.  So we know
where they were.  Tell me about the culture from a technological point
of view.  Are we discussing Iron Age or Bronze Age?  Literate or
pre-literate?  A farming culture?  With or without cities?  How much
moving around did they do?  Do we know if they came from someplace
else, and if so where, or if they were a "home grown" culture?
If you've got web resources, let me know.  Please don't provide a list
of books to read.  Right now I don't have the energy to hit the
libraries.
Stella Nemeth
s.nemeth@ix.netcom.com

petrich@netcom.com (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>In article <57ao68$g1p@fridge-nf0.shore.net>,
>Steve Whittet  wrote:
>>Cattle are illustrated as being transported in boats as early as the
>>fourth millenium, and one might ask how the Cretans got their bulls 
>>to Crete if not by boat. This suggests to me that the Persian Gulf
>>was a viable route for the Mittani to have taken to reach the Euphrates.
>	Sure, but it's a heck of a lot easier to go by land.
To Crete???  You can't get to Crete "by land."
>	Is it just me, but why does Mr. Whittet have such an aversion to 
>considering land travel?
You put that pack on your back and start walking.  I'll wait for the
nearest boat, with a sail.  Which one of us gets to Crete faster?
He doesn't have an aversion to considering land travel.  He does have
lots of experience traveling over the land under consideration in this
thread.  Perhaps he wishes that they had given him a boat instead of a
rusty Jeep?  
Stella Nemeth
s.nemeth@ix.netcom.com

mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal) wrote:
>S.NEMETH@IX.NETCOM.COM (Stella Nemeth) wrote:
>>At a later point, probably not much later, there was a "core
>>vocabulary" for a very ancient language.  With that vocabulary one
>>could put together basic ideas, ask for help, tell the story of the
>>last hunt, explain where the tasty "yams" came from, tell your
>>significant other and your parents/children that you loved them, and
>>basically do all of the important things that people need language to
>>do.  I'm pretty sure that core vocabulary was very small.  Perhaps as
>>small as Steve's 1,000 words.
>That may well be, but there is no way to know.  All extant languages are
>well past that point, and number their vocabulary by the thousands. I'd
>love to give concrete figures and data, but there aren't any, I'm
>afraid.  Counting the number of words in a language is not as easy as it
>seems, and may well be impossible to do.
Well, at least I've gotten past the confusion about what is language
and what is speech and all of us are on the same wavelength.  I'll
accept the fact that you don't have data from pre-literate cultures
from 5000+ years ago.  Seems reasonable to me.  
Counting the words in a language is not easy, but the dictionary
"guys" seem to do it all the time.  All that is wanted is rough
estimates in any case.  That should be doable.  I can understand if
you, personally, don't want to do it.  The information is already out
there, and simply needs to be collected.  Steve has already done that,
and I see no reason for anyone here to do it again unless you want to
check out his cites for his figures.
>>[...]
>>And additional words got added.
>>We've seen this exact kind of thing happen over and over again during
>>the technological rush of the last 200 years.  Just about everyone
>>calls the telephone some version of that word.  And the same is true
>>for almost every other kind of technology.  Get a new technology,  add
>>a whole bunch of new words.
>True, but new technology also causes a whole bunch of old words to be
>lost, especially if it supplants older technology.  I know a lot of
>computer terminology, but my agricultural vocabulary is rather weak.
>>If you are English you take in "cinema", "film" and "movie" for the
>>same technology, because multiple words for the same thing are a
>>commonplace in English.  Somehow I doubt if the French did the same
>>thing.  
>Spanish has "peli'cula", "film(e)", "banda", "cinta", "cine", "cinema",
>"largometraje"...  As the joke goes: "!Ahora que me habi'a acostumbrado
>a decir "pini'cula", ahora lo llaman "flim"!"
It doesn't surprise me that the Spanish speakers collected a bunch of
words.  Lots of different cultures speaking Spanish, including several
very creative ones.  Therefore, lots of imported words.  
Stella Nemeth
s.nemeth@ix.netcom.com

  I read that book.  He's studied the composition and distribution of
pyramid building blocks and concluded that the pyramid builders were
lugging baskets of a geopolymeric concrete up ramps to pour into wooden
molds, and thus the beautiful fit between blocks.  That solves any qualms
you might have about the huge number of people necessary to transport the
big rocks or at least poo-poos any anti-gravity theory you might have. 
He's even got an idea on the recipe, involving natron (a salt used in
mummification) and silt from the Nile. 
  Sorry, I have no idea if this theory was ever followed up on. I'd like
to hear a rebuttal myself. 
Brian Bennudriti

In article <57bo76$k3q@frysja.sn.no>, kalie@sn.no says...
>
>S.NEMETH@IX.NETCOM.COM (Stella Nemeth) wrote:
>
>>kalie@sn.no (Kaare Albert Lie) wrote:
>
...snip...
>The next time you visit the library, take a look at Böthlingk &
>Roth multi-volume Sanskrit dictionary. Or, if that one is not
>available, Monier Williams' dictionary will do. I have never
>tried to count words in Sanskrit - and never will! - but that
>rather old language has a foooooormidable vocabulary! How does
>this fact fit into the theory?
It isn't a dead language, at least not so far as I know. It's 
"like Latin in being a priestly, learned and cultivated language
in India", but "its still taught in the schools there" along with
its "more modern forms Prakit and Pali which probably bear to it 
about the same relationship as do the Romance languages with Latin".
"India abounds with all kinds of scientific literature written in
tolerably good Sanskrit even to the present day" F&W; ,vol 21:p 101
The first Sanskrit grammar to be published in Europe (Rome, 1790)
led to a fascination with the language which continued through
about 1860. My expectation would be that it should have a good
vocabulary, roughly equivalent to Latin, if not to a contemporary
language like English, and that your modern, up to date dictionary 
would reflect that.
When my Encyclopedia was written, Written Sanskrit was considered
to be a vestige of an older language of which little or no written
evidence was preserved in its original form. I don't know if that 
is still considered true or not.
Documentation of the earlier Sanskrit was considered to date 
from the 4th century BC and to be primarily a collection of 
literature from earlier sources; "in later dialects of Sanskrit
like Pali and Prakit wherein Sanskrit was "perfected" by the 
grammarian Panini." IBID 
More recent sources claim a considerably earlier date for the
origins of Sanskrit itself.
Sanskrit apparently means "adorned", "cultivated", "perfected"
and is considered to be the ancient and sacred language of the 
Hindus, but also to be distinguished from the even older forms 
of Indian speech "preserved in the religious literature of the 
Brahmanas, Vedas and Upanishids" and known collectively as Vedic.
Both Vedic and Sanskrit were apparently originally caste languages.
Vedic, Sanskrit, Avestan and Old Persian are apparently all dialects
of an older common idiom known as Indo Iranian.
Sanskrit apparently preserves Indo European better than any other
language with the possible exception of ancient Greek. Agreement
between the two allows Verners law to explain some exceptions to 
Grimms law.
The Vedic texts are primarily of a religious nature while Sanskrit
is essentially secular.
I want to allow that the Mittani were speaking Sanskrit c 1500 BC
so that gives me 1100 years to infill. The Jatakas, a collection 
of Budhist fables written in the 4th century BC in Pali, a later 
dialect of Sanskrit, suggest that Sanskrit itself was developed
earlier and for that matter there are etymological studies of 
Sanskrit which go back to the 4th century BC.
Mallory claims the earliest evidence for Indo Iranian in India 
is c 300 BC which dates it to after the point at which the 
Persian empire has been conquered by Alexander the Great and 
allows it to have come to India with his armies.
Mallory claims circumstantial evidence that the Vedas were written
down in Sanskrit in the 6th century BC. That still leaves me 
500 years shy of connecting to the Mittani. Mallory claims the 
vedas themselves were composed c 1500-1200 BC in northwest India.
He then goes to the Mittani as evidence of Sanskrit being spoken 
at that time, and ties them to the Hurrians.
Here is where our paths diverge. We both agree there is evidence
for an older unified connection between the people of Mesopotamia
and India which included the peoples in between. 
My route is along the Persian Gulf. Well documented trade here 
goes back to the 3rd millenium BC. This would include Makkan 
in Oman and the Elamites and Dilmun bordering southern Messopotamia.
Mallory follow Roman Girsham and Habur ware to Tepe Giyan II/III 
c 1800 BC, but he has the idea in his mind that it is in the Gorgon 
region that the domestic horse first appears in the Near East 
c 3000-2250 BC so he heads off for Shah Tepe, heading north
through the mountains to make a connection to the south.
...snip...
>______________________________________________________________
>
>Kåre Albert Lie
steve

In article <32995C77.8E2@wi.net>, Elijah  writes:
>such as that science which Eve refused from Adam and so
>Adam negligently tossed all effort and hope, is what is required
>and obligated to receive the free gift of God.
>
>************
>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,
One hopes it goes unheard very soon.

Cristian Ernesto Arredondo Carrasco wrote:
> 
> You are a fuckin bunch of stupid people that don't know anything...
> Jesus is the only one that can give you the paradise
> 
>
> >
> >
Dear Sir/madam,
Do you have any evidence to prove this? (The Bible 
won't be accepted as sufficient evidence.) I'm a 
doubting Thomas on this - until I can put my hand 
in the wounds etc...

Stella Nemeth wrote:
> >
> >I agree about all of those points, although I don't actually know any
> >Buddhist sutras.  I'm gathering that Buddhist sutras belong to the
> >wisdom literature genre.  If correct, that genre of good advice goes
> >way, way back.  There is a really neat group of Egyptian variations
> >that we have loads of copies of because Egyptian schoolboys were set
> >to copying them as part of their school work.
I don't envy them.  I would assume the ancient Egyptians had a large 
vocabulary because they seem to have about five words for everything!  
But imagine learning to be a scribe and having to memorize 700-odd 
hieroglyphs?  And then the cursive variations?

In article , piotrm@umich.edu says...
>
>In article <57a5j3$f2n@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com> S.NEMETH@IX.NETCOM.COM 
(Stella Nemeth) writes:
>>
>
>>There is evidence of boats.  There is no evidence of pack animals as
>>early as there is evidence of boats.  The evidence for crude boats and
>>rafts is very early.  There was a recent thread in s.a about boats and
>>rafts, for which evidence was cited, before the Neolithic.  There is
>>evidence of very elaborate and sophisticated boats at the time when
>>there were only very crude carts, and when those were limited to very
>>small areas of the Middle East.
>
>There is no doubt that water was a means of travel in antiquity,
The question then remains what cargos went by water and what cargos
went by land and how the land routes worked with the water routes.
1.) Large bulk cargos went by water, then as now. This would include
wood, metal ore, stone building materials, grain, oil, wine, salt,
Frankincense and Myhhr.
2.) Donkeys and ox carts portaged these goods between rivers, or
carried them down from the mountains to reach a stream where a raft
could be built. Camels were used to cross deserts and horses were
used for rapid communications.
3.) Domestic animals which could be herded were driven in herds,
but where necessary a prize bull could be shipped by boat as
could a squadron of chariots.
>but if you were to look at all the available evidence on trade, 
>diplomacy, military movements, etc. that is available to us from 
>detailed writings from Western Asia, you would discover that land 
>travel was much more prevelent. 
I actually do not find that to be the case. 
After the 3rd millenium BC I see a huge increase in the amount 
of barge traffic on rivers. The Nile is certainly one well 
documented example. The Egyptians actually didn't bother with
chariots and horses or even wheeled vehicles for millenia after
they began using boats. Messopotamia used its rivers in a similar 
fashion. So did India and China and for that matter Europe.
>In the earlierst times for which we have information, donkeys 
>were the main pack animals.  
Did the Egyptians use donkeys to transport the stones for
their pyramids? No, they used boats. Did the Greeks bring grain
to Egypt on donkeys? No they used boats. Did Frankincense and Myhrr
come up from Arabia on Donkeys to Egypt and Messopotamia? No they
used boats. Did copper come from Cyprus and Crete to Syria by
donkey? No they used boats. Did Sideon and Tyre and Byblos,
deliver their wares on Donkeys? No they used boats.
Donkeys may have been a main pack animal, but pack animals
were not the main means of transporting bulk cargos.Where 
many cargos were carried by camels and in ox carts as well 
as by donkeys in the Near East even calling donkeys the main 
pack animal is misleading.
>The best example is the Assyrian trade with Anatolia in the 19th 
>century BCE.
Why is the route to Kanesh, which is one of the few overland
routes which existed in antiquity and which basically served
as a perpendicular to the rivers picking up and delivering cargos
at midstream, a better example than the route between say Mari
and Babylon?
>We have some information on the itiniraries and the means of transport. 
You also have texts which tell of rafting cargos down rivers.
>Caravans went from Assur on the Tigris into Anatolia to Kanesh and 
>other trading posts such as Boghazkoy, the later site of the Hittite 
>capitol, and texts clearly describe how goods were loaded on pack animals.
You also have texts telling of the ships which lined the quay at Agade.
>This is not theiry, but estalblished, documented fact. 
It is a very one sided and misleading portrayal of the transportatio
system of the period. To give a beter picture tell us how many river
routes were in use in Messopotamia and how many donkey caravan routes.
Better yet, can you name a single river which was not used for
transportation? Or a lake or sea?
>Of course some goods were sent by water, but aside from wood coming 
>downstream, most water communication inland was across small distances.
Actually quite the opposite is the case. Water was commonly used for
long distance transportation. The water routes often spanned hundreds
of miles. There were certainly ports at which stops could be made at
frequent intervals, and no one trader may have gone the whole route,
but their cargos did. Frankincense and Myhrr coming up the Red Sea
being just one example. Granite coming down the Nile from the Belly
of Hagar to cairo being another. Cedar from Lebanon to Egypt being 
a third. Carnelian from Ceylon coming to Mesopotamia a fourth.
>We even have texts from the Ur III dynasty that provide detailed 
>information on the kind of things that were sent by boat, 
>where and how long it took. These are all short journeys.
We have archaeological evidence of shell seals from India found
in Mesopotamia and seals from Mesopotamia found in India. Is this
what you mean by a short journey? The Upper and Lower oceans were
represented as the cities of Tyre and Dilmun "yoked as two oxen"
is this the sort of reference to pack animals you refer to?
>We have some pretty good idea of the routes that went across 
>the Syrian desert, 
A mere portage between the rivers and the sea.
>into Iran, across northern Syria, etc., 
In almost every case I can think of these routes began and ended 
at a body of water, or connected to a body of water in some way.
Can you cite one which did not? The purpose for portaging across
land was simply to get to the water.
>and while you can fudge things and claim that there are 
>rivers there, textual information clearly indicates that 
>mushc of the movement was by land. 
I don't claim there was no movement by land, just that to
consider it properly you need to take into account how it might
have connected water routes. Once you do take that into
consideration you see water as connecting rather than separating
people and that makes a big difference.
> Although the horse was known in Mesopotamia and Syria as early 
>as the 3rd millennium (some would even claim the 4th), it was 
>the donkey and the onager that moved people about.
What no camels? No ox carts? Yes Piotr, I agree that donkeys were
used to carry small loads short distances. I doubt any one donkey 
was used to go the whole length of a caravan route anymore than
one boat was used to go the whole length of a water route.
Once you reached a town cargos were often transferred or sold. 
I think camels, the ships of the desert, were more likely used
to cross really long overland routes and that donkeys were often
used locally with carts. That is at least what I have observed
in my travels.
steve

In article <57bo78$k3q@frysja.sn.no>, kalie@sn.no says...
>
>S.NEMETH@IX.NETCOM.COM (Stella Nemeth) wrote:
>
>>archaeological evidence for the cultures you are postulating. ... What
>>cultures are you claiming spread the IE language(s)?  Where did this
>>cultures exist?  When?
>
>...legitimate questions. ... no definite answers. 
>detailed knowledge BOTH of linguistics and of archaeology.
>everything that is known about the IE languages, 
>
>My preliminary guess is that there was a primary agricultural
>spread, accounting for most of Europe (roughly along the lines
>that Renfrew draws),
Agriculture tends to settle people down, I can see how it helps 
form language, but how does it help spread language?
When? (Following Renfrew starting c 6,500 BC ?)
Where? (Most of Europe? Way too vauge)
Whats the mechanism?
> and a secondary spread from the Kurgan cultures,
(hordes of horsesmen?) When does this occur? Most of these
kurgan dwellers live in one small area along about a 50 mile
stretch of the Dneiper after c 1800 BC  and they stay there
until c 1200 BC. Isn't this a bit late to be out spreading 
language around. Why is it they all live on the river
near its mouth where the ground is marshy rather than up
river where there are hills and plains.
Why wouldn't river trade be an equally viable mechanism
when in fact that seems to have been a major aspect of
most of the beaker and bowl cultures in Europe?
> bringing Indo-Iranian languages to the east and Greek
>to the west. This guess is open to revision, however.
So do these represent two independently invented centers
of language in your view or they started out together ...
then moved apart... then got back together...?
>
>
>______________________________________________________________
>
>Kåre Albert Lie
steve

 Sa> Charlie Rigano wrote:
 > Pardon me for a digression.  When I visited the boat I found
 > it interesting.  However, the most noteworthy reason for
 > visiting the boat and I think the biggest attraction to the
 > boat museum is that the building has one of the two
 > bathrooms that I was able to find on the plateau.  The
 > other is down to the north of the Sphinx.  Both were very
 > clean and cost a pound tip to the attendant to use.  When I
 > say one of only two, I am of course not counting the space
 > behind every stone as a bathroom.
 > 
 About thirty years ago, I visited the pyramid of the sun outside of
 Mexico City.  There was a lady attendant at the public rest rooms.
 The fee was 1 peso. Your receipt was two sheets of commercial grade
 toilet paper.
 HILL
... With a Blue Wave of my hand I cleared away the SLMR!

Can anyone help out a non-scientist here?  
  -- How accurately can a 19th or 20th Century sample be dated? 
  A sample, for example from 1820? What is the +/- percentage 
  for accuracy? 
  -- How about 1920? 
  -- Can a recent sample (10, 20 years old) be pinpointed by 
  the month (might be a silly expectation, and I'm sure you'll
  let me know :) ) 
  -- What kind of carbon dating method would 
  yield the most accurate results? 
  -- Are there any NEW technologies on the horizon (carbon-based
  or not) which would be more accurate especially for 17th, 
  18th and 19th Century samples.
  I appreciate your indulgance on this.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
      http://www.dejanews.com/     Search, Read, Post to Usenet

I had a dream last night and couldn't sleep. My mind kept analyzing the
mathematics to the Confusion of Languages.
A new realization I now freely share with you.
The Genesis account reveals that Egyptians were not in need of a translator
until the 1st year of the famine which brought Joseph's brothers 3 times to Egypt.
(1730-1728 BC). This year counted from the Flood is 640 AM. That alone
is proof that the Confusion was not a miracle. If the Hebrews before then needed
no translator with Syria nor Canaan nor Egypt, then neither did these cultures
need one to speak with Hebrews. This proves that language changed by natural
corruption still occurring today. And it also reveals the reason for Josephus' 511-year Hyksos. 
Here's why.
The Seder Olam says:
http://www.execpc.com/~elijah/histry/sedrconfusn.gif
http://www.execpc.com/~elijah/6000/6000sedrolam.gif
3761 BC Adam
2105 BC Flood (1656 AM)
+2 
+35 Arpakashad
+30 Shelah
+34 Eber
+239 Peleg
1765 BC Peleg dies causing Confusion of Languages (1996 AM)
The Ussher says:
http://www.execpc.com/~elijah/6000/6000usher.gif
4004 BC Adam
2948 BC Flood (1656 AM)
+2
+35 Arpakashad
+30 Shelah
+34 Eber
+239 Peleg
2009 BC Peleg dies (Confusion of Languages caused by Marduk in 1996 AM)
regarded as ending the 52-year rule of Marduk (Ninus=Nimrod) over Ninevah.
http://www.execpc.com/~elijah/astronomy/3Dbabel3.GIF
This 2009 BC Marduk is in agreement with Eusebius placing Ninus
as dying in 2009 BC or 2007 BC. Moslem tradition according to
Cotrell gives Nimrod 500 years 2509-2009 BC
(being Eusebius' 450-950 AM from a 2958 BC Flood).
This merely indicates a Marduk observed in 950 AM
[correctly as 1420 BC after a 2370 BC Flood]
and it also indicates a Nimrod dying in 950 AM
[correctly being 2020 BC when Noah died at 950 years.
Narmer killing his name Narmer-rod whose
slanderous Shemetic alteration as Nimr-rod was reborn as Mena,
inaugurating the Pharaoh 10 years AFTER the 5th dynasty (Unas) died;
but not escaping our blame we now call him Menes (the menace).]
Where as the Egyptian reckoning of the Hyksos fleeing the confusion of Ur
at Peleg's death is 768 AM  (3089 BC Flood-end to 2321 BC death of Unas
and Peleg); 
Flood = 3090-3089 BC
+2nd year
+135 Arpakashad
+130 Cainan (means Chaldea)
+130 Shelah
+134 Eber
+239 Peleg dies in 768 AM
it is in Eusebius that we find Peleg placed at 640 AM
causing confusion and Hyksos.
Flood = 2958 BC
+2
+135 Arpakashad
+130 Shelah
+134 Eber
+239 Peleg dies in 640 AM
Peleg's and Unas' deaths are correctly as 2030 BC
inaugurating the Calendar with Phamenoth not Thoth.
However, the 640 AM is actually 1730-1728 BC pending count
from 2370-2368 BC. This is the entrance of Jacob as the
family of Israelites ending 213 years of the 12th dynasty
(Quban's July 10 sothic solstice, not Memphis' July 17).
Of which because the Hyksos of Peleg's 2030 BC death
were Shemetic, these Israelites were ALSO viewed as
Chaldean HYKSOS.
And since Joseph is the first biblically recorded need of
a translator, it reveals that confusion was a gradual process in
changing the languages of the earth. (Different writing
alphabets being created around 2100 BC does NOT prove
that different language were being used.)
Since Eusebius regards Peleg's death as 640 AM with Hyksos,
and Jacob's entrance is the real 640 AM, I have long ago recorded
in my records this equating Israel as Hyksos thru Egypt's Greek
miscalculation. But now I see we also have simple
bible and secular proof that 640 AM was regarded as a confusion
of language which extended 300 years from Peleg's death in 2030 BC
til Joseph in 1730 BC. This is also interesting because it can be
confused with rebuilt Babel (Babylon) which also lasted only 300 years
as 1894-1594 BC when Moses was conceived. Thus significant events
occurred between the Bible and Babylon.
1894 BC Babel rebuilt as 1st dynasty of Babylon
1770 BC Judah born the year *Nimrod dies* at 500,
                  his death crushing Babylon's rebuilt glory during Hammurabi
1761 BC after 20 years in Harran (1781 BC ages 77-97)
                Jacob flees Harran because of *Mari's destruction* by Hammurabi
1750 BC after 20 years from Nimrod's death, Babylon falls as *Hammurabi dies*
                 Joseph regarded as 1st born heir and only son of Rachel his
                  1st vowed wife. Given the coat of a king, 20-year old Judah is
                  jealous and sells 17-yr Joseph to Ishmael's sons headed for Egypt.
1738 BC  Isaac dies at 185 in last year of 12th dynasty (Pharaoh's birthday)
                  marked by 30-year Saturnalia and Sothic rising venus.
1730 BC another 20 years later  and 37-yr Joseph uses translator to speak to
                  his 11 brothers
1594 BC  Moses conceived the year Babylon totally falls
Thus although Josephus gives the Hyksos as leaving in the Exodus in their
518th year (2030-1513 BC), I can no longer accept my previous explanation of his
other figure of 511 years. I regarded it as a mistake or omittion of the 7-year famine.
It seems to be a reckoning of Babel's (2240 BC) or Ur's (2239 BC) foundation
being 511 years from 2240-1729 BC (1730 BC being 511th)
or 2239-1728 BC (1729 BC being 511th) etc. The degree of confusion took 511 years
since the first system of building cities thru classified trades, classified skills,
classified authority....etc, scholastic rulers who subdue truth and educate lies.
The theme of the Bible being that Jehovah's sovereignty which proves itself thru
TRUTH, cannot be assigned out as positions of authority without humans dying from
the lies educated by those authorities (lies bring death whether from Satan or Eve
or Adam). Once you question the fruitage
(questioning the results of facts you already know),
you place yourself on the path of accepting any obsurd belief contrary to fact
and waste time, thus disrupting the law of diminishing returns.
PROGRESS = amount of reconstruction greater than amount of destruction
STAGNANCY = amount of reconstruction equal to amount of destruction
Source for realization of translator in languages is
AID TO BIBLE UNDERSTANDING, topic LANGUAGE p.1029 Abraham Onward;
also topic HEBREW, 2 p.737-738 Language Stability
It must be remembered that the claim that the world was one language
refers to unity in belief and doctrine too. It would mean the whole world
spoke one language in 3000 BC. But in 2400 BC, although the whole world
continued to speak one language...it was not necessarily the same language
but had grown and changed with learning. Thus after the Flood (2370 BC)
the language of 2240 BC (at Babel founded by 30-yr Narmer) although being
a whole world  of one language, would not, nor could not possibly, and most certainly
DID NOT speak the same language as Adam or Lamech. In fact it would be
most proper, most probable, and most correct to believe that Noah who spoke
this one language of the whole world in 2240 BC, spoke a different language
than he did in 2370 BC than he did in 2470 BC than he did in 2950 BC at the age of 20.
The story is not about changing language.....it is about dividing our beliefs and
doctrines, dividing the truth of reality, thus producing different languages
merely as a resulting product. For this reason I do not stand with the Watchtower
as regards miraculous intervention, but with what Jehovah proves to be the case
in interpreting Moses' words at Genesis. The Bible never claims there is
or was a "pure form" in language. The fabrication of such as a hypothesis
is what causes a large wasted time of fabricating a scenerio of what happened to it.
You will note this by the extensive writing to explain this.
************
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

I do not reply to this man but find him contemptable.
Among the wicked his heart dwells,
liars who spare OJ for doubt, but kill christians until christians prove their sources.
I do not provide sources to those who do not provide for me. Note that he
and his other lesbian kind presents no sources for his C-14. Where is his
source that 3000 BC trees date as 3000 BC trees. Where is his quote of
what they date or what correction factors are used. My books I search and scan
for those who ask to be educated, not for those who feel they already are
educated and that I the fool must account to them with proven sources.
His heart reveals his motives as desiring to be no more than an attacker.
August Matthusen wrote:
> Evidence that "Such wood would date as older than 20,000 BC"?  (While
> you're at it, maybe you could also explain where you got the idea that
> all coals date to 20000 years?  I've never seen a response to this.
> You weren't bearing false witness again, were you?  That's a sin, you
> know.)
> Evidence?
> Evidence?  You state this a fact.  Where is this published?
> August Matthusen
************
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

rejohnsn@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu wrote:
> > Angry at religion, they make themselves the teachers
> > based on scientific success as the proof (God's approval) and claim to be the
> Ummm...if God approves...aren't you risking your soul with this sort of
> post?
Facts can be used to claim as support of lies. The sun DOES grammatically
rise out of the gorund and pass over head and disappears. Yet does this
visual perspective justify the claims that it physically rises out of a hole in the gorund,
or disolves each day. Man doesnt transfer sound over wires, God does.
And so atheists have success with God in doing this, and then exalts himself
by claiming there is no God (especially since the rotten church claimed the
science couldnt produce it but the church was then found to be wrong).
It is still a childish war between children of science against children of religion
and both are wrong despite their presentations of many facts.
> > new purged church of doctrines. And like priests they will seek for you to be
> > publicly shunned and slaughtered for choosing the freedom to oppose their
> > doctrine. As ALL have seen, I presented the data of a C-14 convention and
> O, the lovely fragrance of a double entendre.  When speaking of a
> radiocarbon "convention", the "conventional" (tee hee) understanding is
> `agreement on social behaviour etc. by implicit consent of the majority.'
> So, for example, the standard definition of the radiocarbon present is
> A.D. 1950 -- by convention.  The radiocarbon convention to which you
> refer is unconventional.
Perhaps then BP (before present) should refer NOT to 1950 but to
the date of C-14 testing. Thus for example 3400 +/-50 BP should be written as
3400 +/-50 BP1950, or if tested in 1995 as 3400 +/-50 BP1995.
> Well, since we are the majority, that is our prerogative.
Define WE. Scientists are the majority? School educators are the majority?
Gee what majority are you that you claim such rule of the world. It is not for
you to enforce division in my world. You claim that if I want a religion that
I have my freedom to choose, and yet you claim I must choose from
organizations that already exist, otherwise my teachings are a cult. You then
actually permit no freedom at all. Further, if I am free to choose my beliefs,
how is it that you say my religious beleifs cannot include my scientific ones,
nor scientific ones include religion? You force this culture to keep its fields
separated and divided. I somehow think the student/faculty ratio proves the
students to be the majority not the teachers.
>It also makes
> YOU the cult, not us.  But you know, when you hold up a book and say "we
> have to keep doing the problem until the answers we get match those in
> the back of the book," you're not trying to learn anything -- you're just
> trying to figure out how to get a particular answer.  Your faith is in
> the answer, ours is in the process.
> > They act no different than those who slaughtered Galileo.
> Ummm...wasn't Galileo just placed under house arrest?
> > Xina knows not what a Messiah complex is. You have made yourselves the
> > Messiah claiming your findings will save men from all sorts of calamities.
My findings are useless without an authority guiding those who need
the findings. I have no means to do this guiding. In 9 months hasnt that fact
explained to you why my name is John, or Elijah !
> Rebecca Lynn Johnson
> Ph.D. stud., Dept. of Anthropology, U Iowa
************
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

Rape = to force, to take, to demean
Slaughter  = to kill, to end, to close-up
I am no longer conmcerned with your searching for words
to label me as uneducated. Your passion to win wars thru
semantics is no longer inspiring me to reply with explanations.
This itself is the last to those who mock.
> >> They act no different than those who slaughtered Galileo.
> >Ummm...wasn't Galileo just placed under house arrest?
You killed his doctrine, you killed his hours of research time
and availability to sources. You SLAUGHTERED him by
slaughtering his reputation.
Paul C. Dickie wrote:
> On this Earth, he was.  On Richard Schriller's planet, the Pope got his
> Gestapo to machine-gun Galileo...
************
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

Ed Conrad (edconrad@prolog.net) wrote:
: They include Alan Mann at the University of Pennsylvania, Robert
: Eckhardt at Penn State University, some turkey from the Smithsonian
: Institution, 
Let me guess.  Niles Eldridge?
: Milford Wollford at . . .(I foget, he's lucky I even
: remember his brain-boggling name), 
And I'm sure he thanks his lucky stars that you did.
: David Pilbeam (a  a real horse's
: ass), Stephen Jay Gould . . .and the bigwigs like Johanson, Leakey,
: Leakey's mother, etc.etc. etc., who did not even have the courtesy to
: respond to information and photographs I had sent them.
No, but I'll wager they passed it around the faculty lounge for a good 
laugh.
: Every single one of them either shot me down with nonsensical rhetoric
: or wanted nothing whatsoever to do with involvement in honest
: investigation.
: All they were doing, Andrew MacRae, was protecting the party line.
For purposes of comparison, I suggest you try the following:
Write to every prominent mathematician you can think of, telling them
that you've managed to trisect an angle or square a circle.  I predict
you'll get similar responses.
These guys have more important things to do with their time than to
spend it correcting the mistakes, or disproving the pet theories 
of amateurs.  

In article <56up90$3n@news.ptd.net>, edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad) wrote: 
> 
>"henry l. barwood"  wrote: 
> 
>>Conrad, do you  
>>really think that anyone believes you any more? I can speak only for  
>>myself, but no self-respecting researcher would touch you with a ten foot  
>>tongue depressor! 
> 
>>Here Conrad's eyes sparkle as he pictures himself being given a ticker  
>>tape parade down Broadway while thousands of men in white coats shout  
>>hosannas to his greatness. Later the entire Nobel Prize committee bows in  
>>front of him and kisses his feet. Unfortunately, he wakes up. 
> 
>>                                   Henry Barwood 
> 
>Henry: 
>I have no idea why you've written such a nasty post. 
>Do you realize it could spoil my whole weekend? 
> 
>I mean, you ARE into rocks, aren't you? Well, I don't know 
>why you should be so offended that, because of your total lack 
>of openmindedness about  my discoveries,  I lost my cool and 
>called you a cement-head. 
> 
>After all, you should realize I could've done something a whole lot 
>worse. I could've told the folks that you have a petrified brain. 
Keep this bogus stuff out of the sci groups. 

Just a general inquiry concerning the newsgroup Aztlan.  Does anybody 
have the address to subscribe?  Would greatly appreciate the address.  
Please post for all interested parties.  
Thanks
D. Gundrum

August Matthusen wrote:
> PS Nice to see you got a job, finally (if you
> did).  I hope it isn't with Motorola again,
> I own stock in that comapany.
Your nose is uncomfortably in my crack,
please remove it. I can and will hold you liable should
you effect my employer. Should I stoop to your
level and ask you what a comapany is ?
Maybe you have forgotten the T in coma-panty !
You could be a comatose bed wetter

In article <57ci1j$a8@fridge-nf0.shore.net> whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) writes:
>We have archaeological evidence of shell seals from India found
>in Mesopotamia and seals from Mesopotamia found in India. Is this
>what you mean by a short journey? The Upper and Lower oceans were
>represented as the cities of Tyre and Dilmun "yoked as two oxen"
>is this the sort of reference to pack animals you refer to?
I do not intend to discuss anything with you, as the pile of nonsense that ou 
have been squirting here would take ages to get through, including all the 
incredible things you have been saying about your imaginary Sanskrit 
"Mittanni" coming up from the Persian Gulf.  Anyone who sends private messages 
telling people to "scram" (from their personal discussion group no doubt) does 
not deserve a civil answer.  Just for the record, His Royal Ignorance has now 
invented some thing in which Tyre and Dilmun as represented as "yoked as two 
oxen", which is a figment of his imagination, or one of his linguistic 
inventions that is based on not knowing any langiage other than his own.   
Mesopotamian seals in India?? The whole enigma of the long distance Gulf trade 
(which had a relatively short life as the evidence for Harappan objects in 
Mesopotamian sites does not precede c. 2400 BCE and seems to end during the 
18th century BCE) is that there are hardly any Mesopotamian artifacts found 
in the Indus Valley civilization, only evidence of materials going the other 
way.  In all the excavated sites on the Indian subcontinent, as far as I know, 
only one Dilmun type stamp seal (hardly Mesopotamian, but who is to 
quibble) has been discovered, during the digs at Lothal.   As for the fact 
that he does not know anything about overland trade routes in antiquity, that 
is simply because he has not read any of the literature on the subject.  Those 
who actually might be interested in information rather than empty 
speculation might try W. W. Hallo, "The Road to Emar," Journal of Cuneiform 
Studies 18 (1964) 57ff. and A. L. Oppenheim, "Essay on Overland Trade in the 
Forst Millennium B.C."  same journal 21 (1967) 236ff.  There is also the 
interesting article of Moshe Elat, "Phoenician Overland Trade within the 
Mesopotamian Empires,"  in Cogan and Eph'al, Studies.... Tadmor.
>
>> Although the horse was known in Mesopotamia and Syria as early 
>>as the 3rd millennium (some would even claim the 4th), it was 
>>the donkey and the onager that moved people about.
>What no camels? No ox carts? Yes Piotr, I agree that donkeys were
>used to carry small loads short distances. I doubt any one donkey 
>was used to go the whole length of a caravan route anymore than
>one boat was used to go the whole length of a water route.
This is the kind of nonsense we have to deal with.  Sorry, donkeys were the 
basis for much overland trade, and there is a tremendous amount of 
epigraphic material to prove it, the Kanesh trade being only one of the 
better documented examples.  Just ask all the Biblical scholars who used this 
information to reconstruct the "age of the patricarchs" on the basis of some 
of this material, including Albright and others who recognized the importance 
of donkey caravans before the widespread use of the domesticated camel.  Read 
something instead of simply emoting, or looking for predigested material on 
the net.  Camels were not in general use in the Ancient Near East for transport
until about 1200 BCE; see R. Bulliet, The Camel and the Wheel (Cambridge, 
1975).   
>Once you reached a town cargos were 
often transferred or sold. >I think camels, the ships of the desert, were more 
likely used>to cross really long overland routes and that donkeys were often
>used locally with carts. That is at least what I have observed
>in my travels.
That about explains it--what SW saw today in the Middle East is the basis for 
ignoring thousands of documents and the modern secondary literature based on 
this data.  I promise all the tired readers not to get involved with this, so 
others can play with the man.  It is incredible to stand by and watch all this 
false information plopped down again and again.

In article <5706na$c6q@news.ptd.net>, edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad) wrote: 
> 
> 
>> Bob Whitaker  hit a bull's-eye when he wrote 
>>  (to sci.anthropology and a few other news groups) 
>  
>(with Ed Conrad's apology to Cynthia Gage for incorrectly crediting 
>her for posting them): 
> 
>Says Bob: 
>>         What we call academe today is a multi-billion-dollar, 
>> self-perpetuating, self-selected bureaucracy. 
>>          The difference between the academic bureaucracy and any other 
>> self-selecting bureaucracy is that academe claims, as its sole product, 
>> objective, unbiased, balanced truth.  It has no other reason for 
>> existence. 
>>           Is the academic bureaucracy actually the first self-selecting 
>> bureaucracy in history to produce anything approaching objectivity, or 
>> is its product simply a predictable result of its biases? 
>  
>                                 ~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
> 
>You've said a mouthful, Bob, and -- I have to hand it to you -- 
>you've said it very well. 
>  
>Academe is INDEED a multi-billion-dollar, self-perpetuating, 
>self-selected bureaucracy -- and the only  ``truth'  it dispenses 
>is what it decides to give out. 
>Even when it is fully aware that a particular ``truth" is total 
>fiction. 
>Its ``product" unquestionably is, at all times, a predictable result 
>of its complete and utter bias. 
>  
>I offer one glowing example. 
>Academe's adamant, unyielding stance concerning man's evolutionary 
>inhuman origin has absolutely no basis in fact. 
>Even worse, when challenged with facts and evidence -- 
>>>   http://www.access.digex.net/~medved/conrad/conmain.htm 
>-- it resorts to despicable antics of deceipt, dishonesty, coverup and 
>foul play. 
>  
>The Wheels of Vested Interests keep right on rolling along. 
>>>  
>Thanks, Robert,, for your keen insight in sizing up a deplorable 
>situation and for having the courage to call a spade a spade.