Newsgroup sci.archaeology 51170

Directory

Elmo wrote:
> 
> Ahhh Frank, I too saw the TV program on this and have read a little
> about it since. Whilst i am by no means well read on the subject i saw
> two major problems with the Wests theory. He ISN'T an archaeologist,
> AND his theory (if correct) would seriously stuff up all the time
> lines that current archaeology and Egyptology is based on.
> Archaeologists appear to be happy with thier model of the world they
> have created and i think they are going to need a lot of convincing to
> come around on this topic. Personally i think i tend to favor the
> Geologists views, thier foundations seem to be a little more solid.
> (No pun intendid......Well maybe a little bit).
> 
> Elmo
I'm not sure what you mean by the "Geologists views".  *One*
geologist (Robert Schoch) has suggested some observations 
which he indicates mean the Sphinx was carved 7 to 9 ka.
He has not published this premise in a peer-reviewed
geological journal.
Other geologists (note the plural) think his idea ignores
many pertinent facts and that the archaeologists have valid points. 
See some of their publications in:
Chowdhury, A.N., A.R. Punuru, and K.L. Gauri, 1990.  Weathering of 
    Limestone Beds at the Great Sphinx; _Environmental Geology and     
   Water Science_, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 217-225.
Gauri, K.L.,  A.N. Chowdhury, N.P. Kulshreshtha, and A. R. Punuru,     
   1990.Geologic Features and Durability of Limestones at the Sphinx;
    _Environmental Geology and Water Science_, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 
    57-62.
Gauri, K. L., J.J. Sinai, and J.K. Bandyopadhyay, 1995.  Geologic
    Weathering and its Implications on the Age of the Sphinx;
    _Geoarchaeology_, Vol 10, No. 2, pp. 119-133.
Harrell, J. A., 1994.  The Sphinx Controversy:  Another Look at the 
    Geologic Evidence; _KMT_, vol 5., pp. 70-74.
Punuru, A.R., A.N. Chowdhury, N.P. Kulshreshtha, and K.L. Gauri, 1990.
    Control of Porosity on Durability of Limestones at the Great       
    Sphinx,Egypt; _Environmental Geology and Water Science_, Vol. 15,  
  No. 3, pp. 225-232.
Regards,
August Matthusen

In article <57g2r1$3q4@fridge-nf0.shore.net>, whittet@shore.net says...
>In article <57fd87$8jt@csu-b.csuohio.edu>, scott@math.csuohio.edu        
>says...
>>In article <57ci1j$a8@fridge-nf0.shore.net>, whittet@shore.net says...
[snip]
>>>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.
>>If these routes indeed terminated in bodies of water, that fact can 
>>easily be interpreted in a completely different way: the water 
>>prevented the land route from being further extended.  I offer for 
>>now no opinion on the relative merits of the two interpretations; 
>>I haven't read enough.  But your conclusion certainly doesn't 
>>follow by necessity from the geographical facts that you offer in 
>>its support.
>Think of it like bus stops. They tend to get placed where people
>can make connections to other means of transportation.
Except of course when they get placed at a terminus.  More to the 
point, *why* should I think of them as bus stops?  That analogy 
already assumes your view of the matter - which seems to me at best 
questionable.  Try thinking of water as an obstacle: you'll get 
the same relationship between route-ends and bodies of water.  In 
other words, that relationship has very little evidentiary value 
*regardless* of the facts.
Brian M. Scott

Peter van Rossum wrote:
[snip]
> There is no indication again, that the peanuts came from undisturbed
> strata. If you read the Chang quote more carefully you will see that he
> doesn't say that the strata were undisturbed only that you can't figure
> it out from the original site report.  From a source cited in Chang, I
> found this:
> 
> "Integrated evidence from a variety of sources indicates the peanut
> originated as a crop in South America, where it is not at present
> documented archaeologically until *after* Lungshanoid times.  Furthermore,
> the introduction of the peanut into China is rather well documented
> historically, and there is no mention of it in Chinese literature until
> the 1530s (Ho 1955).  Its appearance in the Chinese Neolithic is suspect
> to say the least.  According to Ho (personal communication), the site
> report of the Ch'ien-shan-yang indicates a stratigraphy so confused and
> unreliable that there is essentially no evidence for early peanut at all.
> Yet the report is repeatedly cited as if this item of evidence bore as
> much weight as an integrated body of evidence." (Harlan & de Wet 1973:54).
I pulled a copy of Harlan and de Wet, too.  Aside from their quote on
the peanut, they make several valuable suggestions on the qualification
and evaluation of ethnobotanical data.
> So at least some Chinese archaeologists are claiming that the Ch'ien-shan-yang
> stratigraphy *is* mixed.  Also the type of mixing I mentioned due to
> natural or animal action moving just a small number of small objects can
> be very difficult to pick up while an excavation is in progress.  So even
> if there is good evidence of largescale non-mixing of a stratum the
> possibility of an intrusive small object still exists.
> 
> In Sauer I found the following:
> "The only report of archaeological peanut material in Mexico is from
> the Tehuacan caes where some peanut shells were found in the top levels,
> which may date from after the Spanish conquest.  One seed was found in
> a lower level, dated before 750 A.D.  Standing alone, this must be
> suspected of being intrusive through disturbance." (Sauer 1993:81).
> 
> See how easily Sauer (and I'd go along with him) is willing to accept
> disturbance rather than diffusion for a region which is land-linked to
> South America because it stands out as an anomaly.  Without a direct
> date on the peanut in question, or a wider body of corroborating evidence
> the possibility of disturbance rather than spread seems more likely
> (to me and Sauer at least).
> 
> Also the other objection in the quote above is that *if* the Chinese
> dates are correct, then people have found domesticated peanuts in a
> Chinese context which are OLDER than the dates we so far have for the
> earliest domesticated peanuts in the New World.  Maybe someone will find
> an earlier date for the peanut in the New World, but at present it does
> seem strange to find a domesticated plant EARLIER in a DIFFUSION context,
> than in its supposed hearth of domestication.
> 
> Here's my final objection (at least so far) to Needham's conclusion.  Chang
> has written at least 3 revisions of "The Archaeology of Ancient China."
Actually, I found four editions.  1963 was the first and 1986 is the
fourth.
Other than that your notes are extremely similar to what I found in
looking at these references.
> In version one (1968) he wrote of the peanut "At Ch'ien-shan-yang...the
> peanut, a well know early American species" [was found] (p. 157).
> In this draft there is no questioning the accuracy of this find.
> 
> In version two (1977) he wrote, "At the P'ao-ma-ling site, four peanut
> seeds were reported..." (p. 167), and "At Ch'ien-shan-yang"...the peanut,
> a well know early American species" [was found] (p. 181).  But now he
> also adds the footnote "The stratigraphy of the remains of the peanuts
> has been questioned - rightly it now seems from the radiocarbon
> disconformity - by a number of scholars who are skeptical of the early
> date of peanuts in China....But see the earlier discussion of peanuts at
> P'ao-ma-ling in Kiangsi." (p. 181)
> So now Chang seems to be quibbling with the accuracy of the find, although
> he's not out-and-out rejecting it.
> 
> In verion three (1986) I couldn't find any mention of the peanut in the
> index or in the body of the text.  The only mention of the peanut is now
> in a footnote: "the original report [of Ch'ien-shan-yang] lists, in
> addition, the peanut, sesame, and beans.  The provenance of these finds,
> as well as the remains of silk, has been questioned; see..."  (footnote
> on p. 254).
I noticed the same lack of mention of the peanut in the index of
the 1986 edition (although "peanut" was indexed in the '77 version).  
I checked the '86 text for the sites mentioned having peanuts in 
the '77 edition and found the same as you did for Ch'ien-shan-yang.  
When I checked the '86 edition for discussion of the P'ao-ma-ling site, 
there was *no* mention of peanuts.  It appears that in 1986 Chang puts 
little, if any, credence in the report of "four peanut seeds" at that
site.
> You can draw your own conclusions but to me it appears that as more time
> passes, without the appearance of more corroborating evidence, Chang is
> becoming much more equivocal of his acceptance of the idea of an early
> peanut introduction.
Equivocal on the reported finds Ch'ien-shan-yang, deletorious 
on the finds at P'ao-ma-ling.
[snip]
Regards,
August Matthusen

Lurking through the threads about the tiles found in the ruins of
Ramses III's palace, I thought maybe it would be more
enlightening for all concerned if Velikovsky defended Velikovsky.
What he said on starting on page 6 of his _Peoples of the Sea_
"Greek Letters on Tiles of Ramses III
Tell el-Yahudiya, or 'The Mound of the Jew' is an Arab village
east of the Delta, twenty miles northeast of Cairo on the road to
Ismailia. Over ninety years ago the Swiss Egyptologist Edouard
Naville excavated the ruins of a palace of Ramses III. Tiles,
colored and glazed, once adorned the walls. They were found in
great numbers on the site by travelling scholars and also by Emil
Brugsch in the service of the Egyptian Department of Antiquities,
before Neville, assisted by F.L. Griffith, came to dig there. The
tiles have rich designs, mostly of flowers, and some bear the
hieroglyphic name of Ramses III. On the reverse side of these
tiles are found incised signs: these are apparently the initials
of the craftsmen who produced them, inscribed before the tiles
were fired.
There was no doubt that the signs on many of the tiles in the
palace of Ramses III at Tell el-Yahudiya were Greek letters, 'The
most notable feature is that several of the rosettes have Greek
letters at the back, evidently stamped on during the process of
making' wrote T.H. Lewis, Orientalist and art expert, to whose
judgment the tiles were submitted.' [footnote 1]
[footnote 1] T.H. Lewis, 'Tell-el-Yahoudeh,' _Transactions of the
Society of Biblical Archaeology_ VII, 1881 (1882), 182
..............
Judging be these letters, the tiles must have been made in one of
the later centuries before the present era. The peculiar form of
the _alpha_ was only introduced then [footnote 2] and the forms
of some of the other letters also indicate that they are of a
late century......
[footnote 2] ibid, p. 189 
'The Greek letters, and especially the _alpha_, found on the
fragments or disks leave no room for doubt (ne laissant aucun
doute) that the work was executed during the last centuries of
the Egyptian Empire, probably in the time of the Ptolemies, but
the matter becomes more difficult if we ask who the author of
this work was' So wrote Emil Brugsch" [footnote 3]
[footnote 3] E. Brugsch, 'On et Onion' _Recueil de traux relatifs
a la philogie et a l'archeologie et assyriennes, VIII (1885), 5
Just in case anyone out there considers it dirty pool to cite
someone who cites 19th century sources, there are pictures 
of the tiles in question, front and back, on two unnumbered pages following 
page 98 of V's _Peoples of the Sea_ 
--
Joe Canepa
canepa@mercury.interpath.com

Marcus S. Robinson, D.C.H. wrote:
> 
> In <57kari$bs1@access4.digex.net> dickeney@access4.digex.net (Dick
> Eney) writes:
> >
> >In article <57k51o$ehg@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>,
> >Marcus S. Robinson, D.C.H.  wrote:
> >>Greetings All,
> >>
> >>It clearly makes no difference at all whether or not the so-called
> >>"Satan" was released and thus the meaning of such a release is moot.
> >>Fact is, we are each responsible for our choices and actions in the
> >>world.  Karma is self-created and mutually shared. Get it! Get real,
> >>and get a life.
> >>
> >This would imply that the actions of others don't affect us, which
> >some people really do assert; but the hard-to-escape corollary is that
> >our actions don't affect them.
> 
> Greetings Dick,
> 
> If you read my statement carefully, you would see that I've answered
> this question already.  Karma is mutually shared.  Like it or not, we
> (all of us) are bound by the same thread of destiny; being
> simultaneously dependent, independent, and interdependent upon each
> other and the world in which we live.
> 
> >If that's the case, what price Karma?
> 
> 
> The rest of your question are irrelevant.
> 
> Marcus S. Robinson, DCH
> Voyager...On the Path of Transfomration E-Journal
> http://www.vivanet.com/~marcus/voyager.htm
Not spam... just sharing:
http://alamut.alamut.org/c73/index.htm

Observe this discussion, if you will:
On 1 Dec 1996, Ed Conrad wrote:
> 
> jaeger@3lefties.com (Eric Kervina) wrote::
> 
> >The "scientific community" you refer to, if it is the same one I am 
> >thinking of, has never claimed to have all the answers. That is why we 
> >often use big words like "hypotheses" and "theory" and seldom use small 
> >words like "law". . .
> 
> But when confronted with facts and evidence -- concerning the things
> that really matter, such as the origin and antiquity of man -- the
> small word that SHOULD be used is avoided like the plague.
> 
> Until the arrival of the Internet, facts and evidence that seriously
> challenged established science's farfetched theories never really had
> a fighting chance. 
> 
> Please don't be offended, Eric. But, the way I see it, the only reason
> ``hypotheses" and ``theory" are bigger words than ``law" is because
> they contain more letters of the alphabet.
> 
> >I do warn you that we do have strong evidence to support
> > the theory that mankind crossed a land bridge, and will require
> >similarily strong evidence to change our theory.
> 
> I'm listening with guarded ear. What strong evidence? What facts?
> I'd honestly settle for one hard cold fact but, the truth is, the
> scientific community is simply unable to produce it. Therefore, its
> response, as always, will emerge from a quagmire of pseudo-science
> mumbo-jumbo.
> 
> >The theory fits the known facts, and the known facts fit 
> >the theory. If you can produce facts that invalidate the theory, we 
> >will abandon it.
> 
> Admittedly,  NEITHER of us can produce undisputed, undeniable
> evidence, pro or con, on the issue of man's initial arrival in the
> Americas via the Bering Strait.
> 
> So I guess we'll just have to let everyone make up their own mind by
> simply using good ol' Common Sense.
> 
> 
> What I find difficult is that this particular debate is raging in the
virtual complete absence of any dealing with sites, artifacts or the like.
Forget about whether a hypothesis is better than a theory, or if the
theory can be one hundred percent perfectly proved.  Let's try to settle
this is a better way.
	I've already tried to lay out some of the reasons why the Bering
Strait hypothesis is likely to be one of the major (though I do not
believe the only) means into North America.  If you believe, Mr. Conrad,
that this is all a load of crap, then why don't explain why?  And please
don't use your "can't survive in the cold" or "there's no evidence",
because just walk over to the library and start a bit of reading.  DNA
analysis and dental analysis are becoming increasingly more solid as
useful evidence.
	Frankly, I don't understand what the problem is.  Your perception
of all science as being subterfuge and attempts to obscure the truth
sounds like a cheesy X-Files episode than the reality.  Of course there
are grey areas, but by dismissing anyone's evidence as "biased" or
"inconclusive" before you really (and I mean really-not just an instant
reply) look at it, leaves you mired in self-referential tautological
answers.  If you've made up your mind that everything is bogus, then
nothing I or the hundreds of other archaeologists can say will ever change
your mind.  Please consider that.
					Sincerely,
						Paul
 > > 

On Tue, 26 Nov 1996 21:59:50 +0000, Paul Sampson
 wrote:
>......................................................... To take a simplistic
>(and possibly silly) example, the 'invention' of the concept of the 'plural'
>immediately doubles the number of nouns in your language. The 'invention'
>of comparative and superlative triples the number of adjectival forms. There's
>no smooth transition - it's a straight jump. Please don't think I believe
>this is what happened, I'm merely demonstrating that it's possible to
>imagine discontinuous (and large) jumps in 'vocabulary size' and that it's
>therefore very unsafe to assume that somewhere between 10 and 100,000 there
>*must* have been 1,000.
perhaps the safety of the assumption depends on how we define a word's
entrance into the language...in your example of plurals, comparatives,
and superlatives you are dealing with the theoretical possibility of a
word, not with its ever having been used...nor is it necessarily the
case that a concept such as plural (et al) would immediately be seen
as applicable to all ultimately pluralizable words...
if we define the word's entrance into the language as the occasion of
its first actual usage, then, supposing a precondition in which we
have a language of less than 1000 words, and barring the absolute
simultaneity of the first speaking of different words, we have, at
least temporarily a language of precisely 1000 words...
frank

On 2 Dec 1996 01:40:06 GMT, dolmen1@ix.netcom.com(Leonard M. Keane) wrote:
>By "findings" I mean things discovered or new information reported on;
>a "claim" would to me carry a connotation of something already
>established or proven, whereas that has not happened.
Ah, didn't realise that was what you meant, ok.
>
>
>I honestly don't know what to make of Mystery Hill.  I understand there
>is a carbon-14 dating of about 4000 B.C.
There's a 1045 BC +/- 180 date, but that is charcoal over 3 feet below the
stone structures, could have been anything from a forest fire to manmade, but
predates the structures.
 I also recognize some solar
>alignments and stone placements there. 
You'd expect solar alignments for root cellars.

You must not be suprised to listen that Romans used steam engines.First,
Greeks like Homer,Herodotus talk about engines-automata which powered by
steam also.Later in Hellenistic period engines with a plenty of utilities
were wide used.HERON AND PHILON file automata which produse sounds or even
work like robots.The origins of steam exploitation go back to Egupt
according to Herodotus.I do not know about elevetors but If you notice many
developed applications which are evidence in these ages it couldn't be only
fiction or extreme conclusions.If you are really interesting in ancient
technology READ Vitruvious OR Heron(automatopoitiki-hellenistic).
good search
telephos 

You must not be suprised to listen that Romans used steam engines.First,
Greeks like Homer,Herodotus talk about engines-automata which powered by
steam also.Later in Hellenistic period engines with a plenty of utilities
were wide used.HERON AND PHILON file automata which produse sounds or even
work like robots.The origins of steam exploitation go back to Egupt
according to Herodotus.I do not know about elevators but If you notice many
developed applications which are evidence in these ages it couldn't be only
fiction or extreme conclusions.If you are really interesting in ancient
technology READ Vitruvious OR Heron(automatopoitiki-hellenistic).
good search
telephos 

More fuel has been poured on the fire in the Ed Conrad-vs.-the-
Scientific-Establishment controversy about the antiquity of human
beings (while also adding millions upon millions of years to the
initial appearance of the dinosaurs).
Two more photos have just been added to Ted Holden's home page at
http://www.access.digex.net/~medved/conrad/conmain.htm
One is a photo of the late  Wilton M. Krogman, author of ``The Human
Skeleton in Forensic Medicine" and considered one of the world's
foremost authorities on the human skeleton, proudly holding what he
described as a petrified human calvarium (a portion of a human skull
with the eye sockets broken off).
Shortly after this photo was taken at the world famous Cooper Clinic
in Lancaster, Pa., one of the doctors on staff walked past and Krogman
beckoned him to come and examine ``the oldest human skull ever found."
The other new photograph of a portion of a dinosaur foot partially
embedded in a huge slab of slate that had been removed from between
anthracite veins near Shenandoah, Pa., in Carboniferous strata dated
geologically at a minimum of 280 million years.
My apology for its lousy reproduction quality but I'm sure this will
be rectified in the near future. Hopefully, Ted will also post another
photo (now in his possession), showing the huge slab of slate from the
distance.
(Incidentally, the specimen that Krogman is holding is the same one
that is pictured a bit higher on the home page -- just below the
portion of the dinosaur foot and just above the large petrified animal
tooth.)

Aryan
(from Avestan Aeryan and Sanskrit arya, "noble"), a people who, in 
prehistoric times, settled in Iran and northern India. From their 
language, also called Aryan, the Indo-European languages of South 
Asia are descended. In the 19th century the term was used as a 
synonym for "Indo-European" and also, more restrictively, to refer to 
the Indo-Iranian languages. It is now used in linguistics only in the 
sense of the term Indo-Aryan languages.
During the 19th century there arose a notion--propagated most 
assiduously by the Comte de Gobineau and later by his disciple 
Houston Stewart Chamberlain, of an "Aryan race," those who spoke 
Indo-European languages, who were considered to be responsible for 
all the progress that mankind had made and who were also morally 
superior to "Semites," "yellows," and "blacks." The Nordic, or 
Germanic, peoples came to be regarded as the purest "Aryans." 
Germans, which had been repudiated by anthropologists by the second 
quarter of the 20th century, was seized upon by Adolf Hitler and the 
Nazis and made the basis of the Nazi government policy of 
exterminating Jews, Gypsies, and other "non-Aryans."
The Indo-Aryan Language
The Indo-Aryan and Iranian languages together constitute the 
Indo-Iranian language group, the easternmost major branch of the 
Indo-European family of languages. Indo-Aryan (Indic) languages are 
spoken by approximately 660,000,000 persons in India, Pakistan, Sri 
Lanka (formerly Ceylon), Nepal, Bangladesh (former East Pakistan), 
and other areas of the Himalayan region. In addition, languages of 
the Indo-Aryan group are spoken by about 5,000,000 people in Europe, 
Africa, the Americas, and Oceania: the Gypsy, or Romany, dialects 
distributed about the central Asia, the Middle East, Europe, and 
North America are of Indo-Aryan origin. Speakers of Iranian number 
about 62,000,000 and live in areas extending from Pakistan (former 
West Pakistan) to Iran, Afghanistan, and the central Asia. Among the 
Indo-European languages.
The Indo-Iranian tongues have been used as both administrative and 
literary languages. Gatha, the oldest part of Avesta the Holy book of 
Zoroastrian,. The Gatha’s texts are in dialects included under the 
name Avestan dated around 3600 BP..., Old Persian was the 
administrative language of the early Achaemenian dynasty dating from 
the 6th century BC; and an eastern Middle Indo-Aryan dialect was the 
language of the chancellery of King Ashoka in India in the mid-3rd 
century BC. 
As literary languages, the Indo-Iranian languages have been used in 
the texts of some of the world's great religions: Indo-Aryan for 
Buddhism, Hinduism, and Jainism, and Iranian for Zoroastrian and 
Manichaean texts, which Commerce, conquest, and religion spread the 
influence of these languages. Indo-Aryan languages, for example, 
penetrated deep into Southeast Asia; names in Indonesia and other 
areas and Sanskrit texts in Cambodia reflect this influence
The close relation between the Iranian and Indo-Aryan groups has 
never been doubted. They share characteristic features that set them 
apart as a subgroup of Indo-European. The long and short varieties of 
the Indo-European vowels e, o, and a, for example, appear as long and 
short a: Sanskrit manas- "mind, spirit," Avestan manah-, Old Persian 
Maeno and Modern Persian Minoo but Greek ménos "ardor, force." (In 
the following examples, indicates a long vowel; indicates a short 
vowel. The spellings used in this article for Indo-Aryan and Iranian 
forms are traditional transliterations for the most part. In some 
cases, more accurate phonetic symbols are used. These can be found in 
the International Phonetic Alphabet.) In instances in which some Indo 
European languages have an a sound, Indo-Iranian has (i) as a reflex 
of Indo-European sounds called laryngeals; e.g., Greek pater 
"father," Sanskrit pitr-, Avestan and Old Persian pitar-. After stems 
ending in long or short a, i, or u, an n occurs sometimes before the 
genitive (possive) plural ending am (Avestan -am); e.g., Sanskrit 
martyanam "of mortals, men" (from martya ); Avestan masyanam (from 
masya-), Old Persian martiyanam.
In addition to several other similarities in their grammatical 
systems, Indo-Aryan and Iranian have vocabulary items in 
common--e.g., such sacrificial terms as Sanskrit yajña-, Avestan 
yasna "sacrifice"; Sanskrit hotr-, Avestan zaotar- "a certain 
priest"; and names of divinities and mythological persons, such as 
Sanskrit mitra-, Avestan mi ra- "Mithra." Indeed, both the
Iranians and the Indo-Aryans used the same word to refer to 
themselves as a people: Sanskrit arya-, Avestan aeryan-, Old Persian 
aryan- "Aryan."
Indo-Aryan and Iranian also differ in many points. Among them, 
Indo-Aryan has an i sound  representing an Indo-European laryngeal 
sound not only in initial syllables but generally also in interior 
syllables; e.g., Sanskrit duhitr- "daughter" (cf. Greek thugáter). In 
Iranian, however, the sound is lost in this position; e.g., Avestan 
dugdar-, du{voiced velar fricative con.}dar-. Similarly, the word for 
"deep" is Sanskrit gabhira- (with i for i), but Avestan jafra-. 
Iranian also lost the accompanying aspiration (a puff of breath, 
written as h) that is retained in certain Indo-Aryan consonants; 
e.g., Sanskrit dha "set, make," bhr, "bear," gharma- "warm," but 
Avestan and Old Persian da, bar, and Avestan garma-. Further, Iranian 
changed stops such as p before consonants and r and v to spirants 
such as f: Sanskrit pra "forth," Avestan fra; Old Persian fra; 
Sanskrit putra- "son," Avestan pu ra-, Old Persian pussa Middle 
Persian Pour- (ss represents a sound that is also transliterated as 
ç). In addition, h replaced s in Iranian except before non-nasal 
stops (produced by releasing the breath through the mouth) and after 
i, u, r, k; e.g., Avestan hapta- "seven," Sanskrit sapta-; Avestan 
haurva- "every, all, whole," Sanskrit sarva-. Iranian also has both 
xs and s sounds, resulting from different Indo-European k sounds 
followed by s-like sounds, but Indo-Aryan has only ks; e.g., Avestan 
xsayeiti "has power, is capable," saeiti "dwells," but Sanskrit 
ksayati, kseti. Iranian was also relatively conservative in retaining 
diphthongs that were changed to simple vowels in Indo-Aryan.
Iranian differs from Indo-Aryan in grammatical features as well. The 
dative singular of -a-stems ends in -ai in Iranian; e.g., Avestan 
masyai, Old Persian cartanaiy "to do" (an original dative singular 
form functioning as infinitive of the verb). In Sanskrit the ending 
is extended with a--martyay-a. Avestan also retains the archaic 
pronoun forms yus, yuzm "you" (nominative plural); in Indo-Aryan the 
-s- was replaced by y (yuyam) on the model of the 1st person 
plural--vayam "we" (Avestan vaem, Old Persian vayam). Finally, 
Iranian has a 3rd person pronoun di (accusative dim) that has no 
counterpart in Indo-Aryan but has one in Baltic.
The original location of the Indo-Iranian group was probably to the 
north of modern Afghanistan, in the present-day states of Tajikistan, 
Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, and Kazakhstan, where Iranian 
languages are still spoken. From there, some Iranians migrated to the 
south and west, the Indo-Aryans to the south and east. From 
geographical references in the earliest Indo-Aryan literary document, 
the Rigveda, it is clear that the earliest settlement of Indo-Aryans 
was in the Northwest of the Indian subcontinent. Migration did not 
take place at once; there was doubtless a series of migrations. The 
date of entry of the Indo-Aryans into the subcontinent cannot be 
precisely determined, though the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC 
is plausible and generally accepted.
There is heated controversy concerning the precise linguistic 
position of the language of the Indo-Iranian family first attested in 
Middle Eastern cuneiform texts of c. 1450-1350 BC. Some borrowed 
words and proper names appearing in these Hittite-Hurrian documents 
have been interpreted as belonging either to Indo-Iranian, to an 
Indic subgroup of Indo-Iranian that had not yet fully split, or to 
Indo-Aryan proper. Complete scholarly agreement on this issue has not 
been reached.
The identification of the Harappan peoples of the Indus Valley, whose 
writing has not yet been satisfactorily deciphered, also awaits 
further research; with it may come a possible answer as to whether 
Indo-Aryans encountered these people or whether their civilization 
had passed by the time the Indo-Aryans arrived on the subcontinent. 
Whatever the answers to these problems may be, the reasons for the 
split of the Indo-Aryans and Iranians are not known.
Regards
Ernest-Paris Von Welf
Institute of Iranian Studies
Berlin University

M; Roy, professeur d'histoire au collège de l'Isle Jourdain, France,
cherche des informations sur le potier gallo-romain CLARUS. Merci.
islej@interpc.fr

My news server is missing a lot of posts, so it was a good thing you emailed me, Saida.
I had to go to the DejaNews web site to find out whether you had also posted to 
sci.archaeology.
You wrote:
"First of all, it is difficult for me to understand your agenda in all 
this.  Obviously, the identification of Ramesses III with Nectanebo made 
sense to Emmanuel Velikovsky.  Have you gone over his evidence with a 
neutral eye, yourself, or are you perhaps Velikovsky's nephew trying to 
posthumously vindicate him?  If not, I can see no reason why you should 
view the old gentleman's radical assertions with so little skepticism!  
Read on."
I hold no brief for Velikovsky. I have read some of his books, that's all.
I am very skeptical of his physics but I find much of his ancient history
persuasive. The only reason I have for taking on board any of his radical
assertions is the evidence he produces to support them. My interest is all this is
to find out to what extent experts in the field, which I am not, can refute
his evidence.
I wrote previously:
> Yet the > evidence of late Classical Greek letters incised on tiles
> from > Ramses > III's palace during manufacture says Velikovsky is in all > probability > right. > 
> >If such tiles exist, how do you know the Greek letters weren't incised > >at a later date?  And what palace are you talking about?
> 
> The tiles are in the British Museum. They came from the palace of Ramses > III at Tell el-Yahudiya, excavated by Naville and Griffith. 
"Some bear > the hieroglyphic name of Ramses III. On the reverse side of 
these tiles > are found incised signs: these are apparently the initials 
of the > craftsmen who produced them, inscribed before the tiles were 
fired."
> (Velikovsky, "Peoples of the Sea", p.7). It seems that the marks were
> made in the wet clay, and on the back.
"In your quoting here it says nothing about "Greek".  Tel el Yehudiya is 
in the Delta.  It is near Avaris.  I don't know anything about a palace 
of Ramesses III there, but I would like to see those tiles for myself.  
Have you?  Were you able to ascertain that the writing was, indeed, in 
Greek?"  
I am going on the photographs in "Peoples of the Sea". Illustration 2
shows the front and ill. 3 the back of six tiles. I can see for myself alpha,
chi, lambda, lambda, epsilon. V. thinks the sixth may have iota, but I
would not insist on that. He quotes T H Lewis: "The most noticeable feature 
is that several of the rosettes have Greek letters at the back, evidently 
stamped on during the process of making." TSBA VII 1881 (1882) 182.
"Still, if there are Greek names on the backs, it wouldn't be so 
earth-shaking, would it?  Why not Greeks working in Egypt in the 20th 
Dynasty?  Perhaps there was already some Greek influence at that time. "
Perhaps. But is not the earliest the Greek alphabet derived from the Hebrew
reckoned to be about 750 BC? That is four centuries too late for Ramses III
on the accepted chronology. And the Greek historians put Greek
settlement in Egypt later even than that.
Besides, the shapes of the letters are claimed to be late classical in style.
"The Greek letters, and especially alpha, found on the fragments and disks
leave no room for doubt...that the work was executed during the last
centuries of the Egyptian Empire and probably in the time of the Ptolemies"
(E Brugsch, for ref see V p. 8). The alpha in the photo looks like A except
that the horizontal bar is cranked into a V shape. There is said to be, though 
not in the photo, a sigma in the late form C.
"Among other things, it would account for the strangely unEgyptian 
hairstyle on the mummy of the woman proposed to be Queen Tausret."
I do not know about her. I must check her out. It is possible that Velikovsky's
hypothesis would also account for her unEgyptian hairstyle.
>  V. demonstrates there is no problem fitting Ramses III into the
> fourth > century BC, because he is already there. The Greek historian
> Diodorus of  Sicily wrote about him under the name Nectanebo. On
> certain > nscriptions Ramses III used the name Nekht-a-neb as one of his > royal, > so-called   Horus names.&(Peoples of the Sea, p. 38)
Saida:
> 
> >I wonder where Velikovsky got this information.  The birth name of
> >Ramesses III was Ramesses heqaiunu (Re has fashioned him, Ruler of
> >Heliopolis) and his throne name was the same as his famous predecessor, > >which is User-ma'at-re-mery-amun (Powerful is the 
justice of Re, Beloved > >of Amun). The 30th Dynasty pharaoh that the 
Greeks called > Nectanebo > >had the Egyptian birth name of Nakht-neb-ef 
(Strong is his lord) and > >Nectanebo II was actually Nakht-hor-heb 
(Strong is his lord Horus). Why > >should the name Nectanebo have 
anything to do with Ramesses > >III?
> 
> If Nekht-a-neb is attested as one of Ramses III's names (Velikovsky does > not give a reference) then it looks as good a source of Greek 
Nectanebo > as either of your identifications.
> "I don't know where this name is found.  One would have to see the glyphs 
to know what it meant.  Since it is not one of Ramesses III's usual 
names, Velikovsky should, indeed, have given a reference!"
I have been through "Peoples of the Sea" again. My original quote came from p.38
but I find pp88-89 deal with the name in more detail. "Looking through the 
nomens and cognomens of Ramses III, we find that one of his so-called Horus names 
was Nectanebo (Ka-nekht-mau-pethi-nekht-a-neb-khepesh-Sati)." V.'s footnote acknowledges
E A Wallis Budge, The Book of the Kings of Egypt (London 1908) vol II p1 as his source.
>  Besides the coincidence of the name, the records of Ramses III agree
> with  the history of Nectanebo's reign and revolt against Persia as
> told by  Diodorus. 
> 
> >They most certainly do not!  Which Nectanebo are you referring to?
> 
> Nectanebo I.(snip)
>  Ramesses III fought with his harem and > >various foreign peoples, but Persians were not among them.
> 
>  Particularly impressive is the way Velikovsky with the help of
>  Diodorus interprets the bas-reliefs of Medinet Habu, where
> Persians and  Peoples of the Sea are first allied with Egypt
> against Libyans, > then  Peoples of the Sea serve as mercenaries (Chabrias and his > Athenians)  for Egypt in the revolt against Persia, 
and the final > scenes of the  Egyptian defeat of a combined force of 
>Persians > and > Peoples of the Sea in  a sea battle in the Nile reflect the political > intrigues by which  Pharnabazus the Persian 
commander engineered the > recall of Chabrias to  Athens and his 
replacement by Iphicrates to > serve on the Persian side.
"Diodorus Siculus never meant to come to the aid of one Emmanuel 
Velikovsky.  Velikovsky used Diodorus' text and twisted it to fit his 
own ends over Diodorus' dead body!"
If V. twisted Diodorus you should state your reasons for saying so.
Let us have no unsubstantiated aspersions. Looks to me as if you are
trying to distract attention from the fit between Diodorus and Medinet Habu.
> 
> >The troubles Ramses III had with the Sea peoples are , indeed, recorded > >on the walls at Medinet Habu, but those walls weren't big 
enough to hold > >everything you want them to say!  <Persians?  I don't 
think the > >temple > >with the inscriptions even had a Persian rug in 
the entry-way.
> 
> On the contrary, the inscriptions call the brush heads Persians.
"What inscriptions?  Why, then, are they always identified as the 
Peleset?  Are you saying that Egyptologists couldn't read the word 
"Persians" if they saw it?"
Yes, in a way. I am saying Egyptologists could not read the word
"Persians" if they saw it in the context of Medinet Habu because
Persians would be an anachronism in their chronology. They prefer
to deny the meaning of the word rather than the chronology.
Indeed, why are the brushheads always identified as the Peleset,
if not for the reason I have just given? As I understand it, L and R
are allophones of the same phoneme in Egyptian and therefore have
a single written representation, usually rendered R in English. So
Ramses not Lamses. To be consistent we might have had Pereset
instead of Peleset. But that looks closer to Persians, does it not?
We can approach this from another direction, if you like.
Suppose Nectanebo I had documented his revolt against the Persians
as described by Diodorus, as Egyptian kings were wont to commemorate
their wars, especially when they were successful. What word would 
he have used for "Persians"? I put it to you that it would have been
"Pereset", or "Peresett" if he used the spelling in the Canopus
Decree of 238 BC, where there can be no doubt it means Persians
because it is translated thus in the parallel Greek text. And of course
it is Velikovsky's contention that Nectanebo did not fail to record his victory.
It is depicted at Medinet Habu, by the king usually called today
Ramses III but known to Diodorus as Nectanebo.
> 
>  This explains why the Peoples of the Sea are shown first with discs on >  their helmets when they are on the Egyptian side and then without
> discs  when fighting on the Persian side. See illustrations 4 to 8 in
> Peoples ; of the Sea.
> 
> >I am looking at a relief of the battle right now and I see Egyptians
> >fighting men with stiff brushes on their helmets.  Those guys with the > >discs (and horns) are in a relief depicting the Battle of Kadesh 
on the > >outer wall of the temple of Ramesses II at Abydos.  They are 
the Sherden > >People.  These fought in the Delta along with some 
others, but Merenptah > >beat them.  He then recorded his victory on one 
of the walss of the > >temple of Amun at Karnak.  Yes, those Sherden 
came back to fight > >Ramesses III, but they, more likely, are the 
people of Sardinia. > >Whether these Sherden ever fought the Persians, I 
can't say, but > >they > >are an old enemy of Egypt back to the time of 
Akhenaten and were not > >known to have fought on the sideof the 
Egyptians.  More > >like a thorn > >in the side, looks like.
> 
> Are you sure the men with brushes are on Ramses II's temple at Abydos?
> That would be evidence against Velikovsky. Give me your reference,
> please, I want to look at that.
"I said the men with the horns and discs are in a relief depicting the 
Battle of Kadesh on the outer wall of the temple of Ramesses II at 
Abydos.  They are at Medinet Habu as well."
I misread you.
> 
> On the conventional view Nectanebo I is one of the ;numerous
> Pharoahs  that have ruled after Ramses III. When you realise Ramses III > *is*  Nectanebo the problem of fitting in his successors is 
somewhat > lessened.
> >Perhaps, but then you have the problem of who the other two Nectanebos > >were, whose names, you have to admit, fit the epithet
> Nectanebo better > >than any names Ramesses III ever went by (unless it was something his > >wives called him behind his back that begins 
with the term "nekh" and a > >certain unmentionable determinative, but I 
won't go into that now).
> 
> No, I do not admit that Nakht-neb-ef or Nakht-hor-heb fits the Greek
> Nectanebo better than Nekht-a-neb. But I would like to know whether
> Nekht-a-neb really was one of Ramses III's names.
"This is what I can't understand here.  You have no idea where Velikovsky 
got this "Nekt-a-neb" but you seem to feel it is a crucial element of 
the identification as Nectanebo.  Unless you are simply blindly 
following Velikovsky, you should have tried to find out where this name 
is attested before you jumped on the "Nectanebo" bandwagon.  And, if 
you, yourself, cannot cite the source of the name, on what do you base 
your personal conviction that Ramesses III is Nectanebo?"
I hope the info I gave above about V's source will help resolve any conflict of
evidence re the name. I am not competent to do that.
But quite apart from the name there is quite a lot of evidence pointing the same way.
The most convincing thing to me is the testimony of the Greek letters.
I do not see any reasonable way of explaining them without placing
Ramses III in c. the fourth century instead of the twelfth. I mean he used
Greeks of that period to help build his palace. It just does not seem
to me to be within the bounds of probability that Nectanebo I never
got round to commemorating his own exploits and yet somebody
around his time built a palace with bas-reliefs commemorating a king
who had lived eight centuries before, especially when the reliefs could well
illustrate events that Nectanebo took part in as described by a foreign historian.
> 
> Who were they, Nakht-neb-ef and Nakht-hor-heb? They do not seem a problem > to me. They were just other people, not Nectanebo I or II. 
Where is your > evidence that says they are?
""Just other people" whose names are written within cartouches?  My dear 
sir, that is not how it is done.  It's not up to me to prove these kings 
existed.  They are already in the history books.  If you want to 
disprove their existence, that burden of proof is up to you."
I do not doubt that Nakht-neb-ef, Nakht-hor-heb, Nectanebo I and Nectanebo II
existed and I did not ask you to prove it. As a matter of fact I believe we
are talking about four different gentlemen here, which is more than you do.
I would want to *prove*, not disprove their existence, and I would do so
by citing Diodorus for the Nectanebos and the inscriptions you refer to for
NNE and NHH. So we are in agreement so far.
Now you take the further step of identifying NNE with Nectanebo I and
NHH with Nectanebo II. That reduces the players to two, which as you say
incurs the burden of proof. I asked for the evidence which enables you to 
make the identifications. So far you have cited the similarity of names, and
we have already disagreed over the comparative merits of Nekht-a-neb as a
match. So unless you can give me something else...?
  "Right now, 
however, I am looking at a picture of a stele of Nectanebo I offering to 
the gods in the entrance of his temple of Isis on the Island of Philae."
No, I do not think you are entitled to say Nectanebo I without proof,
otherwise no one will know the difference between fact and conjecture.
"His cartouches are near his head.  With the aid of a glass, I can read 
them very well.  They are as I explained before.  "
Yes, you are looking at Nekht-neb-ef, you said.
"You can see this for 
yourself on page 198 of "Monarchs of the Nile" by your countryman, Aidan 
Dodson.  NONE of the names are those of Ramesses III.  "
Agreed. Nekht-neb-ef was not the same person as Ramses III. But neither was he
Nectanebo I as defined by Diodorus.
--Alan Shaw

I answer only to a small part of the post:
Bart_Torbert@piics.com (Bart Torbert) wrote:
	[snip] 
>Medieval Europe was a very insular place.  Anything outside of 
>Christiandom just was not to be dealt with.  Europe was just too 
>preoccupied with internal religious and political turmoils to spend time 
>and resources globe-trotting.  
	This is not true, the people tried to reach all the
	places available with their, limited, technology (often
	by foot and horses alone) but they managed to make amazing
	contacts, as an example check the entry "silkworm"
	on your encyclopedia about the history of its
	introduction/discovery in Europe via the Eastern Roman
	Empire.
				The only signifigent effort to reach out 
>beyond its borders were the Crusades, which in their own way were merely 
>extenstions of the existing internal conflicts.  After these efforts
	Again, not true, for example check the effort put
	in the commerce of spices (pepper among all) that
	pushed Venician Merchants toward China or that
	leaded Portoguese to circum-navigate Africa.
	And, out of curiosity, how have you managed to
	develop the idea of the "extensions of internal
	conflicts"?
>petered out, Europe once more withdrew into itself, until the influences 
>imported from the Near East could work to transform Europe.  By Columbus's
	I do not understand this phrase, what are you talking
	about? Can you post examples of this influences?
 	We can speak about cross-fertilization, particularly
	in the area of phylosophy.. but the idea that Europe
	was a stagnant is a great mistake, would you
	call stagnation the Eastern Roman Empire !?!
	Then there were a lot of "in-house" developments,
	as there were between Arabs and Turks - where
	do you see the stagnation?
>time Europe was finally ready to look beyond its borders and to deal with 
>the rest of the world.  Columbus's efforts were the spark to ignite an 
>outward expansion that had been building up for several centuries.
	Again I see that you miss the point, I repeat once again:
	The sparks were --> pepper <-- and other --> spices <--
	that the people were looking for basically from the
	Western Roman Empire times... so one can say that
	Colombo was an *effect* and *NOT* a cause of this expansion.
	Best regards,
	Claudio De Diana

On 27 Nov 1996 20:44:01 -0700, seagoat@primenet.com (John A. Halloran)
wrote:
> Does anyone have information about primitive humans' use of body paint or 
> tatoos as in-group markers or about the use of animal totems as the symbolic 
> 'name' for a group?
Do bikers count?  ;^)  I get teased by my non-biker friends about
tattoos.  (biker = motorcycle rider)
Chuck Coker
CJCoker@Cris.Com

In article <57tr5a$kd@csu-b.csuohio.edu>, scott@math.csuohio.edu	 
says...
>
>In article <57g2r1$3q4@fridge-nf0.shore.net>, whittet@shore.net says...
>
>>In article <57fd87$8jt@csu-b.csuohio.edu>, scott@math.csuohio.edu        
>>says...
>
>>>In article <57ci1j$a8@fridge-nf0.shore.net>, whittet@shore.net says...
>
>[snip]
>
>>>>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.
>
>>>If these routes indeed terminated in bodies of water, that fact can 
>>>easily be interpreted in a completely different way: the water 
>>>prevented the land route from being further extended. 
That would presumably only be the case if there were no ferryboats.
The fact that ferryboats werer common, as were other craft of various 
sizes used to haul freight should give you some pause for reflection.
>>> I offer for now no opinion on the relative merits of the two 
>>>interpretations; I haven't read enough.
There is actually quite a bit of information on line, which
might  help you to understand how boats increasingly became
depended upon for commerce on the Nile and Euphrates after the
third millenium BC.
>>>But your conclusion certainly doesn't follow by necessity 
>>>from the geographical facts that you offer in its support.
A lot of the basics have already been discussed at some length. 
What in particular strikes you as unaddressed so far?
>
>>Think of it like bus stops. They tend to get placed where people
>>can make connections to other means of transportation.
>
>Except of course when they get placed at a terminus.  More to the 
>point, *why* should I think of them as bus stops?  That analogy 
>already assumes your view of the matter - which seems to me at best 
>questionable.  Try thinking of water as an obstacle: you'll get 
>the same relationship between route-ends and bodies of water.  In 
>other words, that relationship has very little evidentiary value 
>*regardless* of the facts.
I have listed some of the laws of Hammurabi having to do with 
transportation. What you should be able to see is that boats 
were available in a range of sizes. Small boats were used for 
local business and larger boats of sixty gur were used to haul 
cargo. A sailor got the same pay as an ox driver, both got more 
than a day laborer.
CODE OF LAWS
   235. If a shipbuilder build a boat for some one, and do not make it
tight, if during that same year that boat is sent away and suffers
injury, the shipbuilder shall take the boat apart and put it
together tight at his own expense. The tight boat he shall give to the
boat owner.
   236. If a man rent his boat to a sailor, and the sailor is
careless, and the boat is wrecked or goes aground, the sailor shall
give the owner of the boat another boat as compensation.
   237. If a man hire a sailor and his boat, and provide it with corn,
clothing, oil and dates, and other things of the kind needed for
fitting it: if the sailor is careless, the boat is wrecked, and its
contents ruined, then the sailor shall compensate for the boat which
was wrecked and all in it that he ruined.
   238. If a sailor wreck any one's ship, but saves it, he shall pay
the half of its value in money.
   239. If a man hire a sailor, he shall pay him six gur of corn per
year.
[Here you might wish to ask what sorts of voyages would be reckoned 
by the year as opposed to the day or month?]
   240. If a merchantman run against a ferryboat, and wreck it, the
master of the ship that was wrecked shall seek justice before God; the
master of the merchantman, which wrecked the ferryboat, must
compensate the owner for the boat and all that he ruined.
[Clearly ferryboats and merchantmen were fairly common, but how did 
they compare in cost to the use of a beast of burden, and what sorts 
of work did the beasts of burden engage in?]
   258. If any one hire an ox-driver, he shall pay him six gur of corn
per year.
   268. If any one hire an ox for threshing, the amount of the hire is
twenty ka of corn.
   269. If he hire an ass for threshing, the hire is twenty ka of
corn.
   270. If he hire a young animal for threshing, the hire is ten ka of
corn.
   271. If any one hire oxen, cart and driver, he shall pay one
hundred and eighty ka of corn per day.
   272. If any one hire a cart alone, he shall pay forty ka of corn
per day.
   273. If any one hire a day laborer, he shall pay him from the New
Year until the fifth month (April to August, when days are long and
the work hard) six gerahs in money per day; from the sixth month to
the end of the year he shall give him five gerahs per day.
   274. If any one hire a skilled artizan, he shall pay as wages of
the . . . five gerahs, as wages of the potter five gerahs, of a tailor
five gerahs, of . . . gerahs, . . . of a ropemaker four gerahs, of . .
.. gerahs, of a mason . . . gerahs per day.
[We have oxcarts, carts and drivers but no donkeys mentioned but
no horses and no camels; we do have different types of boats]
   275. If any one hire a ferryboat, he shall pay three gerahs in
money per day.
   276. If he hire a freight-boat, he shall pay two and one-half
gerahs per day.
   277. If any one hire a ship of sixty gur, he shall pay one-sixth of
a shekel in money as its hire per day.
   LAWS of justice which Hammurabi, the wise king, established. A
righteous law, and pious statute did he teach the land. ...
THE END OF THE CODE OF HAMMURABI 
>
>Brian M. Scott
>
steve

Andrew.Elms@datacraft.com.au (Elmo) wrote:
>Ahhh Frank, I too saw the TV program on this and have read a little
>about it since. Whilst i am by no means well read on the subject i saw
>two major problems with the Wests theory. He ISN'T an archaeologist,
>AND his theory (if correct) would seriously stuff up all the time
>lines that current archaeology and Egyptology is based on. 
>Archaeologists appear to be happy with thier model of the world they
>have created and i think they are going to need a lot of convincing to
>come around on this topic. Personally i think i tend to favor the
>Geologists views, thier foundations seem to be a little more solid.
>(No pun intendid......Well maybe a little bit).
Consider this a FYI that the primary objections to West's theories are
from other geologists.  There have been long lists of cites posted to
sci.archaeology of papers from geologists refuting this theory.  In
addition archaeologists have located structures built with stone from
the various layers that the Sphinx was built with and those structures
are stylistically similar to other Old Kingdom structures, and have
appropriate weathering patterns.
In the Fall 1996 issue of KMT, Frank Yurco (who posts here
occasionally) wrote a long letter about this issue, to a large extent
in answer to posts on sci.archaeology as well as in answer to the
letter Mr. West had sent to an earlier issue of KMT.  There is also an
article in the Sept-Oct 94 issue of ARCHAEOLOGY on pages 30-47 about
this issue which explains the matter in a way that is easy for
non-geologists to understand.
There is also archaeological evidence for dating the Sphinx carving to
Old Kingdom Egypt.  For example, Frank Yurco in the letter cited above
offers the fact that a "column of rubble jutting into the Sphinx
enclosure" was excavated during the 19th Century.  He continues "This
was an archaeologically stratified section, and beneath the rubble lay
three blocks from the Sphinx Temple, and under one of these was debris
with numerous shards of Fourth Dynasty pottery."
The reason this is important is that everyone agrees that the Sphinx,
and the Sphinx Temple were constructed at the same time, and that the
Temple contains stone removed from the Sphinx enclosure.  Shards of
Fourth Dynasty pottery found UNDER blocks belonging to the Temple
means that the Temple had to have been built after the pottery was
made, broken and the bits and pieces deposited on the ground.
In addition, tools belonging to the Old Kingdom, and specifically to
the Fourth Dynasty along with still more broken pottery, have been
found in "hard, stratified rubble...on the north side of the Sphinx
enclosure"  (Frank Yurco in KMT citing ARCHAEOLOGY, page 37).
Stella Nemeth
s.nemeth@ix.netcom.com

Bart_Torbert@piics.com (Bart Torbert) wrote:
>In a private E-mail message to me, Peter Van Rossum made several comments 
>concerning what he saw as holes in the Diffusionist world view.  In 
>answering him I wish to reform his comments into a series of questions.  
>Each question will be phrased is such a way that it is focused enough to 
>provide for a single topic of discussion.  I hope to post these questions 
>and my responses over the next couple of months.  I will post one, let the 
>fur fly, then post another.  
>First Question:
>	If so many European/Mediterrainean people got here before 
>Columbus, why wasn't the existance of the New World common knowledge by 
>Columbus's time?
>The answer is in two parts.  The first is that there were real reasons why 
>anyone who knew of the AMerican continents would have kept this knowledge 
>secret.  The second part is that it would not have mattered if they had 
>told their tale, nobody would have believed them.
>The key to understanding the first part is to comprehend that like so much 
>of the truly wonderful things in life we have to deal with, it was the 
>lawyers' fault.  Before the ruckus Columbus kicked up, there was no 
>mechanism in the European legal systems to assure someone who found some 
>"new" place and wanted to reap the economic benefits from it, to gain some 
>sort of exclusive claim to it.  This is true wether we are talking about 
>trading rights or rights of possession.  If some European got over here, 
>found a source of copper or furs or cod, the only way to make sure they 
>could not face competition for that resouces was to keep it all a secret.
Certainly the way to, and the way back from, far away places were
secrets to be kept and not public knowledge to be shared.  I'm not
sure that "it was the lawyer's fault."   It was more a case of
"trade secrets."
>There is even evidence that knowledge of the New World was actively 
>supressed.  In a document called "On Unheard-of Wonders" a story of the 
>Carthagenians is related.  This document was originally attributed to 
>Aristotle, but is now thought to be by an unknown first or second century 
>AD Roman author.  The story tells that the Carthagenian found a large 
>fertile island, a very far way out into the Atlantic beyond the Pillars of 
>Hercules.  A colony was established there which quickly thrived.  Many 
>people from Carthage started to move there.  The rate of emmigration was 
>so alarming that the Carthagenian authorities feared that soon Carthage 
>itself would be so underpopulated as to fall prey to its enemies.  So the 
>authorities forbid on pain of death anyone leaving Carthage for this new 
>land.  They even went so far as to sent troops to destroy their own 
>colony.
I've never heard of "On Unheard-of Wonders."  Could you tell me some
more about it?  Where and when was this documents written and/or
published?
It is a neat story, but at this point I just don't believe it.
>So what happened after Columbus.  When he returned and publicly announced 
>what he had found (he had to do this in order to reap the benefits 
>stipulated in his contract with the Spanish crown), there was a big 
>commotion between the Spanish and the Portugese.  Some people use what is 
>known of this fuss to make the arguement that the Portugese had gotten 
>over here before Columbus, but never said anything about it.  
There is at least some evidence that they might have done that.
Certainly they had been in the right place to be blown off course for
several years before Columbus made his journey.  Also, Columbus was in
Portugal before he went to Spain.  There is the possibility that they
didn't fund the journey because they had already made it themselves
and didn't need him.
>...Finally the 
>Pope stepped in and in a series of papal bulls(edicts) and treaties 
>[snip].... So after 
>Columbus the way to protect something you found was to make it public 
>knowledge, because now there were legal means to protect it.  If fact you 
>had to publically proclaim what you found in order to enjoy the protection 
>of the law.
Whether the Pope's "treaty" was the reason for the change, or whether
this kind of change was in the air, certainly some kind of change did
occur and that change fueled the Age of Discovery.  Both the Portugese
and the Spanish started funding voyages of Discovery early on.  Later
the Northern European governments did so too.  One of the big changes
in the way things were done is that these voyages were publically
funded instead of privately funded.
>As to the second part of the answer there were sources available before 
>Columbus, to at least the educated, concerning the New World.  The Norse 
>sagas were well known.  But nobody believed them.  [snip]
I think that this is a very big point.  In the 1950s, I was certainly
taught that the Ericson journeys were myths.  The idea that they were
true was completely out of the picture.
It is equally possible that other pre-Columbian voyages to what became
America also happened.  However there are two very important points
that need to be made about them.  There seem to be no settlements or
voyages that influenced the history of either the Old or the New World
in any major way before Columbus.  The Norse voyages were indeed never
forgotten, and even showed up in school history books in the decades
immediately before the settlement was located in Newfoundland, but
even those voyages didn't really affect the history of the Norse
peoples because after a very short period of time they were no longer
replicatable.
What changed with Columbus was the ability to go to the Americas and
come back again, at will.  It is possible that your theory of why
public knowledge of the voyages changed is part of the reason for why
the voyages became replicatable, but they also changed because
technology changed.
Stella Nemeth
s.nemeth@ix.netcom.com

Dear Postmaster,
	would you mind explain to this users of yours that
	should at least choose only ONE newsgroup to write to?
	The original of this message was posted to the following newsgroup:
	1-sci.archaeology,
	2-alt.archaeology,
	3-alt.pagan,
	4-alt.atheism,
	5-alt.religion.christian,
	6-sci.life-extension.
	Also on date Mon, 25 Nov 1996 11:12:12 +0000 the groups
	(1)(2) and (5) were informed that your user tonight
	"had a dream and could not sleep" (cfr. new evidence for CONFUSION of
        languages not as miracle) why not on alt.nightmares then?
	And why not alt.crossposting.will.destroy.all.newsgroups?
	I have tried to remove from the follow up all newsgroups except (1),
	and I wish to point out that freedom of speech does not imply
	that one is allowed to use loudspeakers at 3:00 AM, so please
	make your user avoid crossposting.
	Best Regards,
	Claudio De Diana
	P>S> I do NOT benefit form your work.
>************
>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://XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
>
>Discover the world's true chronology thru the Bible at
>          http://XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

In article <57qcns$q3t@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>, bcolias@ix.netcom.com(Bill
Colias ) wrote:
}>> >> >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)
}
}etc, etc,..
}
} This only points out that the "Old Testiment" is a collection of
}stories and fables collected from primative tribal cultures mostly
}originating from oral traditions. Often popular figures are exalted by
}the story-tellers by giving them an extended life span.
} This is also born out by the fact that the cosmology portrayed in the
}Old Testiment has been proven wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt by
}modern science. The earth is not 6000 years old
The Geneologies in the O.T. were not intended to be inclusive--they only
mentioned the important or notable people.
, and man is a creature
}evolve from animals (see Origin of the Species by Darwin). There is no
}proof of world wide flood in fossil records, and the earth was not
}created in 7 days.
} There is, however, indications of alien genetic experimentation on
}humans... but thats another story.
Sounds like a new mythology for the modern era. The "ancient astronaut"
people have as little understanding of history and anthropology as Biblical
Fundamentalists do about biology and geology.
-- 
Jeffrey Borrowdale

In article <57upda$llg@fridge-nf0.shore.net> whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) writes:
snip
>   LAWS of justice which Hammurabi, the wise king, established. A
>righteous law, and pious statute did he teach the land. ...
>THE END OF THE CODE OF HAMMURABI 
When citing the "code" of Hammurapi, please use the only really good English 
version, Martha Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, SBL 
Writings from the Ancient World Series, Scholars  Press, 1995.  This is 
available in peperback and was put together for a larger audience.  The book 
has the Sumerian and Akkadian texts with the English, and is the only such 
modern collection of its kind.  It also includes a very good essay on the 
so-called law codes, which were not really legal texts but idealized royal 
inscriptions that were never used in court, as  well as a bibliography.  There 
is other information available from the thousands of economic texts on boat 
and land travel that reflects actual rather than idealized conditions.  As a 
disclaimer, I should add that although I was the editor for the volume, I get 
no royalties, so you can purchase it in peace! 

In article <1996Dec2.113642.45837@ucl.ac.uk>, Alan Shaw
 writes
>I hold no brief for Velikovsky. I have read some of his books, that's all.
>I am very skeptical of his physics but I find much of his ancient history
>persuasive.
I take it from the above that you are a physicist?
-- 
Alan M. Dunsmuir
        Were diu werlt alle min von deme mere unze an den Rijn
        des wolt ih mih darben,
        daz diu chunigen von Engellant lege an minen armen!

On 28 Nov 1996, Peter Metcalfe wrote:
> [stuff about 'Greek Characters' deleted coz it's dealt with in
> another post.  "Alan's cite gives no mention that the characters
> are greek]"
They are Greek, see my post to Saida
:> : V. demonstrates there is no problem fitting Ramses III into the
:> : fourth century BC, because he is already there. The Greek historian
:> : Diodorus of Sicily wrote about him under the name Nectanebo. On
:> : certain inscriptions Ramses III used the name Nekht-a-neb as one of
:> : his royal, so-called Horus names." (Peoples of the Sea, p. 38)
: 
: >So Czar Alexander was really Alexander the Great? Theodore Roosevelt 
: >and Franklin D Roosevelt are the same person?  Charles I rose from
: >the dead, put his head back on and proceeded to rule as Carles the II?
: >This is a truely fascinating game we can play.
: 
: Who is playing a game? I am trying to follow the evidence to a sensible 
: conclusion.
"And I am demonstrating the methodological *flaw* in V.'s reasoning.
Merely because they have similar names does not mean they are the
*same* people and all other evidence must be distorted to make
the idenification fit."
But you are not going to let me into the secret of how the identification
distorts the evidence, are you?
"Furthermore it turns out that you have no evidence that Ramses III
was called Nectanebo and"
Again see my post to Saida
:: : Besides the coincidence of the name, the records of Ramses III agree
:: : with the history of Nectanebo's reign and revolt against Persia as
:: : told by Diodorus. 
: 
: >So Louis XVIII and Charles I are the same people in that they both had 
: >their heads cut off by uncouth commoners?
: 
: I am trying to put forward evidence for a point of view.
"Again I am pointing out the flaw in methodology.  "
If I were to give you evidence that Louis XVIII and Charles I had the same birthday, 
same birthplace, married the same wife, had their heads cut off at the same time 
and in the same place by the same uncouth commoner...I could go on
until you agreed that on the balance of probabilities they were the same person.
I do not know of any other methodology than to look at the available
evidence for and against the competing hypotheses and decide accordingly.
Do you perhaps have a method of deciding which avoids considering
any evidence? Yes, of course you do. You just *know* Louis and Charles
are different people. Well, I have news for you. I have an absolutely
authentic photograph of charles I taken in Westminster Hall with a very
uncouth pleb in the background wearing a mask and holding a dirty
great axe. It says on the back: "I leave my kingdom to Bonnie Price Charlie
with all my love, signed Louis XVIII". But you do not want to see that
do you? No, I thought not. I will keep it to myself then.
:> : Particularly impressive is the way Velikovsky with the help of 
:> : Diodorus interprets the bas-reliefs of Medinet Habu, where Persians
:> : and Peoples of the Sea are first allied with Egypt against Libyans, 
:> : [...]
: 
: >Do the _boats_ match?  We know the type of boats that the persians used
: >at the time and they are remarkably different from the ones that are
: >shown in the bas reliefs.  Does the _army_ match?  The eqyptians made
: >use of Greek Mercenaries in their revolt.  The distinctive equipment 
: >of the hoplites is *not* shown in the bas reliefs.  
: 
: That's better. Let us talk evidence. Boats. Where do you suggest I look 
: for Persian boats of the time?
"I didn't say Persian Boats.  I said 'the type of boats that the persians
used'.  A subtle difference methinks.  Try looking up the Phoenicians."
"Remarkably different" you said. Give me a clue. What am I looking for?
Two funnels versus three?
: Army? Both sides engaged Greek mercenaries, but Chabrias' lot although 
: shown on parade with the Egyptians did not take part in the battle.
: Instead Iphicrates fought for the Persians.  Velikovsky makes an
: interesting point about equipment. Iphicrates had introduced longer 
: swords and spears and lighter shields which enabled him to 
: defeat more heavily armed Spartan hoplites near Corinth in c. 390 BC. 
: Diodorus mentions these changes in connection with Iphicrates'
: participation in the abortive Persian expedition against Egypt in 374
: BC. The bas-reliefs of Medinet Habu show these arms, as well as some of
; the traditional shorter weapons.
"Let me guess.  You don't know the *length* of the spears that Iphicrates
introduced.  Look it up and compare it to the alleged arms of Iphicrates
on the bas-relief.  I think you will find that Velikovsky doesn't know
what he's talking about."
What I find is it is you who does not know what he is talking about.
Velikovsky has done his homework.
Ramses III described swords five cubits long (von Bissing) or five feet
(Breasted). Diodorus mentions swords longer by almost two parts.
I am looking at a picture of a bas-relief from Medinet Habu and I see
a foreign soldier attacking brushheads. He has a sword which is longer
than theirs in the ratio 7 to 3, or 9 to 4 if you include the hilt.
: >Why is strata
: >related to the new kingdom found *below* that of the persian
: >occupation?
: 
: Because the new kingdom predated the Persian occupation. But have you
: got any evidence, stratigraphical or otherwise, that Ramses III predated
: it?
Evidently not because you go on:
"So who was ruling Egypt during the 20th dynasty then, if V. puts their
leaders in the Persian Occupation?  Were Ramses IV and Ramses VI part 
of the New Kingdom or the Persian Occupation?  They were his sons and
ruled after him.  Ramses V was his grandson and it is only until we
get to Ramses VII who was probably his grandson, that the genealogical
relationship is not certain.  But then we are touching the 50 year
limit for the Persians to be ruling when Alexander liberates Egypt."
Velikovsky tentatively maps R.IV to Tachos and R.VI to Nectanebo II and finds
possible candidates for the other minor Ramses kings.
: : On the conventional view Nectanebo I is one of the "numerous
: : Pharoahs that have ruled after Ramses III". When you realise
: : Ramses III *is* Nectanebo the problem of fitting in his successors is
: : somewhat lessened.
:
:Taking up your point about fitting in numerous pharoahs who ruled after 
:Ramses III.  Nectanebo I is one of them. He does not have to be fitted
:in, he has his place in history already. If Ramses III is really the
:same person I am not sure that when you restore him to his rightful place
:he logically brings with him the baggage of six successor dynasties.
:That is for you to prove. You also need to prove that Ramses III is a 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
:different person from Nectanebo, or else the question of fitting in
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:Ramses III's successors does not arise.
"Wrong.  The burden of proof lies upon *you* and *velikovsky* to
demonstrate why the conventional chronology is wrong and why
his theories are right.  "
You cannot resist the cheap shot, can you Peter? If you were paying
attention to the argument you must have realised you have taken my
request for proof right out of the particular context in which it was made 
and generalised it. But either way I can show you are wrong. In context
you are wrong because without the particular proof I ask for your argument
about the impossibility of fitting in six dynasties falls. In the general sense
you are wrong about Velikovsky because you do not seem to know that
he has already provided a mass of proof for his theories. And you are wrong 
about me, if you think that by airing his views I have taken on the onus of
their proof. I have not. I have presented some of his evidence in the hope
of getting the counter evidence which ought to exist. You do not seem able
to help me in this respect. I do not have too much time to indulge in the
slapstick so I bid you goodbye.
Alan

In <32a3818d.27127605@news.demon.co.uk> dweller@ramtops.demon.co.uk
(Douglas Weller) writes: 
>
>On 2 Dec 1996 01:40:06 GMT, dolmen1@ix.netcom.com(Leonard M. Keane)
wrote:
>
>>By "findings" I mean things discovered or new information reported
on;
>>a "claim" would to me carry a connotation of something already
>>established or proven, whereas that has not happened.
>Ah, didn't realise that was what you meant, ok.
>>
>>
>>I honestly don't know what to make of Mystery Hill.  I understand
there
>>is a carbon-14 dating of about 4000 B.C.
>There's a 1045 BC +/- 180 date, but that is charcoal over 3 feet below
the
>stone structures, could have been anything from a forest fire to
manmade, but
>predates the structures.
> I also recognize some solar
>>alignments and stone placements there. 
>You'd expect solar alignments for root cellars.
>
The dating I heard about, but have not personally verified, was about 5
years ago.  The date related orally to me was (going on memory here)
either 4000 years old OR 4000 B.C. - I think the latter. - L.K.
Mystery Hill certainly is no root cellar. Have you ever been there? 
There are chambers, and also long tunnel-like constructions in and
around a central stone "table". Mystery Hill does have shaped standing
stones with rather convincing solar and lunar involvement, associated
with the central table. These have been researched by persons with
astronomical and mathematical skills equal to the task.  I like to
stick with the obvious sunrise alignments which are more
straightforward. - L.K.
Of all the so-called "bee-hive" structures I've seen in New England,
about 50% have rather precise 120 degree alignments (winter solstice
sunrise) as one looks out the entranceway. Some are massive, such as
the Upton Chamber. The others vary, but often have other significant
sunrise alignments. - L.K.
My main interest is the large perched and propped boulders, classic
dolmens, and standing stones, which can be found in perfectly straight
lines over a number of miles. There are seven such placements forming a
120 (magnetic)degree line of four miles in Lynn, MA, part of a much
more extensive geometrical pattern and grid system (which I dubbed the
"Essex County Megapentagons").- L.K. 
Len. 

Dear Clair Ossian,
Thanks very much for your sound geological observations on the Pyramid
blocks. I agree with you totally, as an Egyptologist, and have seen myself
the fossils that you spoke of. They are the hardest evidence against the
concrete nonsense theory. Too many speculations whirl around the Giza
Pyramids. Could I also ask you to evaluate the Schoch-West theory about
the Great Sphinx? 
Most sincerely,
Frank J. Yurco
University of Chicago
-- 
Frank Joseph Yurco                           fjyurco@midway.uchicago.edu

lilnbige@lc.gulfnet.com (Eric G. Taylor) wrote:
>> I would argue that mammoths, being cold-adapted, couldn't cope with the 
>> warming climate.  The stress of the warming climate _COMBINED_ with the 
>> introduction of hunting from pressure could be what knocked them off.  
>> This doesn't mean that humans are responsible for their extinction, 
>> because it might have happened anyway.
>
>The wooly mammoth may well have faced this problem. However, M. columbi,
>the species subject to human hunting in the US and the rest of the North
>America away from the area around the Artic Circle seems to have been
>quite comfortable in the subtropical enviornment in Florida for hundreds
>of thousands of years.
Some have argued that modern day elephants have a wide habitat range 
and that this somehow argues that wooly mammoths could have had similar 
ranges.  While this may be possible, I have a hard time envisioning an 
elephant grazing on steppe in front of a continental ice sheet.  I also 
have a hard time seeing a WOOLY mammoth on our hundred + degree summer 
days in North America.  M. columbi is a different story.  The "Artic 
Circle" was further south in those days.  Was Florida "subtropical" when 
ice sheets covered Wisconsin and south?  Could the advance of water 
(making large parts of Florida a swamp) have broken up the M. columbia 
groups into smaller, more easily huntable groups?  Have we found M. 
columbi fossils under the sea around Florida?  i.e. was there a larger 
range before the rise in the sea level?  Honest questions (I'm not 
trolling). 

The Hyksos ruled in Egypt exactly 108 years, as documented by the Turin
Royal Canon. So, the British Museum figure is simply rounding off this
data. The Egyptians used the Sothic calendar that featured a 365-day
year, so, the 108 years on the Turin Canon are 108 years. All else is
senseless speculation.
Most sincerely,
Frank J. Yurco
University of Chicago
-- 
Frank Joseph Yurco                           fjyurco@midway.uchicago.edu

>Alan Shaw:
>: Yes, the consequences for the conventional view are enormous. Yet the 
>: evidence of late Classical Greek letters incised on tiles from Ramses 
>: III's palace during manufacture says Velikovsky is in all probability 
>: right.
Peter Metcalfe:
>So if I inscribe 'KILROY WUZ HIER' on the floor of that temple, 
>archaeologists would have to conclude that Ramses III ruled
>circa world war II?  I think not.
Frank Murray:
a closer reading of alan's post shows him speaking of evidence that
these lines were incised "during manufacture"...i'll ask the
appropriate question:
alan, what evidence do you have that these letters were incised during
manufacture??...further, what evidence that the tiles were
manufactured at the time of the building of the palace??...
Alan:
Looking at the photo I can see definite indentations. It would
be easy to make the letters when the clay was wet, extremely
difficult once the tiles were fired. Also the letters are on
the back of the tiles, not accessible once the tiles are fixed
to the wall. The excavators speak of potter's marks, which include 
both Greek letters and hieroglyphic signs. This is taken to
be an indication that both Greeks and Egyptians were employed
in building the palace.
The tiles are very numerous and the excavators assume that
they are part of the fabric of the building. Naville:"It is 
not likely that later kings...would have taken the trouble
to build for their predecessor Ramses III such a beautiful
chamber, the walls of which were not only ornamented with
representations of plants and animals, but also recorded
the feats of war of Ramses III." Griffith:"The hieroglyphic
and figure tiles relate to Ramses III, but the figure tiles
bear Greek letters."
"Figure" in the above refers to the designs on the face of
the tiles, a "relief design on a blue field with a glaze
that delicately and uniformly covers the relief and the field."
Velikovsky p.11. Naville: "This work strikingly reminds us of 
Persian art."
Alan Shaw

I write from Spain. I am not a professional of Archaelogy, only amateur.
I apologize for my bad English in archaeology matters.
Somebody gave me several silex arrowheads from Argelia, specifically from the vicinity 
of a city called Tindouf, close to the Sahara border. They were brought to Spain by 
Saharauian children refugiated in Argelia, that come to Spain for summer holidays. I 
have very small information abouts these arrowheads origin. What I only know is that 
they seem to be very abundant and the children collect them on surface, over the sand. I 
do not know wether there are ruins associated to them.The silex arrowheads are triangle 
shape, around 1.5 to 2.5 cm heigth, 3 to 4 mm thick, and their carving is quite well 
done. 
On the other hand, I also have got several silex arrowheads completely different from 
previous ones. They come from El Aaium. These arrowheads are around 5 to 7 cm. height, 1 
to 2 cm wide and around 1 cm thick. Their transversal cut ( the mentioned dimension 1 cm 
) is triangle shape.
These two coincident origins make me think that there should be a intense human activity 
in the Sahara desert.
If they were spanish, I would say that they belong to Neolithic up to Bronze Age, but 
since they come from another country, I can not even guess what age they belong to. I 
even guess that silex was maybe used in that area of the World up to late ages, such as 
Middle Age.
Does anybody know what can be the age and origin of these arrowheads ?.
I will appreciate very much your answers.
Thank you very much and best regards.

On Sun, 1 Dec 1996, at 19:55:19, Frank cajoled electrons into this
>>Indeed and I have one on the desk in front of me as I type this.  An
>>intriguing little device to be sure. :)
>
>perhaps then you might add yea or nay to edmund's claim that: "Their
>curious properties were discovered by archaeologists studying
>prehistoric axes and adzes called Celts"...
Alas, I'm not qualified to comment upon the origin of the device.  The
paper which came with it went west long since.
>as the spin bias is determined by distribution of mass with respect to
>the axis of spin, it would seem that if constructed with neutral bias,
>in kayak (or larger) size, weight shift by the operator would
>determine attitude into or through whatever the prevailing
>current...have we any evidence that this principle was understood by
>ancient boat builders??...
There is a bias of some kind although the way this has been achieved is
not immediately discernable to the eye.  Nautical archaeology and the
archaeology of boats in general are beyond my scope.  I should, however,
be most interested if anyone knowledgeable of the subject would care to
share that knowledge with us.
>>I doubt the "original" text is available, unfortunately. :(
>
>yes...a miswording on my part...i shoulda said "source"
>text(s)...thanks for the correction...
No problem Frank.  You can do the same for me sometime! :))
Regards
Marc

On Mon, 2 Dec 1996, at 11:29:23, C.D.I. cajoled electrons into this
>M; Roy, professeur d'histoire au collège de l'Isle Jourdain, France,
>cherche des informations sur le potier gallo-romain CLARUS. Merci.
>islej@interpc.fr
>
Un aprés-midi à la bibliotheque peut-etre?  Vous avez l'essayé?  J'ai
cherché mes livres (terra sigillée) mais malheureusement je n'ai trouvé
pas son nom. :(
Essayez:
Bémont, C., et Jacob, J.P. "La Terre Sigillée Gallo-Romaine", Documents
d'Archéologie Française, 6 (1986)
Déchelette, J. "Les Vases Céramiques Ornés de la Gaule Romaine", Paris
(1904)
Bon chance!
Marc
XX