Subject: Re: Shang script among Olmecs
From: pmv100@psu.edu (Peter van Rossum)
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 16:36:44 GMT
In article <586j1j$sa3@news1.io.org> yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
>Douglas Weller (dweller@ramtops.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>: On Wed, 4 Dec 1996 00:52:28 GMT, pmv100@psu.edu (Peter van Rossum) wrote:
>[Yuri quoted:]
>: >>"In a few cases, claims have been made for the pre-Columbian New
>World : >>occurrence of actual objects of Old World manufacture,
>including a cache : >>of Roman to early Medieval coins from Venezuela, a
>late Roman torso of : >>Venus from Veracruz state, Mexico (Heine-Geldern,
>1967: 22), and "a cache : >>of Chinese brass coins said to be dated 1200
>b. c. [sic]" from British : >>Columbia (Larson, 1966: 44). The most
>convincing case is that of a third : >>century a. d. Roman terra-cotta
>head in apparently unequivocal association : >>with a twelfth century a.
>d. tomb in the state of Mexico (Heine-Geldern, : >>1967). ... In addition
>to these objects, various rock inscriptions have : >>been attributed to
>the Phoenicians (see esp. TIME, 1968b; Gordon, 1968) : >>and the Norse."
>(p. 30)
>: >You really shouldn't take things out of context like this.
>Peter,
>I don't think I took anything out of context. The context was a search
>for the "smoking gun". I suggested these as potential smoking guns.
I disagree with you completely with on this point. Any valid research
should always not only point up one possibility, but whenever possible
should also try to consider alternative possibilities.
The fact is that when you read the quote you put forward it seems to
imply that the argument is that these are all solid evidence of diffusion.
The fact, however, is that the author of the article goes on to point out
the problem with evaluating these possible "smoking guns." You can
claim that you don't have time to rewrite the whole article but these
qualifying sentences came directly after the quote you posted, and took
me less than 5 minutes to type in. The inclusion of these sentences
substantially alters the reading of the previous information which you
presented.
I think its pretty clear that you chose your quote very selectively to try
to make your case appear more solid than it was. In the past I have
found you to be truthful in posts, but this time I conclude you were being
purposefully deceptive.
>: >"Since few of theese objects or inscriptions have been discovered and
>reported : >in a fashion that permits confidence in the dating or even in
>the genuineness : >of the sites, these finds cannot be accorded much
>significance. Even *if* one : >assumes that all such claims are genuine,
>their small number prevents them : >from being particularly impressive
>evidence of contact."
>
>Why, on earth, should have I felt any obligation to include that passage
>in my post? You can't really expect me to type in the whole book for you,
>can you?
The reason you should have felt an obligation to include that short passage
is because it is very important to an evaluation of the passage which you did
cite. That's just being honest.
>And the author (Stephen Jett) is arguing here against you, Peter. He is
>saying not to pay too much attention to such "smoking guns"! Has it
>occurred to you that the reason I omitted this passage may have been that
>I was actually trying to protect _your argument_ from being undermined? It
>is _you_ who are looking for such a single object. My argument is based on
>much more than that. For example, I point out culture traits that are
>clearly the same on the two sides of the Pacific, e. g. the bark-cloth
>complex and the blow-gun complex.
>
>Yuri.
Huh????
1. I don't need, nor want, you or anyone else to "protect my argument. If my
argument is wrong, I would hope you would actively try to undermine it since I
would rather have a belief of mine be shown to be false, than to continue to
live with an inaccurate picture of Mesoamerican prehistory.
2. The only reason I look for objects is that this is the only way to show
that something happened in the past with any reasonable degree of certainty.
3. Have you read any of the *primary* materials on the bark-cloth or blow-gun
complexes you cite. I have, let me know if you'd like the references. My
reading of these arguments is that they are weak. Similarities between
complexes may be suggestive of contact but with relatively simple,
technologies like the blow gun and bark-cloth it is hard to draw any firm
conclusions. A bronze sword, however, is a different story.
4. Its interesting that now you bring up the bark-cloth and blow gun examples.
First it was plants that showed contact, then it was Shang writing, then
it was seals, then it was a couple of artifacts which are hard to validate,
now we're on to bark-cloth and blowguns. Once one piece of Needham's info. is
knocked out, we just bring up another.
Peter van Rossum
PMV100@PSU.EDU
>--
> #% Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto %#
> -- a webpage like any other... http://www.io.org/~yuku --
>
>Welcome to President Bush, Mrs. Bush, and my fellow
>astronauts ====== Vice President Dan Quayle
Subject: Re: White tribes of Olde America
From: dolmen1@ix.netcom.com(Leonard M. Keane)
Date: 5 Dec 1996 16:31:19 GMT
In <32af7b74.39127184@news.demon.co.uk> dweller@ramtops.demon.co.uk
(Douglas Weller) writes:
>
>On 4 Dec 1996 17:31:44 GMT, dolmen1@ix.netcom.com(Leonard M. Keane)
wrote:
>
>>In <32a44bf1.78947663@news.demon.co.uk> dweller@ramtops.demon.co.uk
>>(Douglas Weller) writes:
>>>What you call a central table, and has been referred to as a
>>sacrificial
>>>stone, can be found in other New England farming communites, where
it
>>was used
>>>to produce soap.
>>>[SNIP]
How many others exist? I have never seen another even remotely
resembling the bell-shaped table at Mystery Hill. I have seen similar
things perched on tripods of stone in remote, non-farming areas of New
England. - L.K.
>>
>>The site has been shored up a few years ago by a qualified stone
mason
>>whose work was filmed and well documented.
>
>What I was referring to was the work done in 1937 by the person who
bought the site.
I understand. Just wanted to bring you up to date on that aspect. -
L.K.
>
>>
>>Not to appear naive, but exactly why might one expect solar
alignments
>>for the entranceways to root cellars? Why 120 degrees as opposed to
60
>>degrees or 90 degrees which also appear?
>Farmers were advised to have the opening to their cellar facing the
winter
>sun.
Then why are some set towards the summer solstice sunrise and the
equinox?- L.K.
>
>>I can't imagine Mystery Hill being a soap factory, if that's what you
>>suggest, but the large table is clearly the central feature of the
>>whole complex.
>What I am saying is that sismilar stones are found in other places, on
other
>farms, and were used to make soap -- not as a factory of course, just
for
>local use. And it apparently was moved from it's original location.
I have heard more references to possible use as cider presses than as
soap makers, but the location of many in remote, rugged and almost
inaccessible places, as I indicated above, seems to rule out regular
use by colonial settlers. What I wonder about is when, if ever, did a
professional, accredited archeological study of Mystery Hill determiine
the table to have been typical of colonial soap making technology? I'm
fairly sure the owner has not been informed of this, otherwise he might
not have put so much work into trying to explain the site. - L.K.
I will review my books and notes on Mystery Hill and post the earliest
C-14 date (which probably won't be the latest); also will try to
comment on movement of the table by a prior owner. - L.K.
Len.
Subject: Re: Shang script among Olmecs
From: bdiebold@pantheon.yale.edu (Benjamin H. Diebold)
Date: 5 Dec 1996 16:22:33 GMT
Yuri Kuchinsky (yuku@io.org) wrote:
: Benjamin H. Diebold (bdiebold@pantheon.yale.edu) wrote:
: I am grateful for your efforts to investigate the seals.
I will it pursue it no farther. It is apparent to me on re-reading this
thread as it appears in sci.archaeology.mesoamerican (I have been reading
it in sci.archaeology), that this material has all been gone over before,
and that I am just another iteration in an old cycle that has gone
nowhere. When you make a sensible reply to Greg Keye's excellent comments
posted earlier, I might re-engage. Probably not before.
: Well, Alexander was in Asia around that time, and other Greeks were in
: Asia certainly before this. So there must have been alphabets there.
Sorry, but Alexander was not in Asia around 500 BC (the date quoted in my
post), since he wasn't born for about another 140 years. This also
postdates by a considerable amount the Olmec seals found in other contexts
that have been claimed as diffused. Finally, are you seriously suggesting
there is some *Greek* element in these "alphabets", in which no one can
tell top from bottom?! Absurdity is piled on absurdity in this insane
quest for "possibilities".
: Do you think the Hindus may have had an alphabet by then? Certainly this
: is what they would claim.
I have no idea, and little interest. I entered this thread as a result of
a specific claim by Needham as reported by you that there were Babylonian
seals in Mesoamerica. I asked for details. You have given me useless or
flatly contradictory references. Are the seals now *Hindi*? I see your
game -- they must be *something* diffusionary, and when we show they
aren't Hindi, you'll come back with Mongolian or something.
: : Carter seems to suggest that these seals are actually related to Ban
: : Chiang seals, since these is what he provides for comparative material. I
: : suppose people can make their own minds up, but I see no particular
: : resemblance.
: Perhaps others can see resemblances?
This is exactly the kind of rorshach, ink-blot kind of "analysis" I was
talking about in an earlier post. Perhaps Martians deposited them. I see
resemblances in the seals to surface features of Mars. Prove me wrong.
: : Carter offers no coherent argument to link them, and no
: : archaeological or even art historical data is provided. None of these
: : seals appears to have any real provenience.
: Clearly more research would be appropriate. The fact that we're discussing
: this may stimulate some other researcher to investigate and to fill in
: these blanks you've pointed out?
"Fill in these blanks"?! Don't you get it? There are nothing BUT blanks!
There's simply nothing here. Period. There's no reason to fill anything --
New World cultures are explainable in their own terms.
: : Pretty weak case for diffusion. In fact, no case at all.
: I agreee, in itself it is pretty weak. Perhaps this is why Needham spends
: about one sentence on this in his book that is filled to the brim with
: plenty of solid evidence for diffusion.
Then why the hell are you wasting my time with these crappy references?!
You made a claim. I asked for evidence. You putatively provided it. Now
you claim that this evidence was a trivial sideshow and the real evidence
lies somewhere else?
Strike three.
[snip]
: Needham has no connection whatsoever with Fell. I have no connection
: whatsoever with Fell.
Fell figures prominently in your intellectual phylogeny. You quote
Needham. Needham quotes Carter. Carter is based on Fell. Without Fell, the
whole thread of references you offered would not exist. There's just no
getting around that. Needham did no independent Mesoamerican research
(apparently); he quotes Carter (and Kelley, who flatly contradicts
Needham's claims). Carter did no independent Mesoamerican research; he
quotes Fell, and even cites Fell's "translation" of the Tlatilco seal,
which is supposedly "Libyan". This discussion is taking on a surreal
quality: we have Libyans, Greeks, Hindus, Ban Chiang, Polynesians, and
Shang (have I left anyone out?) running around the New World, and leaving
nothing behind but a few obscure glyptics.
Ben
Subject: Re: CROSSING THE BERING STRAIT? How ridiculous!
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 5 Dec 1996 17:08:05 GMT
In article <586lor$8dp@kwuz.nerc-keyworth.ac.uk>, bbur@dml.ac.uk says...
>
>Bob Keeter wrote:
>
>>If you want something REALLY tasty sounding, check out the fine old
>>Scottish recipe for "haggis"! Now THAT will leave your lunch on your
>>keyboard! 8-)))
>
>Ah yes, heart and lungs, fat, cereal and part of an animals gut.
That is actually the recipe for a hamburger produced by a well known
fast food chain with a scottish name. As I recall the mix is not
supposed to exceed 20% fat and 20% cereal. Mixed in with the heart
and lungs are most of the other internal organs.
All of this is mixed together on a concrete slab with a rusty shovel
(to give it iron and calcium carbonate) and then fed into a patty
machine ...
>Delish. Well, it can be. :-)
>Seriously though, if that bothers you, don't ever eat another processed
>meat product. At least you know what's in a haggis. All the same stuff
>and goodness knows what else is in that fine old American recipe for "hot
>dogs".
>
>Take me out to the ball game, hoo haa. (Yep, balls are in there too...)
Maybe you have to be scottish to appreciate it
>
>
>B.
>
>-------------------------------------------------------
>Bill Burnett
steve
Subject: Re: formal instruction: was: Vedas: was:The Punjab: was: "Out of India"
From: piotrm@umich.edu (Piotr Michalowski)
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 14:06:36
In article <586k7g$g2r@fridge-nf0.shore.net> whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) writes:
>>And if you think that Greek or Sanskrit or Akkadian grammar will be
>>easy, you'll be in for a NASTY surprise.
>Although grammar isn't a focus or concern of the method of evaluation
>proposed, the establishment of a formal Grammar is a process we could look
>at. I would expect it to generally be associated with
>the emergence of writing and the result of the work of a small
>group of scholars or scribes. It would be something that was taught.
>This implies that the culture speaking that language has reached
>the point of social stratification where at least some segment of
>the population has leisure to think of such things and this is an
>indicator of urbanism.
There is some strange confusion here. Grammar is not something that comes
with writing or anything else, but is inherent in language by definition. If
there are no rules, there is no code. Without a shared code there is no
communication. Linguistics, as a science, seeks to describe the rules of the
code, but does not establish it. The essence of any language is in fact in
the code, not in the vocabulary, which can change rapidly, and suffer quite a
bit of lexical replacement.
>> Some linguists, like Bickerton, who have studied pidgins and
>>creoles, have come to the view that the only "primitive" recorded
>>languages are pidgins, because these are essentially makeshift languages
>>created by people without some shared language.
>What does it take socially for small isolated populations to share
>a language? It would make sense for kin to share a language. That
>allows a population of a few hundred speakers. There are some
>languages like that. To share a language in an extended family, a
>clan, or tribal social order is required. The more you extend the
>language the more social order is required to establish it.
>Akkadian and Sumerian are advanced over neolithic languages because
>they have the social order to extend the language beyond a clan
>or tribal structure.
>Greek is advanced over Summerian or Akkadian because it has the social
>order to extend the language beyond the influence of a city to a polis
>or people.
>English is advanced over Greek because it has the social order to
>communicate internationally around the world.
These are subjective value judgements, not responsible observations. Since
you do not know any of these languages, aside from English, this is simply
wishful thinking on your part. You have not provided any basis for measuring
what you call "advancement", although I assume that once again you mean
vocabulary size, however that could be measured. It is a meangless statement,
in any case, as you have not done any comparative work on Sumerian, Akkadian,
Greek (whatever you mean by that--koine Greek, Doric, Attic???), and any
"neolithic language." Your socio-linguistic descriptions are likewise
oversimplified and plain wrong. I have no idea what you mean by "city to a
polis or a people," as I think you are confused by what a polis was, and also
you have some very simplistic ideas about some Greek "people" as opposed to
other civilizations of the past. As for your English criterion, it could
just as well be used to describe Akkadian in the Bronze Age, when it was used
throughout Western Asia and even in the Aegean as a common written language.
Subject: Re: Ramses III/Velikovsky
From: Saida
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 09:08:40 -0600
Alan Shaw wrote:
> > 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.
(snip)
> I am following Velikovsky only as long as his evidence stands up. When
> and if someone gives me better counter evidence I will dump V.
Promises, promises. Another major stumbling block in moving Ramesses
III up to the 4th Century B.C. is the mummy of the king, himself.
Velikovsky does not do a very good job of dealing with this problem.
It is written within the cache where many of the royal mummies
(including this one) were found that the tomb was sealed for the last
time (until the 19th Century) in the 10th Year of King Siamun (or 969
B.C.). Velikovsky argues that the accepted time frame must be wrong
because how can a tomb be sealed in the 21st Dynasty when a 22nd Dynasty
priest, one Djedkhonsefankh, is also interred there?
David Rohl, another revisionist, addresses the mystery in his book
"Pharaohs and Kings". He asserts that, for this priest of Amun to have
gotten into the cache, the 21st and 22nd Dynasties, instead of being
chronologically sequential, were partly contemporary. Because of the
political situation at the time, this is within the realm of
possibility. Rohl feels there is further evidence for this theory in
the royal tombs of San. From my reading of it, this is an area where
Rohl (a far more reasonable revisionist than V.) makes quite a bit of
sense.
Meanwhile, though, this shaving off a few years with overlapping
dynasties does not go very far toward explaining how somebody from the
30th Dynasty (362 B.C.) could have been smuggled into the cache 600
years later. Rohl points out that the coffin of Seti I was located in
the first corridoor of the tomb, the docket upon which saying Year 10 of
Siamun. Since "Djed's" coffin was too large to be got past Seti I and
three other coffins blocking the path, the priest must have been
interred before Year 10 of Siamun.
The same must be said of the body of Ramesses III, whose cartonnage
coffin was found in the interior of the cache in the enormous coffin of
Queen Ahmose-Nefertari of the 18th Dynasty (it had ample room for the
two mummies).
Added to that, by the 30th Dynasty, the art of mummification had
deteriorated to the point where it did little to preserve anything.
That is probably why we don't have the mummy of Nectanebo (or any other
pharaoh past the 21st Dynasty)--unless some of those Ptolemaic mummies
are royalty. On the other hand, the mummy known as Ramesses III is
well-enough preserved, the only trouble with it being the unguents
poured over the face hardened and played havoc with the king's features,
making them a model for Boris Karloff in his portrayal of "The Mummy".
Subject: Re: Way to eliminate nutcases from newsfeed
From: ndickover@ver.lld.com (Noel Dickover)
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 10:32:01 -0500
By looking at Toby's reply's, which BTW were amusing, it appears as if
Mr. Ed has participated in this thread, of course don't know that for
sure, BECAUSE I NO LONGER GET HIS MESSAGES. Huuaah!! Life is good.
Kill files make it that way. It is the best defense against trolls, and
I highly recommend them (newsreaders with killfiles, not newsgroups with
trolls). I think I will even pay for one of these kill file newsreaders
after my 30 eval is over.
Thanks for the laugh Toby.
Best,
Noel Dickover
In article ,
hegeman@wchat.on.ca says...
> In article <583um0$5cg@news.ptd.net>, edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad) wrote:
> -------------------------
> >
> >Hey, Dickover:
> >
> >Something tells me you're scared of the truth by playing ostrich and
> >burying your head in the sand.
> >Does Truth frighten you THAT much?
> >
> >Obviously, some other close-minded ``ostriches" will follow your
> >advice and, personally, I couldn't care less.
> >But I assure you there are countless others out there who ARE
> >open-minded and have long felt that the scientific establishment
> >certainly has not been honest and forthright in dealing with the
> >question of man's origin and ancestry.
> >
> >And I think they're rather pleased that they're finally tuned to the
> >right channel where I'm calling a spade a spade..
>
> Hey Ed.
>
> The only reason that people have resorted to kill files is because of your
> mindless drivel. The anthropological community has dealt with the issue
> of human ancesry and origin and continues to do so but it appears that the
> results and conclusions that we are coming to aren't to your liking. You
> don't like the results so you claim that the scientific community isn't
> being forthright and honest ... what a load of bullshit that is. You want
> to talk about origins and ancestry but you are simply trying to couch the
> race issue in scientific terms. Your smoke screen won't work here buddy
> boy. Your channel has been into repeats since the fifties and the
> programming is getting a little tired. There is a new show in town and it
> is getting better ratings than yours ever did. The truth has never
> frightened us and the only person who is close minded here is yourself.
> The TRUTH is on our side while you have been stuck in Lamarkian science
> others have progressed and made new discoveries and new inquiries to the
> origins of humans and human nature. Even the words that you choose
> betrays your ancestry. For your information there are two genders in the
> human species, both men and women. Still stuck in the fifties you refer
> to man's evolution and man's origins, your ignorance shines through. And
> if you try to rebut by saying that it is a catch word your wrong. I'm a
> man because that is the gender I was born but my species, my race is
> human.
>
> Toby
>
Subject: Re: CROSSING THE BERING STRAIT? How ridiculous!
From: sxaeg@aurora.alaska.edu (GREENWALT ART E)
Date: 5 Dec 1996 20:07:02 GMT
Bob Keeter (b_keeter@owens.ridgecrest.ca.us) wrote:
: Kathy McIntosh wrote:
: >In article <57ten5$hcf@news.alaska.edu>, GREENWALT ART E
: > writes
: >
: >Snipping of some rubbish from Conrad, and a very sensible, patient reply
: >from Art.
: >> A caribou
: >>herd supplied a pre-contact Alaskan with just about everything they
: >>needed. Sinew for cord, bowstrings, fishing line, etc. Fur for
: >>incredibly warm parkas, pants, boots, mittens. Meat and
: >vegies(stomach
: >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^contents). The bones could be formed into ladles,
: >projectile poi^^^^^^^^^
: >
: >nts,
: >>tools, even flutes and needles.
: >> More snipping, as above.
: >
: >Yuk! I nearly threw up on the keyboard!
: >
: >Seriously, Art, did they actually eat the stomach contents? Surely
: >caribou eat grass, would it really have been that important to them?
Yup....as terrible as it sounds, it was the only source of vegetable
material available to them throughout the winter other than frozen
berries they stored. Considering that the bacteria in the rumens would
have begun digesting the cellulose, not only would they be getting the
advantage of vegetable material during a season it is not normally
available but the actual digestion problem (we people aren't too good at
breaking cellulose down and waste a lot of nutrients in plant material as
a result) would be somewhat overcome.
If you really want to throw up on your keyboard (and who doesn't?
*Grin*) consider a delicacy along many areas of the coast: stinky
fishheads. Fishheads are buried in a pit and allowed to "ferment" for a
period of time, then uncovered and eaten with considerable delight. I
have not tried this and never intend to. But given the parameters of
surviving up here any ability to more fully utilize the food sources
available is a big plus. Cultural differences in food preferences aside,
the prehistoric inhabitants of Alaska were darned resourceful when it
came to making use of every scrap of edible substance, every bit of
material that could be used as a tool or clothing or structure or
what-have-you. It's rather amazing to look at what these people could do
with such scant materials at hand.
Even more amazing is that they had the leisure time to produce artwork,
demonstrating they were interacting pretty effectively with their
environment if they had the time to create some of the gorgeous ivory
carvings they produced.
....Art, in Alaska...
Subject: Re: "Out of India"
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 5 Dec 1996 19:35:35 GMT
In article , piotrm@umich.edu says...
>
>In article <581krl$ej9@fridge-nf0.shore.net> whittet@shore.net (Steve
Whittet) writes:
>(snip rubbish)
>
>>The connection across the Gulf in the 3rd millenium BC is
>>established by the clusters of chlorite vessels at Tarut (222)
>>and Tepe Yahya (114) with much smaller numbers at Susa (40)
>>and Ur (17) indicating the trade route was across the Gulf
>>by sea and not through Mesopotamia by land.
Here is a little ASCI sketch to show you what I mean
\ |___
\___ | |
--| ___|
| | |
| | |
______________|Black Sea | |
| |
| |
|_______| Caspian
\Euphrates |
\ | Tigris
\ |Iraq
\ |
\ |
\ Ur | Susa Elamite
\ |
\|Mesopotamia
\ Fars Iran
__---___
\ \Persian Gulf
\ \ Anshan
\ \
\ \ _
| |
\ \ __ _____ Tepe Yahya
| Tarut \ __ / \
| ___ Trade Route ====>| (Makkan) Dravidian
| | |Bahrain \ Hormuz Meluhha
(Dilmun)| |_| /| \______________________
\ Quatar / |
The connection across the Gulf predates the Kassites,
but once established doesn't prohibite them from using it.
What I don't understand is why, when there is clearly trade by
water on the Nile and in the Mediterranean and on the Red Sea,
You argue so strenuously against its presence on the Tigris
and Euphrates, the Black Sea and the Persian Gulf?
>Would you please explain to us what the distribution of chlorite vessels,
>which just last week as supposed to be an indication of Kassite presence (in
>your mind), has to do with what you are trying to argue? What is the
>mechanism, and what is its significance?
There are very many more vessels found in Tarut and Tepe Yahya than
in Susa or Mesopotamia. The distribution of vessels thus clusters
around them suggesting a connection. Since the connection is across
water it argues a trade route across the Gulf at the straits of Hormuz
to which both Dilmun and Meluhha could connect.
This point is closer to both Afghanistan and Pakistan than Susa and Elam.
>
>>>The Elamite-Brahui-Dravidian connection is what matters.
>>>Elamite was spoken in Elam and Fars.
>>>Proto-Elamite writing has been found in Tepe-Yahya and
>>>Shahr-i-Shokhta (Eastern Iran: Kerman-Baluchistan).
>>>Brahui is still spoken in Pakistani Baluchistan.
>>>The Indus Valley is just beyond Baluchistan.
>>>Linguistically, Elamite is closest to Brahui,
>>>Brahui to Dravidian.
>
>>This is another one of Mallory's fantasy's and he get's it from McAlpin.
>>In rebuttal here is some information available on the web.
>
>This is not serious. How can you, without knowing any of the facts
>in question, call something a fantasy.
>McAlpin is not the only person to claim that Elamite might be
>Dravidian, but he did take on the problem seriously,
>and wrote a whole book about it.
>Have you read this book, and are you capable of
>refuting his arguments?
>As usual, you are piling fact upon upon unrelated fact,
>without any sense of what goes with what, and now have
>decided to use a CIA ethnolinguistic map to argue the
>remote past. Lovely!
>So please, details only, give us a refutation of McAlpin's position.
1.) I have not read McAlpin, except that part cited by Mallory.
2.) I was referring to that part of his work cited by Mallory
3.) I think I can refute what Mallory says, page 44
He says:
1.)"Circumstantial evidence for identifying the language of the Indus
Valley Script with Elamite or Dravidian has been greatly strengthened
by David McAlpins work on the relationship between the Dravidian
languages and Elamite."
I consider circumstantial evidence to be as dependable as the
accuracy of the assessment of the circumstances.
2.) "McAlpin has demonstrated that the two groups of languages
derive from a common proto-language,"
I have no problem with this thus far.
3.)"Proto-Elamite Dravidian"
This I do object to because it ignores the connecting link
in the chain which is the sea trade up the Persian Gulf.
Perhaps a better name would be "Ickthiophagian."...:)
4.)"and that Brahui tradditionally assigned to the Northern
Dravidian subgroup would actually appear to be linguistically"
This part I would not argue with
5.)"as well as geographically intermediate between the two
major subgroups"
Here I think the CIA ethno linguistic map and the ethnolouge
are most helpful. Brahui, far from being geographically
intermediate, is confined to the east of the Dravidian languages.
Thus far it should be evident that my real argument is not with
what McAlpin said, but rather the spin Mallory put on it.
6.) "McAlpin reconstructs to Proto-Elamite Dravidian a common
stockbreeding vocabulary..."
no problem with this
7.)"...and traces special developments in the agricultural
terminoloogy of the Dravidian branch as it pushed southward
into the Indian subcontinent."
I don't find any evidence that the Dravidian branch was ever
anywhere north of where it presently is.
(Here I do have to go get a copy of McAlpin and see what
exactly he has said)
As Joe Bernstein has pointed out, cattle may have entered India
and Pakistan from the east.
Agriculture which begins in India c 7,500 BC, almost certainly
predates both the Elamite and Dravidian cultures.
8.)" McAlpin dates the disintigration of proto-Elamite Dravidian
to about the fifth millenium BC.
The earliest Ubaid settlements date to about 5900 BC and by c 5400 BC
had replaced the earlier Halaf culture so there were other cultures
around before the fifth millenium but not so far as I can tell Elam,
the focus of which is Susa.
Susa was apparently founded as a religious center at the end of the
Ubaid period. The term Elamite properly refers to the joining of
two city states Susa and Anshan, in the capture of Ur c 2004 BC.
I don't see even a proto Elamite civilization as being formed
prior to about 2500 BC. "During the Jemdet Nasr period Anshan
had expanded dramatically to occupy 45 hectares" Micael Roaf,
CAM page 68
45 hectares would be about 111 acres and if it required one acre
of arable land to feed a family of four might have supported 445
people.
In the late Uruk and Jemdet Nasr periods bevel rimmed bowls formed
from molds may provide evidence of trade as far east as Anshan and
Tepe Yahya but these cities both looked to the Gulf for this trade.
Shadad and Shar-i Sokhte have no bevel rimmed bowls so they are
not a part of any proto-elamite civilization. The center of this
trade appears to be the Halaf culture and their presence at Susa
is just evidence of trade with the west.
Impressed tablets from Uruk made it all the way up the Euphrates
to Jebel Arouda, and are present at Mari, Susa, Choga Mish,
Godin Tepe, and Tell-i Ghazir, but there is nothing more than
seventy miles east of Susa.
Finally, The Dasht-e Kvir amd the Dasht-e Lut, the uninhabited
deserts of some substantial size in the interior of Iran probably
were possessed of no larger population then than they are now.
steve
Subject: Re: Shang script among Olmecs
From: pmv100@psu.edu (Peter van Rossum)
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 21:50:16 GMT
In article <586ss9$4ao@news.ycc.yale.edu> bdiebold@pantheon.yale.edu (Benjamin H. Diebold) writes:
>Yuri Kuchinsky (yuku@io.org) wrote:
>: Benjamin H. Diebold (bdiebold@pantheon.yale.edu) wrote:
>
>: I am grateful for your efforts to investigate the seals.
>
>I will it pursue it no farther. It is apparent to me on re-reading this
>thread as it appears in sci.archaeology.mesoamerican (I have been reading
>it in sci.archaeology), that this material has all been gone over before,
>and that I am just another iteration in an old cycle that has gone
>nowhere. When you make a sensible reply to Greg Keye's excellent comments
>posted earlier, I might re-engage. Probably not before.
Thanks for taking care of this one Benjamin. Given your summary of the
sources [inaccurately] used by Needham, I too see no reason to look into
this "problem" later on - since there apparently was no problem there to
begin with.
>: : Pretty weak case for diffusion. In fact, no case at all.
>
>: I agreee, in itself it is pretty weak. Perhaps this is why Needham spends
>: about one sentence on this in his book that is filled to the brim with
>: plenty of solid evidence for diffusion.
>
>Then why the hell are you wasting my time with these crappy references?!
>You made a claim. I asked for evidence. You putatively provided it. Now
>you claim that this evidence was a trivial sideshow and the real evidence
>lies somewhere else?
>Ben
Ben, again I couldn't agree with you more.
Yuri, if you originally thought this was not good evidence of diffusion
then you should not have raised the issue in the first place.
From the Harlan & de Wet article I cited earlier you'll find:
"There seems to be a strong conviction among some anthropologists that
a strong case can be made by assembling a number of items of low quality.
Each item is supposed to add support to the proposition. This is
arithmetically incorrect; seventy times zero is still zero. Seventy
items of dubious quality add up to a sizeable amount of dubious evidence."
If you want a serious discussion of diffusion, then you should start
with things that are good contenders for evidence. Don't waste people's
time by citing a bunch of "evidence" which even you don't believe in,
then when they show it to be rubbish to say - "well that wasn't
important anyway, how about this one?" That kind of tactic is very
irritating.
Peter van Rossum
PMV100@PSU.EDU
Subject: Re: Pyramid "Ventilation" Shaft
From: fmurray@pobox,com (frank murray)
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 22:29:35 GMT
On 5 Dec 1996 21:47:41 GMT, Martin Stower
wrote:
> The perfect match of sky-ground images is achieved in 10,500 BC
> when the pattern of the Milky Way and of the three stars of Orion's
> belt at meridian transit is precisely matched by the course of the
> Nile and the pattern of the three great Pyramids on the ground.
> [KOG, Wm. Heinemann, 1996, caption to fig. 24, p. 69]
>
>We're to understand that the _Nile_ matches better in 10,500 BC. Does this
>mean that the Nile was built to match the sky? I doubt it.
what would "perfect match" or "precisely matched" mean??...within zero
tolerance error??...for the pyramids, if we consider them as precise
mathematical shapes - which they are not, the perfect match of
particular mathematical points (i.e. the "peaks) with the star pattern
would be at least theoretically possible...but to what level of
accuracy could one claim that the nile "precisely matched" the milky
way...the language used discloses more the mindset of the authors than
the matchset of the phenomena...
frank
Subject: Re: Etruscans [was: Re: The Coming of the Greeks]
From: adeptt@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca ()
Date: 5 Dec 1996 18:26:51 GMT
: Brian M. Scott (scott@math.csuohio.edu) wrote:
: In article <582h3h$df4@fridge-nf0.shore.net>, whittet@shore.net wrote:
(snip everything)
Instead of repeating the previous articles, here is a brief summary of the
discussion in this thread: Mr. Whittet argues that settlement patterns in
the ancient Near East furnish evidence that trade at that time was mainly
waterborne, since settlements related to trade typically appear on rivers
or other bodies of water. Mr. Scott argues that such settlement on bodies
of water need not imply waterborne trade but could also be explained on
the assumption that bodies of water present barriers to land-based trade.
Unfortunately, neither contributor to the thread presents much concrete
data specifically supporting either the waterborne or overland trade
hypothesis. Yet such concrete evidence could be adduced through an
examination of the physical characteristics of the relevant archaeological
sites. On the one hand, if trade was carried on chiefly overland, one
would expect to find related settlements springing up:
1. At points where natural barriers, e.g. escarpments, rivers,
bogs, etc. impeded land travel. Crossing such barriers is often difficult
and dangerous, so merchants would have tended to set up camp here, team
up, plan their crossing and get a good sleep so as to tackle the barrier
when well-rested and with plenty of daylight ahead of them. In those cases
where crossing the barrier was not as time-consuming, merchants would have
tended to set up camp after completing the crossing in order to rest and
regroup. Naturally, the merchants would seek out the points where these
natural barriers were most easily passable, e.g. fords, straits, mountain
passes, etc. When encountering a deep river, they would look for a ford,
when confronted with mountains, they would look for a pass.
2. At points where the natural resources required for a camp were
easily obtainable. For example, merchants would prefer to set up camp
where fresh water (and perhaps even fuel and food) were readily available,
i.e. at oases, natural springs, rivers or wells.
3. At points where natural features offered some sort of shelter
from the elements. For example, trees, a rock overhang or a shallow cave
might provide shade, a windbreak or shelter from the rain.
4. At points where different trade routes intersected.
5. At points which were easily defensible against land-based
attack, e.g. a promontory or hill.
On the other hand, if trade was carried on chiefly by water, one would
expect to find settlements situated:
1. At points where natural barriers, e.g. rapids, waterfalls or
the head of navigation on a river, impeded water travel and necessitated a
portage. Since a portage is tiring and time-consuming, merchants would
have tended to set up camp immediately before beginning or immediately
after completing a portage.
2. At points where natural features offered some sort of shelter;
not only for the merchants themselves (as above), but especially for their
boats, e.g. a natural harbour or a place where boats could easily be
beached.
3. At points where boats could easily be defended against
land-based attack, e.g. an island surrounded by deep water or a cove
accessible only by water.
4. At points where different trade routes intersected.
5. At points where the natural resources required for a camp were
easily obtainable. Since fresh water would have been readily available to
merchants travelling along rivers or lakes, the main criteria here would
have been availability of fuel and food.
Further evidence for or against the preponderance of overland versus
waterborne trade can be adduced from the configuration of the trade routes
themselves. If one finds that a given trade route tends to follow the
*navigable* portions of rivers and lakes and consistently seeks out the
shortest or easiest route between the *navigable* portions of neighbouring
bodies of water, then this serves as indication of a waterborne trade
route. On the other hand, if a trade route avoids *deep* bodies of water
and includes overland stretches too long for a portage to be practical,
then it is likely to be a land route. Naturally, the distance considered
practical for a portage would depend on the terrain, the technology, the
type of cargo, and the size, weight and construction of the boats
available at that time.
It is of course probable that *both* overland and waterborne trade routes
existed at the time in question. In certain areas one type of
transportation would simply have been more practical than another. Has any
concrete work been done in this area? If the research required to validate
one of the disputed hyptheses has not yet been carried out, then it might
provide the basis for an archaeological dissertation.
Richard Krause
Adept Translators
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Subject: Re: Sarasvati history (request) (was "Out of India")
From: khare@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Vivek Khare)
Date: 5 Dec 96 23:00:56 GMT
hmccullo@ecolan.sbs.ohio-state.edu (Hu McCulloch) writes:
>vidynath@math.ohio-state.edu (Vidhyanath K. Rao) writes:
>>I remember reading that the same glaciers feed the headwaters of
>>Sarasvati/Drshadvati system and of Yamuna, and that the flow has
>>changed back and forth several times. Is this true and does anyone know
>>what the dates are?
I read a paper reporting satellite imaging studies of the
present day Ghagghar-Hakra basin a while back (cannot remember the authors,
but the paper is in the journal Eastern Anthropologist, 1992). AFAIK,
Sarasvati river is supposed to have flowed through the dry basin
reported in this paper.
Some related information that I vaguely remember is that the
Yamuna actually flowed westwards instead of to the east, and joined
Saraswati. However, as a result of tectonic movements, its flow direction
changed, with the Yamuna joining the Ganges. Yamuna was the main tributary
of the Saraswati, and once this source of water was lost to that latter,
Saraswati's drying up was accelarated.
The drying of Saraswati is supposed to have occurred around 1900 BC.
>See the web site www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgadkw/indus.html, "Sarasvati-Sindhu
>civilization", maintained by Dr. S. Kalyanaraman in Madras
>for references and discussion. I can't vouch for his
>interpretation, but he seems to give the pertinent geological
>references. He places the demise of the Sarasvati around
>1700 BC, though I seem to recall the geologists were suggesting
>more like 1900 BC. Doubtless there will be more news on this
>as time goes on, eg of habitation sites along the dried up rivercourse.
Actually, Rafique Mughal of the Archeological Survey of Pakistan
has identified numerous IVC sites in the dried up Ghagghar-Hakra basin,
along the course of the dried Saraswati river. Almost all are quite small
in size compared to Harappa, Kalibangan or Mohenjodaro. These sites belong
to the Easly to Mature Harappan era.
>-- Hu McCulloch
Regards
Vivek
Subject: Re: formal instruction: was: Vedas: was:The Punjab: was: "Out of India"
From: petrich@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 18:40:00 GMT
In article <586k7g$g2r@fridge-nf0.shore.net>,
Steve Whittet wrote:
>In article , petrich@netcom.com says...
>> But they do NOT acquire language by formal instruction; just read
>>some of the literature on language acquisition some time. Mr. Whittet, if
>>you expended about a tenth the effort on linguistics that you do on
>>archeology, you'd know a heck of a lot more than you do now.
>You are arguing against a point I didn't make. ...
If that is the case, then you didn't make it easy for the rest of
us to understand you.
>> And when was the last time you heard people saying "The adjective
>>goes before the noun, not after it"?
>My recollection is it was Ms. Beasley, my fourth grade English teacher
>about 10:15 AM October, 11, 1954.
Maybe. But when you compose your speech or your writings, do you
remind yourself to put the adjective before the noun? I don't.
>> That's what you've been implying with your theories of language
>>formation, which mean that those without big cities don't have Real
>>Languages.
>No, I have neither said nor implied any such thing. What I have said
>is that using language builds language. ...
I'm sure that there is an abundance of stuff in the linguistics
literature that touches on whatever you have in mind here.
>Although grammar isn't a focus or concern of the method of evaluation
>proposed, the establishment of a formal Grammar is a process we could look
>at. I would expect it to generally be associated with
>the emergence of writing and the result of the work of a small
>group of scholars or scribes. It would be something that was taught.
So what about the working-out of some official standard grammar?
My point is that people use language *without* such formal standards.
Even we English speakers don't depend on some "English Academy" to decide
what's legitimate English.
[...]
>What does it take socially for small isolated populations to share
>a language? ...
[a lot of pointlessness deleted]
>Akkadian and Sumerian are advanced over neolithic languages because
>they have the social order to extend the language beyond a clan
>or tribal structure.
>Greek is advanced over Summerian or Akkadian because it has the social
>order to extend the language beyond the influence of a city to a polis
>or people.
>English is advanced over Greek because it has the social order to
>communicate internationally around the world.
And do you have *any* acquaintance with *any* of these languages
other than English? I have a limited acquaintance with Greek, and if you
think its grammar is going to be easy because it is supposedly "less
advanced", then you'll be in for a nasty surprise.
[the Vedas...]
>Yes they do describe living in cities. Although to my knowledge they
>do not describe writing, there is evidence to show that writing was
>being used when the Vedas were being composed.
But do the Vedas themselves mention it???
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
petrich@netcom.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html
Subject: Re: Carbon dating: accuracy and limitations
From: Chuck Blatchley
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 15:00:39 -0800
Richard Ottolini wrote:
>
> In article ,
> wrote:
> >On Mon, 25 Nov 1996 aander16@counsel.com wrote:
> >
> >> 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?
> >
> It is no longer necessary to count radioactive decay to determine
> the carbon isotopic ratio and hence an age date, but one can
> measure the isotopic ratio directly in a mass spectrometer,
> typically an expensive accelerator.
>
Although the accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS) may be expensive, dating
services and other isotopic studies may not be, depending on sample size
and other variables. Purdue's tandem Van de Graaff accelerator
(PRIMELAB) is currently accepting proposals for sample processing based
on a federal grant. I think they are looking for projects that will
eventually convert to paying customers, though.
The trick with accelerator dating is to have enough momentum to resolve
C-14 ions from N-14, which is alway a background gas.
Above ground nuclear testing did produce major spikes in C-14 levels,
particularly in the 1961-3 era up to the test ban. Although far from the
central mass for fission products, C-14 is partly produced directly from
fission and from B-14. The bulk, though, is from (n,p) reactions with
N-14, the same reaction that produces cosmogenic C-14. The neutrons are
produced by cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere. The relatively rapid
return to normal levels after these spikes has improved models of the CO2
cycle. In the distant future a certain layer in carbonate rocks and coal
will clearly mark the mid-twentieth century.
Accuracy in readings is essentially a statistical function that improves
as the square root of the number of atoms (decays) counted until you
bump into systematic errors involved in sample preparation. Fine
resolution would then call for a large sample and a recent date, which
might include a fallout spike. For the accelerator, "large sample" means
vaporized, ionized, and accelerated through the system. This can be very
expensive.
For the 1820's you should be able to get within a couple of years with a
reasonable sample. Months will be harder.
--
Chuck Blatchley Department of Physics
FAX: 235-4050 Pittsburg State University
email: cblatchl@pittstate.edu Pittsburg, KS 66762
Subject: Re: Shang script among Olmecs
From: dweller@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Douglas Weller)
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 22:45:16 GMT
On 5 Dec 1996 05:39:29 GMT, "Paul E. Pettennude" wrote:
>Group,
>
>Correct me if I'm wrong. Wasn't Barry Feld in the Department of
>Comparative Zoology at Harvard when he wrote his earth shattering
>treatises?
He was a marine biologist.
>>
>> : George F. Carter & S. Heinemann, PRE-COLUMBIAN SELLOS: Another Artifact
>> : Showing Possible Cultural Contact and Trans-Pacific Diffusion,
>> : Anthropological Journ. of Canada, 15 (no. 3), (1977), p. 2.
The Anthropological Journ. of Canada is not what it sounds., but was a
private magazine edited by a friend of Carter's.
[SNIP]
So, the following is not surprising!
>>
>> The Anthropological Journal of Canada seemed to have a special interest
>in
>> topics related to diffusion; Carter is a frequent contributor, appearing
>> in almost every issue I looked at. He definitely appears to be a man with
>> an axe to grind.
>>
>> There was, however, one other article in the same issue as the one Yuri
>> offered which did prove interesting. Curious that Needham (or Yuri)
>> neglected to mention it.
>>
>> It was written by Thomas Lee, and examined in some detail a reading of
>> some Libyan "inscriptions" by Barry Fell. Lee shows pretty clearly that
>> Fell's methods leave much to be desired, and are, in fact, poised over
>> that line of academic fraud (if not far beyond it). Fell offers 4
>readings
>> of the same inscription, which vary wildly from reading to reading, which
>> share no relationship to other Libyan inscriptions Fell "translates", and
>> which ultimately turn out to be natural cracks in an igneous rock.
>>
Thomas Lee owned and published the magazine.
Subject: marianna- Hurrian or IE?
From: piotrm@umich.edu (Piotr Michalowski)
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 21:10:09
Since there has been much discussion of the supposed "Aryan aristocracy" in
second millennium Western Asia, I thought it might be useful to provide a very
brief discussion of the matter. The main basis for this hypothesis is the
word marianna, supposedly IE and supposedly meaning "aristocrat," or the like.
The word appears primarily in texts from the Hitttite capital, from Ugarit and
Alalakh in Syria, in Nuzi in northern Mesopotamia. Already in 1910 it had
been proposed that this word derived from Indic marya-, "young man," with the
Hurrian aending -anne. This has been repeated many times, although there have
been those who have not accepted this etymology. A full discussion with
references can be found in Annalies Kammenhuber, Die Arier im Vorderen Asien
(Heidelberg, 1968). Kammenhuber was also against this and cited Igor
Diakonoff's private correspondence to her in which he proposed that the word
was not a loan in Hurrian, but a native word, as demonstrated by Urartian
mari- (Urartian and Hurrian are cognate languages from the same linguistic
stock, according to Diakonoff and Starostin, East Caucasian). The fact that
this was not a loan in Hurrian solved many morphological problems. Etymology
aside, there is no evidence that marianna were the "aristocracy," and, indeed,
the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary v. M defines the word simply as "chariot
driver." It is also clear from personnel lists from Alalakh that m. were not
at the top of the heap. In his Pre-history of the Armenian People (NY 1984)
p. 37 Diakonoff writes: "It seems, though, that it is a mistake to assign the
marianna (charioteers) to the aristocracy. And there is no evidence to
suggest that the marianna were Indo-Iranians, as some scholars suggest." N.
B. Jankowka also notes that the word is Hurro-Uratian, and add, "Note also
that the marianna were not a "feudal aristocracy"; they were palace
personnel..." (Diakonoff, ed, Early Antiquity (Chicago, 1991) 244. For a full
argumentation see Diakonoff, Die Arie im Vorderen Orient--Ende eines Mythos,"
Orientalia 41 (1972).
Subject: Egypt police seize 2,000 year-old-body
From: "Paul E. Pettennude"
Date: 6 Dec 1996 00:55:37 GMT
11:04 AM ET 12/05/96
Egypt police seize 2,000 year-old-body
CAIRO (Reuter) - Egyptian police have seized the dehydrated
body of a boy which may date back more than 2,000 years, a
senior antiquities official said Thursday.
Mohammed Saleh, head of the Egyptian Museum, told Reuters
police seized the perfectly-preserved body from a taxi driver
who was trying to sell it to antiquities traders for $500,000.
Saleh said preliminary examinations showed that the body,
which has traces of red hair, was probably that of an
eight-year-old boy and dated back to between the first or sixth
century AD.
It did not appear to have been mumified but just preserved
under the desert sand, he said.
``The body is in good condition, you can clearly see the
features,'' Saleh said.
A team of experts will run a series of tests on the body to
determine its exact age and conditions under which it was
buried, Saleh said.
--
Paul E. Pettennude
"It's better to be remembered for the life you lived rather than the things
you left behind."
Subject: Re: Pyramid "Ventilation" Shaft
From: Martin Stower
Date: 5 Dec 1996 21:47:41 GMT
alford@dial.pipex.com (Alan Alford) wrote:
>Dear Mr Stower,
>
>Just spotted your posting from last week. I am quite familiar with the
>arguments put forward by you at
>http://www.dcs.shef.ac.uk/~martins/Pyramid/ and I would be delighted to
>respond to your invitation to discuss whether the Khufu hieroglyph is or
>is not a forgery. Clearly you have done a lot of research in this area,
>which deserves more than an off-the-cuff reply, so I will attempt to make
>a posting in the middle of next week.
I hope to see some of the `conclusive evidence' you mention at
http://www2.eridu.co.uk/eridu/synopsis/chapter4.html
>In the meantime, however, please answer me one (presumably simple)
>question. How do you explain the mirror image alignment of the 3 Giza
>Pyramids with the 3 stars of Orion's Belt (Bauval & Gilbert) in 10450 BC?
>I would be interested to hear your answer.
That could look like an attempt to change the subject: but on one reading
I can see its relevance. Do you see in this correspondence a suggestion
that the Great Pyramid was _built_ then, rather than in Khufu's time?
That's not how Bauval himself sees it. In Keeper of Genesis (Message of
the Sphinx in North America), Bauval and Hancock state that
. . . we are still reasonably certain that the Pyramids themselves
were largely built in 2500 BC when Egyptologists say they were. . . .
[KOG, Wm. Heinemann, 1996, p. 248]
Considering the categories of evidence they _are_ prepared to accept,
it's hard to see how they could avoid this conclusion: in particular,
the Pyramids Radiocarbon Dating Project, and the targeting of the relevant
stars by the `star shafts' - emphasised in The Orion Mystery - circa 2500 BC.
Indeed, it's hard to see why they should repeat the forgery claim, since
the quarry marks corroborate their own dating of the pyramid.
As another piece of evidence for dating the Giza pyramids, I'll throw in
the Debehen inscription.
As for the match circa 10,500 BC, I find Bauval's `pattern matching'
approach to the question problematic. Does the discovery of such a
correspondence entitle us to say that it _must_ have been deliberate?
It's not always clear that it does. Consider this:
The perfect match of sky-ground images is achieved in 10,500 BC
when the pattern of the Milky Way and of the three stars of Orion's
belt at meridian transit is precisely matched by the course of the
Nile and the pattern of the three great Pyramids on the ground.
[KOG, Wm. Heinemann, 1996, caption to fig. 24, p. 69]
We're to understand that the _Nile_ matches better in 10,500 BC. Does this
mean that the Nile was built to match the sky? I doubt it.
Do such correpondences outweigh the problems, when Bauval postulates
not just site development but cultural continuity, otherwise unevidenced,
over an 8000 year gap?
Apart from that, I'd prefer not to be sidetracked into a discussion of
Bauval.
Martin Stower
Subject: Dating the Giza Pyramids: Was Re: Pyramid "Ventilation" Shaft
From: Rodney Small
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 21:16:46 -0800
Martin Stower wrote:
[snip]
> That's not how Bauval himself sees it. In Keeper of Genesis (Message of
> the Sphinx in North America), Bauval and Hancock state that
>
> . . . we are still reasonably certain that the Pyramids themselves
> were largely built in 2500 BC when Egyptologists say they were. . . .
> [KOG, Wm. Heinemann, 1996, p. 248]
>
> Considering the categories of evidence they _are_ prepared to accept,
> it's hard to see how they could avoid this conclusion: in particular,
> the Pyramids Radiocarbon Dating Project, and the targeting of the relevant
> stars by the `star shafts' - emphasised in The Orion Mystery - circa 2500 BC.
It's not clear that the Radiocarbon Dating Project was conclusive. If it
is accepted as such, it poses problems for the conventional wisdom
because the radiocarbon dates were earlier for the Great Pyramid than the
Step Pyramid. Regarding the targeting of the relevant stars by the
shafts circa 2600 BC, that indicates only that those shafts were used for
that purpose at that time, but does not prove that the Pyramids were
originally constructed then.
[snip]
> As another piece of evidence for dating the Giza pyramids, I'll throw in the Debehen inscription.
I'm not familiar with this inscription. Please explain what it is and
why you think it proves that the Giza Pyramids were built circa 2600 BC.
> As for the match circa 10,500 BC, I find Bauval's `pattern matching'
> approach to the question problematic. Does the discovery of such a
> correspondence entitle us to say that it _must_ have been deliberate?
> It's not always clear that it does. Consider this:
>
> The perfect match of sky-ground images is achieved in 10,500 BC
> when the pattern of the Milky Way and of the three stars of Orion's
> belt at meridian transit is precisely matched by the course of the
> Nile and the pattern of the three great Pyramids on the ground.
> [KOG, Wm. Heinemann, 1996, caption to fig. 24, p. 69]
>
> We're to understand that the _Nile_ matches better in 10,500 BC. Does this
> mean that the Nile was built to match the sky? I doubt it.
Respectfully, you miss the point here (and I seem to recall explaining
this previously). Bauval and Hancock attempt to make the case that in
10,500 BC the Milky Way -- quite by chance -- appeared to be an extension
of the Nile simultaneous with the Orion Belt Stars reaching meridian
transit at their lowest point in the 26,000 year precessional cycle.
Accordingly, to freeze this moment in time, the Giza Pyramid builders
placed the three Pyramids in the exact relation to the Nile that the Belt
Stars then bore to the Milky Way. There is nothing mystical about this
if that is indeed what was done -- it's just that the Pyramid builders
would have been taking advantage of perhaps the most unusual astronomical
features that happened to exist at that time. If those features had not
existed then, the builders could have chosen other features because there
is always something unusual happening in the sky.
> Do such correpondences outweigh the problems, when Bauval postulates
> not just site development but cultural continuity, otherwise unevidenced,
> over an 8000 year gap?
If the correlation is exact enough, the answer is yes. It will not do to
fall back on "coincidence" as the explanation. Speaking of which, back
in October I posted several messages regarding correlations between
external dimensions of the Great Pyramid and equatorial latitude,
equatorial longitude, and the polar radius. We had a pretty good
discussion of the first two, but you said you were going to give me a
response about the polar radius correlation. Perhaps you did and I
missed it because I was away for nine days in late October, but whether
you did or not, I would be interested in your explanation for the seeming
correlation between the height of the Pyramid plus its platform and the
polar radius. Thanks.
P.S. By the way, in response to Mr. Alford, I'm not an astronomer (nor
an archaeologist either), but as Mr. Fisher points out, calculating the
relative angles of the Orion Belt Stars does not require a degree in
astronomy.
Subject: "Noah's Ark" Arkologists Flunk Geology
From: "Keith littlejo@comm.net"
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 15:13:31 -0600 (CST)
Subject "Noah's Ark" Arkologists Flunk Geology
Distribution: world
In article <5864p8$hoc@pegasus.starlink.com
of the thread '95 Noah's Ark dig in Turkey,
jkester@starlink.com wrote
+Someone requested any info on the '95 dig that was
+supposed to take place last year--according to the
+Learning Channel's special, QUEST FOR THE ARK.
+
+Please post any info on this.
I do not know anything about this excavation, but an article
on this, Mr . Wyatt's, Noah's Ark has been recently published
in the September 1996, "Journal of Geological Education"
that is authored by Dr. L. Gene Collins, and David Franklin
Fasold.
The abstract of the article, in part, reads:
"A natural rock structure near Dogubayazit, Turkey, has
been misindentified as Noah's Ark. Microscopic studies
of a supposed iron bracket show that it is derived from
weathered volcanic minerals. Supposed metal-braced
walls are natural concentrations of limonite and magnetite
in steeply inclined sedimentary layers in the limbs of a
doubly plunging syncline . Supposed fossilized
gopherwood bark is crinkled metamorphosed peridotite.."
The feature that Mr. Wyatt claims to be Noah's Ark is
nothing more than a doubly plunging syncline. What
Mr. Wyatt considers to be the hull of the ship consists
of peridotite, a rock too brittle and heavy to have been
part of a ship. Finally, the boulders claimed to be the
"anchors stones" of Noah's Ark were examined and
found to be composed of a local volcanic rock,
"andesite", not found in Mespotamia (Collins and
Fasold 1996).
I think anybody looking for Noah's Ark should at least
take the time and trouble to take a undergraduate course
in physical geology.
The citation for this article is:
Collins, L. Gene, and David Franklin Fasold (1996) Bogus
"Noah's Ark" from Turkey Exposed as a Common
Geological Structure. Journal of Geological Education.
vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 439-444.
Cheers,
Keith Littlejohn
New Orleans, LA
littlejo@comm.net
"It is understandable why early investigators falsely
identified it. The unusual boat-shaped structure
would so catch their attention that an eagerness
to be persons who either discovered Noah's Ark or
confirmed its existence would tend to override
caution."
Collins and Fasold (1996), p. 443.
Subject: Re: puzzle of the negrito: isolated archaic populations
From: erg@panix.com (Edward Green)
Date: 5 Dec 1996 19:28:41 -0500
Gerold Firl wrote:
I find the idea of remnant populations fascinating for some reason --
thanks for posting the interesting article.
Haven't the British isles been colonized by four or five known waves,
fading off into prehistory, each subsequent wave driving the
predecessors north and east into the less hospitable, or at least
less centrally located parts if the islands? You suggest something
similar with the negrito populations, though perhaps on larger
geographic and temporal scales.
>Remnant populations of small, frizzy-haired, forest-dwelling peoples
>still exist (or did within the last century) in isolated pockets
>throughout asia, from the phillipines, malaysia, indonesia, the
>andaman islands, and possibly india as well. Average height for men
>ranged from around 4 1/2 feet to just under 5, leading to the name
>"negrito", and begging the question of relations to the african
>pygmies. How did the negritos come to be? The answer to this question
>could have important implications for the history of human evolution.
Except for height, the Australian aboriginies seem physically
similar? Just a thought.
>The african pygmies are the best example we have of human adaptation
>for a specialized environment. The equatorial african rainforest,
>existing throughout multiple cycles of glacial advance and retreat,
>presents special problems of survival and adaptation. All the
>rainforest species are smaller than their savanna ancestors; one
>antelope is the size of a rabbit. The human inhabitants of the forest
>have adapted in similar directions; pygmy scale is well suited to the
>heat, humidity, and dense growth.
>
>The origin of the pygmies seems fairly obvious: they have evolved to
>live in the forest, which has remained a stable environment
>throughout the climatic fluctuations of the last few million years. It
>isn't known how long the forest has been their home; the rainforest
>has not yielded any fossil clues as of yet, and conditions are not
>good for bone preservation. But what of the negritos? How did they
>settle their far-flung range?
>
>One possibility is that the negrito evolved, in-situ, just as did
>their african counterparts. If we knew how long it took for the
>african pygmy adaptation to evolve, that would provide a useful
>comparison for the candleabra hypothesis.
>
>Another possibility is that the negrito are the direct descendants of
>african pygmies.
Or just to be perfectly nit-picking, a common pygmie like ancestor.
>The out-of-africa scenario would seem to require a
>climatic epoch where tropical forests covered the intervening arid
>territory between equatorial africa and india; have such conditions
>ever existed?
Ok, here I may have something intelligent to say.
First, it seems to me another possibility is that the negrito like
people were previously endemic, without therefore being "out of
Africa". Well, accepting Africa as the cradle of humanity, their
ancestors were out of Africa at some point, but there may have been
an intervening epoch when large tracts of contiguous rain forest
communicating with the African rain forest supported a dispersed and
stable population negrito peoples, the shrinking and fragmenting of
the rain forest coming later, and with it the fragmenting of the
negrito population.
Further, I wonder if you have considered that while they may be
adapted to the rain forest, they may not be obligate dwellers in the
rain forest. That is, if conditions for migration were otherwise
favorable, I don't see why migrating bands may not have covered
relatively inhospitable intervening territory -- maybe even settled
there, but been driven out later by better adapted human variants.
>A number of factors lend support to the out-of-africa hypothesis, none
>of them conclusive; first of all, the negrito *look* african.
Hmm... this seems dangerous. Perhaps you mean some skelatal
characteritics evolve more slowly than skin pigmentation, and there
fore might show common ancestory longer -- like the dark skinned
people of southern India, who have European (if that is the right
word) facial structure? I guess the question is, do the "look"
African in ways that are not-adaptive, and therefore not likely to
indicate convergent evolution, but rather common ancestory.
>Their
>skin color is light by african standards (though pygmy skin color is
>also lighter than their bantu neighbors), but the rest of their
>physiology appears african. An interesting detail is the fact that the
>negrito *sit* like pygmies, with their legs stretched out straight in
>front of them; I know of no other people who sit that way. The socio-
>economic relationship between the negrito and their neighbors is
>strikingly analogous to that found in africa: the negrito trade meat,
>honey, and other forest products for agricultural and manufactured
>products from the villages. In common with the pygmies, the negrito do
>not build a fixed abode, and they also have largely abandoned their
>native language to adopt the speech of their neighbors.
>
>The relic populations of vedda peoples found in indonesia, sri lanka,
>and arabia felix provide another analogy; it seems unlikely that both
>races co-evolved in-situ. One, if not both, must have arrived as part
>of a great migration.
>
>Keep in mind that asia has been occupied by hominids for at least a
>million years, and throughout that time the 100,000 year glacial cycle
>has repeatedly exposed and inundated the continental shelves, shifting
>ecological zones southwards as the glaciers expanded, and then back
>north during the interglacials. If, during one of the interglacials,
>rainforest managed to extend around the horn of africa, up into
>arabia, and around the persian gulf through the indus valley, then the
>puzzle of the negrito may be solved.
I have heard that the great deserts in that part of the world are
products of human intervention in the environment. This may be
germane. Again, thank you for a fascinating post -- I could not
bring myself to cut the quotes.
Ed Green
Subject: Pointer: 2nd RFD: soc.history.african.misc
From: joe@sfbooks.com (Joe Bernstein)
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 21:54:16 -0600
I thought this would be of some interest to readers of sci.archaeology. I
am not associated with this proposal, and am not sure to what extent the
simultaneous RFD for soc.history.ancient, with which I am associated, is
affected by this proposal or vice versa. I may or may not vote for
soc.history.african.misc; I probably will not vote against it.
Discussion should take place in newsgroup news.groups.
Joe Bernstein
In article <849841117.409@uunet.uu.net>, amcmicha@osf1.gmu.edu (F Andrew
McMichael) wrote:
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group soc.history.african.misc
>
>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of a
>world-wide Usenet newsgroup soc.history.african.misc This
>is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
>Procedural details are below.
>
>Newsgroups line:
>soc.history.african.misc Continental African history.
>
>Changes from Previous RFD:
>
>I have more narrowly defined the scope of African history by setting
>the latest date for discussion to 1960. Additionally I have defined
>"Africa" as the main continent, as well as any offshore islands either
>owned or claimed by or as African nations during the period prior to
>1960.
>
>As far as moderation goes, I have left the group unmoderated. This I
>have done for two reasons. One is that nobody has volunteered to
>moderate, and I don't have the time for it. The second reason is that
>this is a *.misc group, and I believe that it should have a more open
>forum. In 99% of the cases, I believe that soc.history groups should
>be moderated, however given the general nature of the group, I will
>propose it as unmoderated.
>
>RATIONALE: soc.history.african.misc
>
>The history of Africa stretches back to the dawn of humankind. It
>is a rich history which affects the entire world. There is currently
>no specific newsgroup for the discussion of this history, however
>there are several very busy mailing lists. Creation of a
>soc.history.african.misc newsgroup would open up a new hierarchy
>for the discussion of African history, and presage the creation
>of subgroups within the african. hierarchy, such as the recently
>proposed Biafran newsgroup. This group would serve as the benchmark
>for future subgroups, helping to determine whether or not
>there is sufficient traffic.
>
>
>CHARTER: soc.history.african.misc
>
>Topics appropriate for discussion in this newsgroup include:
>
> * Any and all topics of historical interest as they relate to
> continental Africa from 'prehistory' until the recent
> past. This means that discussion of subjects which occured
> after 1960 is specifically prohibited. "Continental"
> refers to the generally accepted definitions of the
> continent of Africa, and including the islands, such as
> Madagascar, which immediately surround the area and
> are commonly referred to as part of "Africa." Offshore
> islands, in order to be fair game for discussion, must
> be considered as part of a continental African country
> *during the period under discussion*.
>
>The following posts are prohibited in this newsgroup:
>
> * Spams, make-money-fast, advertisements, Shergold-type
> requests, etc.
> * Posts with more than 50% quoted text
> * .sigs of more than 4 lines
> * Binaries
> * Articles relating to African 'history' after 1960
>
>Finally, it is specifically prohibited that anyone use e-mail addresses
>from articles posted to this group for the purpose of sending junk
>e-mail or for compiling a list so that others may do so.
>
>All prohibitions in this group must, of course, be enforced by the
>collective will of the group. The final prohibition can only be
>enforced 'post facto' by complaining to the offender's ISP. However,
>it is hoped that this clause in the charter will go a little further
>in getting complaints resolved.
>
>END CHARTER.
>
>PROCEDURE:
>
>This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase
>of the process, any potential problems with the proposed newsgroup
>should be raised and resolved. The discussion period will continue for a
>minimum of 21 days (starting from when the first RFD for this proposal
>is posted to news.announce.newgroups). All discussion should be posted to
>news.groups.
>
>The second stage is the Call for Votes (CFV) stage. The proposal must
>pass a Usenet-wide vote with a 2/3 supermajority -- and at least 100 more
>votes in favor than against -- to be created. Anyone with an e-mail
>address may cast a ballot. A neutral votetaker from the Usenet Volunteer
>Votetakers (UVV) conducts all CFV's.
>
>This RFD attempts to fully comply with Usenet newsgroup creation
>guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and
>"Writing an RFD". Please refer to these documents if you have
>questions about the process.
>
>DISTRIBUTION:
>
>This RFD is being posted to the following newsgroups:
> news.announce.newgroups
> news.groups
> soc.culture.african
> soc.history
> soc.history.moderated
>
>PROPONENT:
>
>Proponent: Andrew McMichael
