Subject: Re: Ramses III/Velikovsky
From: Alan Shaw
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 15:29:22 GMT
Saida wrote:
>
> 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.
> > >
> > > 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. >
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > Saida:
> > >
> > > I do not have Velikovsky's book here with me, although, at least for the > > moment, I wish I did. I'll have to assume that the persons
who
> examined > > these tiles knew Greek from Phoenician or Paleo-Hebrew,
> which early > > Greek resembles considerably.
> >
> > These are late classical Greek letters, no question of them being early.
>
> I have now obtained a copy of Velikovsky's "Peoples of the Sea" and have
> checked out the photos of the tiles, which are on two un-numbered pages
> following page 98. No wonder nobody but Velikovsky found them to be of
> any interest or significance!
Not true. They were recognised as a problem at the time they were found
and if there has been a satisfactory explanation since I have not heard
it.
>As far as I can tell, they are
> indicative of absolutely nothing out of the ordinary and certainly are
> quite useless as evidence regarding a theory that Ramesses III might be
> Nectanebo. Primarily, the tiles that I am looking at now do not refer
> to Ramesses III at all.
They came from the palace of Ramses III and his cartouche is found on one
of the tiles that is not in the photo.
>
> Velikovsky states that these tiles bear "Persian motifs". The designs I
> see are rosettes, a lotus bud and an open lotus flower. Lotuses are
> Egyptian, not Persian, and the rosette is an image used by several
> cultures. It is found in Egypt as far back as the Old Kingdom. You can
> see rosettes decorating the silver head-band of Nofret, the wife of
> Prince Rahotep, the famous couple from this period.
V. is quoting Naville quoting Lewis: "the peculiar decoration in cement"
found by Emil Brugsch similar to the "lily work as at Persepolis".
>
> Certainly, there is something incised on the backs of each of the tiles
> in question. Velikovsky quotes a couple of 19th Century experts who
> insist that the symbols are Greek, but, from what I see, their being
> Greek is far from a certainty at all! The first sign, supposedly an
> alpha, could just as easily be a North-Semitic "alef". When I wrote
> above that I assumed these "experts" knew Greek from Phoenician or
> Paleo-Hebrew, I assumed too much. The next symbol is far more likely to
> be a Semitic "t" than a Greek "chi" and the two "lambdas" could very
> easily be "lameds". What Velikovsky says "may be iota" could be a
> "gimel" or just a straight line! What has been viewed as being "clearly
> epsilon" looks like a "samekh". There is nothing here to get excited
> about at all. These tiles were probably made by Phoenician craftsman.
So you disagree with the experts. I have checked out what you say in
Pritchard, The Ancient Near East, an anthology of texts and pictures.
Picture 81 shows 18 different Phonician/Hebrew alphabets, from the Ahiram
inscription onwards. Not one of these alephs remotely resembles the alpha
on the tile. In all of them the transverse bar is either straight or
slightly curved, not V-shaped as on the tile. On the tile the bar does
not extend beyond the sides of the A. In every one of the Semitic
alphabets it extends well beyond, being the longest stroke in the letter.
The lameds are all hook-shaped, with one long shank, whereas the lamdas
on the tiles have strokes of equal length like a V. I think I will stick
with the opinion of the experts that these are Classical Greek letters.
> > >
> > > Alan, although you say you have no brief for Velikovsky, you are still> > giving us only quotes from his book and ignoring all other
> extant > > evidence that might exist contradicting him.
> >
> > 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.
>
> His evidence stands up like a drunk. I say dump him.
Not on the evidence you have come up with so far.
These tiles are
> useless. You say there are some that have the name of Ramesses III on
> them. Why aren't they in the book? However, as long as I have the book
> here, I might as well read it and you may have the doubtful pleasure of
> hearing from me again.
Enjoy the book. I look forward to your rebuttal.
--
Alan Shaw
email: ccaaacs@ucl.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Ramses III/Velikovsky
From: Alan Shaw
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 15:44:03 GMT
Saida wrote:
>
> 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).
This evidence shows that Siamun was later than Ramses III. Since V.
places Ramses III/Nectanebo I in the fourth century from the Tell
el-Yahudiya tiles and other evidence it follows that Siamun was fourth
century or later, not tenth century. In fact V. places Siamun in the
reign of Ptolemy I or "more probably under his successor Ptolemy II
Philadelphus (-285 to -246)".
>
> 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".
Well, if you could have produced the body of Nectanebo I that really
would have knocked V.'s theory on the head. Of course V. would say that
you already have Nectanebo in Ramses III's mummy and it is not surprising
you do not find two bodies for the same king. It is a bit fishy, don't
you think, that NO pharoah past the 21st dynasty has survived as a mummy?
Your point about the art of mummification having deteriorated seems
rather a lame excuse. After all, they knew how to mummify Alexander, did
they not?
--
Alan Shaw
email: ccaaacs@ucl.ac.uk
Subject: Re: White tribes of Olde America
From: dolmen1@ix.netcom.com(Leonard M. Keane)
Date: 6 Dec 1996 16:38:32 GMT
In <32b9d14d.126653104@news.demon.co.uk> dweller@ramtops.demon.co.uk
(Douglas Weller) writes:
>
>On 5 Dec 1996 16:31:19 GMT, dolmen1@ix.netcom.com(Leonard M. Keane)
wrote:
>
>>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. - L.K.
>Let's check to see if we are talking about the same thing-- does it
have a
>groove a few inches inside the edges running parallel to them?
Yes, The Mystery Hill table has a groove, such as you describe.
Distinguishing features of the Mystery Hill table are its rather large
size and its shape. I have seen a few smaller grooved tables, always
perched, and in remote or difficult to reach places. - L.K.
>>>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.
>Perhaps a different storage use?
Or no storage use!?? - L.K.
>>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.
>
>Well, a professional study did show no artefacs other than 18th/19th
century
>ones, and this included dismantling a wall.
The standing stones I have seen at Mystery Hill are clearly artifacts.
I personally located on the surface a stone, human-like figure, most
likely an artifact which I published on. It was dubbed "The Priest"
because of its similarity to a robed figure. - L.K.
There are other clear artifacts which I have seen at Mystery Hill and
in abundance throughout most of the U.S. They are carved stones
varying in size from a couple of inches to several feet which resemble
a canine head in profile; many appear to have been made from the same
"mold" (so to speak) and are perfectly congruous over large areas of
the country. Unless there is a "universal stone shape" that geologists
have not told us about, professional archeologists should be looking
into such things. They appear to represent a widespread, very busy,
ancient culture, with a lot of time on its hands to devote to carving
stone - for whatever putrpose, I don't know. - L.K.
American Indians deny, at least to me, any awareness of these stones.
Because of some associations with likely burial sites and for lack of a
better term, I have called them "spirit stones" to signify possible
religious significance comnnected witrh an afterlife or departure of
the spirit. But I don't know. Likewise, I am not attempting to
associate these specifically with the builders of Mystery Hill. In
fact I doubt any connection other than finding some there. - L.K.
>
>The point about associated artefacts is one that is sometimes ignored.
If you
>have, for instance, stone structures, you will almost always find
associated
>artefacts.
Agreed, but stone structures may have been used for centuries by many
different people. The odd stone walls at Mystery Hill have been shown
to have some astronomical features linked to the central complex and
the standing stones. These are all "artifacts". - 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.
>Ok, thank.s
Subject: Re: Ramses III/Velikovsky
From: Saida
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 1996 10:39:53 -0600
Alan Shaw wrote:
>
> 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.Saida wrote:
> > I have already given you evidence of equal if not superior weight. You,> > however, are not dealing with it. You are fixated on the tiles,
> > evidently.
>
> As I said, they are a crux.
They are meaningless, insofar as I can see.
> >
> > I said:
> > > I smell something fishy here. If these tiles are so meaningful, why > > did > > no one besides Velikovsky try to make something of them?
> > >
> > > I would like to know the answer to that too
> >
> > > >
> > > > > 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.
> >
> > You are inferring here that Diodorus thought Ramesses III was Nectanebo! I > > don't believe that is the case at all. And that is
what I meant by > > persons using this ancient "historian", twisting his
writings, to further > > their own agenda. But, even if Diodorus HAD
thought that Ramesses III and > > Nectanebo were one and the same--so
what?
>
> It is not claimed that Diodorus knew of another name, Ramses III, for
> Nectanebo I. The point of citing Diodorus here is that his writings offer > an opportunity of testing the hypothesis that NI and RIII were
the same > person under different names, one used by Greek historians
and the other > by Egyptian sources such as Medinet Habu and the Great
Harris papyrus. > Now do you want to take that opportunity or not?
Alan, the messages I found today from you in my mailbox are the last
ones I am replying to with regard to this whole business.
Velikovsky,evidently, chose to base his version of history upon the
spurious writings of the ancient historians and so-called experts of the
past century. I am of the view that there has been a "tad" more
scholarship going down since then, none of which has seen fit to deal
with the stuff you have been writing here day after day. I have been
telling you things that blatantly contradict Velikovsky's claims. Have
you taken the "opportunity" to look further at them? No. You disregard
and/or dismiss everything I say on this topic.
>
> >Since when are we expected to
> > take Manetho, Herodotus, Diodorus, etc., for gospel? Imagine if we built > > our history of the ancient world primarily on what they wrote!
> > Ridiculous.
>
> What would you know about Nectanebo I without the ancient historians?
That is precisely my point here. I have already told you that we would
know of him by the evidence from Nectanebo's reign! Again, you have
paid no attention. Sir, either you are a troll or as thick as a plank.
> >
> > Oncertain > nscriptions Ramses III used the name Nekht-a-neb as one of > > his > royal, > so-called Horus names.&(Peoples of the Sea,
p. 38 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.
Saida:
Troy Sagrillo is not able to bother with all this right now, himself,
but this is what he told me when I asked about this "Horus name":
von B = von Beckerath, Jurgen. 1984. Handbuch der agyptischen
Konigsnamen. Munchner Agyptologische Studien 20. Munchen: Deutscher
Kunstverlag GmbH.
[modified Man. de Codage format for transliteration:
http://131.211.68.206/names/rules.html]
Ramesses III (Horus name #H2 from von B, p. 93, 244):
k3-nxt m3i-pHty nxt-` nb-xpS H3q-sTtyw
"Mighty Bull; Lion of strength (or, "power"); Strong of arm;
Lord of the sword; Ruler of the Asiatics"
Nektanebo I (nomen #E1 from von B, p. 116, 282):
nxt-nb=f
"Mighty is his Lord"
Nektanebo II (nomen #E4 with epithets from von B, p. 116, 283):
nxt-Hr-(n)-Hbyt [mry-inHr s3 Ht-Hr]
"Mighty is Horus of the Festival Hall*;
[Beloved of Onoris; son of Hathor]"
*could also be read "Mighty is Horus of the Festival Offerings"; given
the city determinative in the writing of , I favour "Festival
Hall", but the entire "Horus of the Festival Hall/Offerings" may be a
name for a specific place (thus the determinative) -- I don't have
Gauthier's Dictionnaire de noms geographiques here to check on this.
Needless to say, Ramesses III's "nekht-`e" (Strong of Arm),
isn't a very good fit for "Nektanebo", but is a very good
one, and as well (esp. when the actual pronunciation
of the time is considered (prb. something like /nekt ar n eba/). Greek &
Roman historians very rarely were aware of any part of the Egyptian
titulary beyond that of the praenomen and nomen, and to take just one
part of the Horus name of Ramesses III as "Nektanebo" is just asking a
bit too much imho (not to mention the overwhelmingly huge mass of other
data that makes such an identification **extremely** unlikely).
Hope this helps, Troy
(a snip of "Sea People" stuff)
Saida:
> > As I said in another post on this thread, I have trouble with Persians > > being referred to as "Peoples of the Sea".
>
> I said "combined force of Persians and Peoples of the Sea". They are
> different nations. The Persians in their brush or feather helmets are
> employing various "Peoples of the Sea" as mercenaries, including
> Iphicrates the Athenian, probably the "Danu" or "Denyen" referred to by > RIII.
Since when, BTW, are Persians depicted as beardless to a man? Funny, it
seems to me.
Alan:
>I want to know the evidence V. failed to examine.
He may have examined it all with a fine-tooth comb, for all I know. The
problem lies in the things he chose to emphasize, like those tiles, and
the things he chose to minimize--like most everything else.
Saida:
> > I > > would say that the issue of the tiles is most unclear. They seem to > > > > have been examined a long time ago but, if they were
indicative of > > > > > anything important, why has nobody dealt with
them lately besides > > > > Velikovsky? Why not some other revisionist
like Rohl, for example?
> Saida:
> > > > As > > for Nectanebo I, I have already given you an example of his > > > > "commemorating" his own existence. Why have you chosen to
ignore > > that? > > Is it because the source I gave you is a reputable
> >
> > Alan, I have already told you twice about the photo of Nectanebo I
> > (cartouches at his head) in the entrance of his temple of Isis on the > > Island of Philae. And that is not the only thing he left
behind. There > > is a slab at Alexandria, some ushabtis, the broken
remains of his > > sarcophagus and quite a few sculptures.
>
> And I have told you twice your photo etc. is not Nectanebo I. Somehow I > do not think I am getting through. You are still talking about "the
photo > of Nectanebo I" instead of "the photo of Nekht-neb-ef", which is
really > all you have got.
This is getting too ridiculous for comment!
> > >
> > > In fact the conjecture is based on flimsy evidence. You speak of
> > > Nekht-neb-ef (it begs the question to say Nectanebo I) commemorating his > > > own existence. What has NNE got to boast about?
Some good works, no > > > doubt, but what has he got to say about
victory over the Persians? You > > cannot tell me Nectanebo I would pass
up such a chance of > > > self-glorification. So it is actually unlikely
that NNE was NI.
> >
> > You are premature in your supposition that Nectanebo I did not commemorate > > his victory. I do not know that he didn't and neither
do you.
>
> Nectanebo I did boast of his victory. It is on the walls of Medinet Habu > under the name Ramses III. Nekht-neb-ef did not claim victory in
the > inscriptions he has left.
Rubbish! No further comment.
>
> However,
> > IF he did not, it was perhaps because HE did not want such boasting to be > > premature, as he probably felt the Persians would not
relinquish their old > > province so easily. In fact, as it turns out,
his son felt it necessary > > to wage an offensive against them. As for
Nectanebo II and building > > projects, I quote Dodson "The king
continued Nectanebo I's constructional > > programme with monuments
throughout Egypt". Probably, there was some > > commemorating going on
there.
> > >
> > > So where does Nectanebo I commemorate his great achievements? Just look > > > at Medinet Habu and see if it does not match what we know of
Nectanebo > > > from Diodorus.
> >
> > Diodorus, as I said, is not the last word in Egyptology.
>
> He is the source for the history of Nectanebo.
> > > > 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...?
> > > >
> > > > Here we go! Why do you not once mention the Great Harris Papyrus? It > > > > is a very important element in all of this! It not
only gives the > > length of the reign of Ramesses III (31 years and 41
days) it summarizes > > > > the events of his rule. The vignettes
(which are in the spirit of the > > > > art of the day, as are the
paintings in the tomb of the pharaoh) give us > > > > a relatively good
idea of how the king appeared. But most important > > to > > our
discussion is a section, a prayer, in which Ramesses III asks > > that >
> as his reward for all he had done for Egypt, blessings may be > > bestowed > > upon his beloved son, RAMESSES IV! Now, lest you begin to
> > tell us that > > Ramesses IV is the same as Nectanebo II--be careful. The > > reign of > > Ramesses IV is not unattested. His
throne name is > > "Heqamaatre". The > > name of his mother and that of
his wife is known. > > He has a tomb in the > > Valley. Look him up in
Clayton's "Chronicle of > > the Pharaohs".
> >
> > You see, Alan, you completely ignored what I said about the papyrus! That > > indicates to me that you are not interested in anything but
being an > > apologist for your hero, Velikovsky.
>
> I was asking for evidence that NNE was NI, which you insist on taking for > granted. Harris does not help on this issue. What I would be
interested > in is comparing the papyrus' testimony about RIII with the
known history > of NI.
That's nice--amuse yourself in any way you please. You will receive no
help from me.
Subject: Re:Haggis crossed the Bering Strait?
From: bogart@uwlax.edu (Lloyd Bogart)
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 1996 10:45:19 -0600
In article <582pjg$qiu@ash.ridgecrest.ca.us>, Bob Keeter
wrote:
[snip]
> If you want something REALLY tasty sounding, check out the fine old
> Scottish recipe for "haggis"! Now THAT will leave your lunch on your
> keyboard! 8-)))
>
>
> Regards
> bk
Ach, Robbie, the Archaeology of the Haggis being in the sad state that it is,
I hesitate to post this to the Sci.Arch newsgroup -- probably it belongs in
talk.coalseams.endless or alt.yak but here goes anyhow... Certainly, as
you suggest, many Haggis remains from the present era *will* be found just
above a stratum of greyish plastic keyboard remains. However, if you'd care
to peruse a modern recipe that results in something quite tasty, take a peek
at:
http://www.bcit.bc.ca/~mevans/haggis.html
Try some Haggis -- there's nothing in *this* recipe that you can't find in
any well-stocked grocery store.
Agreed, the *traditional* recipe doesn't sound so good, but then, I don't
usually eat things because they *sound* good :-) Do you?
Haggis in one form or another dates back at least to Roman times. It has
much in common with hash, (I'm told the French word for 'hash' is "hackis").
It's also related to certain forms of sausage, and even the "stuffing"
of the Great Thanksgiving Turkey. (WHAT?! You say you cooked that IN THE BODY
CAVITY OF A DEAD TURKEY? OH YUK!)
Haggis -- It ain't the Wurst.
Lloyd Bogart
We now return you to your *usual* selection of peculiar postings :-)
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
"An opinion can be argued with: a conviction is best shot."
T. E. Lawrence
Subject: Re: "Out of India"
From: piotrm@umich.edu (Piotr Michalowski)
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 14:40:14
In article <587867$ala@fridge-nf0.shore.net> whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) writes:
>>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.
This just came up on our net, so pardon the duplication. I still do not
understand what the significance, other than its existence, is, to you, of the
distribution of "chlorite" vessels. I am also somewhat confused by your map.
Anshan is located and it is not where you have it, and I do not understand the
relationship between Tepe Yahya and Hormuz. Since there is a large literature
on the "chlorite" vessels and their significance, I wonder where you stand, as
at first you had them as evicence of Kassites, having ignored the time
difference, and now they are somehow markers of trade. They may very well be
that, but you have to get the facts right before you imply anything. So--I
ask once again-what is your analysis of the sources and distribution of these
artifacts and what, if anything, has this to do with languages or ethnicity.
Please let us keep in mind that you brought up this subject twice in two
different contexts, in each case implying different "peoples" or language
groups. Please clarify.
Subject: Re: Science can try for 420y life, but God never did it
From: Shez
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 17:04:25 +0000
In article <32A5520F.4721@wi.net>, Elijah writes
>Frank Joseph Yurco wrote:
>My post proved that there exists real scientists who see the body
>capable of living 420 years. True, they think that if and when it does
>live 420 years, it will be to their own glory, or that God will have brought
>a lifespan NEVER BEFORE enjoyed. This is a lie. Rather we have a
>longevity problem to correct; and the sooner it is realized, the sooner
>God's promise wil restore what we once had. From 3096 BC to the
>Flood of 2370 BC, society mourned the fact that 930 was the limit of life,
>************
>http://www.execpc.com/~elijah/Ezra1991CE.gif
Are you frightend of dying Elijah, it douse begin to seem so.
Why this desire to live beyond the normal span we have been alloted,
For me death is a new adventure. I do not rush towards it, but when it
comes I will welcome it .
I would have thought that a Committed Christian, such as yourself, would
feel much the same, way, You would presumably be going to meet your god,
or are you a little nerviouse about that.
--
Shez shez@oldcity.demon.co.uk
The 'Old Craft' lady http://www.oldcity.demon.co.uk/
------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: puzzle of the negrito: isolated archaic populations
From: pdeitik@bcm.tmc.edu (Philip Deitiker)
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 1996 19:55:48 GMT
geroldf@sdd.hp.com (Gerold Firl) wrote:
>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?
Gerald, wake up! This one has actually been addressed. The population
found in the Solomon islands and adjacent areas turn out to be about
45,000 year old isolates of the first groups to enter asia. There is a
synapsis on this in Science, about a year ago. The gene studies
haven't been done for all, but I beleive three of the populations have
been identified. Ironically, I think the data shows that these peoples
are the most diverged from from current african populations, basically
showing that when it comes to genetic makeup, inheritiance can be
deceiving.
Philip
Subject: Re: Ramses III/Velikovsky
From: Saida
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 1996 13:03:24 -0600
Alan Shaw wrote:
>
> Saida wrote:
> >
> > 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.
No, you're not. You're only interested in refuting all the refutations.
> > > > 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. >
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > Saida:
> > > >
> > > > I do not have Velikovsky's book here with me, although, at least for the > > moment, I wish I did. I'll have to assume that the persons
> who > > examined > > these tiles knew Greek from Phoenician or Paleo-Hebrew, > > which early > > Greek resembles considerably.
> > >
> > > These are late classical Greek letters, no question of them being early. > >
Saida:
> > I have now obtained a copy of Velikovsky's "Peoples of the Sea" and have > > checked out the photos of the tiles, which are on two
un-numbered pages > > following page 98. No wonder nobody but
Velikovsky found them to be of > > any interest or significance!
>
> Not true. They were recognised as a problem at the time they were found > and if there has been a satisfactory explanation since I have
not heard > it.
You would not recognize a satisfactory explanation if it bit you on the
nose.
Saida:
> >As far as I can tell, they are > > indicative of absolutely nothing out of the ordinary and certainly are > > quite useless as evidence
regarding a theory that Ramesses III might be > > Nectanebo. Primarily,
the tiles that I am looking at now do not refer > > to Ramesses III at
all.
> They came from the palace of Ramses III and his cartouche is found on one > of the tiles that is not in the photo.
WHYEVER NOT??? Doesn't it make sense to you that the only tile that
would have needed to be reproduced to give credibility to Velikovsky is
the one with Ramesses III's cartouche on it? Yet all we get is six
other tiles--no cartouche on any of them. My guess is the tile or tiles
with Ramesses III on them just happen to be the ones with NOTHING on the
reverse. As to these tiles being found at Tell el Yehudiyah in a palace
of that pharaoh (we have only Velikovsky's word here that the structure
was, in fact, a palace of the king)--that hardly needs to signify that
these tiles were the original ones put in when the "palace" was built.
Unless the building collapsed right after the demise of Ramesses III,
one might be allowed to conjecture that it lasted a good long time and
could have been inhabited and refurbished by various persons in various
periods.
> >
> > Velikovsky states that these tiles bear "Persian motifs". The designs I > > see are rosettes, a lotus bud and an open lotus flower.
Lotuses are > > Egyptian, not Persian, and the rosette is an image used
by several > > cultures. It is found in Egypt as far back as the Old
Kingdom. You can > > see rosettes decorating the silver head-band of
Nofret, the wife of > > Prince Rahotep, the famous couple from this
period.
Alan:
>
> V. is quoting Naville quoting Lewis: "the peculiar decoration in cement" > found by Emil Brugsch similar to the "lily work as at
Persepolis".
I see lotuses and rosettes. Where are the lilies?
> > Certainly, there is something incised on the backs of each of the tiles > > in question. Velikovsky quotes a couple of 19th Century
experts who > > insist that the symbols are Greek, but, from what I see,
their being > > Greek is far from a certainty at all! The first sign,
supposedly an > > alpha, could just as easily be a North-Semitic "alef".
When I wrote > > above that I assumed these "experts" knew Greek from
Phoenician or > > Paleo-Hebrew, I assumed too much. The next symbol is
far more likely to > > be a Semitic "t" than a Greek "chi" and the two
"lambdas" could very > > easily be "lameds". What Velikovsky says "may
be iota" could be a > > "gimel" or just a straight line! What has been
viewed as being "clearly > > epsilon" looks like a "samekh". There is
nothing here to get excited > > about at all. These tiles were probably
made by Phoenician craftsman.
Alan:
>
> So you disagree with the experts. I have checked out what you say in
> Pritchard, The Ancient Near East, an anthology of texts and pictures.
> Picture 81 shows 18 different Phonician/Hebrew alphabets, from the Ahiram > inscription onwards. Not one of these alephs remotely resembles
the alpha > on the tile. In all of them the transverse bar is either
straight or > slightly curved, not V-shaped as on the tile. On the tile
the bar does > not extend beyond the sides of the A. In every one of the
Semitic > alphabets it extends well beyond, being the longest stroke in
the letter.
Saida:
I have access here to as many North-Semitic letters throughout various
times as you do and I don't see what you see at all. To begin with,
whatever is incised in the back of the first tile is by no means an
"alpha" or even an "aleph". You are probably going by Velikovsky's own
reconstructions of the signs, which he draws in his book. Looking at
the sign through a magnifying glass, I see, depending upon how I view
it, either an "alpha" with a "v" across the middle instead of the
typical straight line, which is not an "alpha" represented in any of my
illustrations of the progress of the Greek alphabet. Seen from a
different angle, the same sign looks for all the world like a Semitic
"bet" with a short little mark beside it that is quite detached from the
"bet". The best thing, would be to look at the object in person.
> The lameds are all hook-shaped, with one long shank, whereas the lamdas > on the tiles have strokes of equal length like a V.
Their strokes are not of equal length, really, and many ancient "gimels"
are written just like that. Or perhaps they are actually "v's" for
"Velikovsky"
>I think I will stick > with the opinion of the experts that these are Classical Greek letters.
All you have are their guesses, because there is no real way to
ascertain exactly what these signs are! Alan, these are marks scratched
into the back of a wet clay tile. They are not part of a carefully
written text where one may determine a questionable letter by the one
coming before or the one following it. I have before me a whole list of
examples of ancient writings taken from different sources in different
times and there is a lot of variation in the same letters, if due to
nothing else besides that is the way certain individuals wrote them.
Nevertheless, I repeat, even if the signs are Greek, whether early or
Classical, they don't mean anything unless on the front of the tiles is
the name of Ramesses III. By now you should have understood that!
> > > Alan, although you say you have no brief for Velikovsky, you are still> > giving us only quotes from his book and ignoring all other
> > extant > > evidence that might exist contradicting him.
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > His evidence stands up like a drunk. I say dump him.
>
> Not on the evidence you have come up with so far.
>
> However, as long as I have the book
> > here, I might as well read it and you may have the doubtful pleasure of > > hearing from me again.
>
> Enjoy the book. I look forward to your rebuttal.
Here it is: Velikovsky's "Peoples of the Sea" is an eccentric
hodgepodge of "possibles" "maybes" and "what ifs", with a great deal of
BS thrown in. Written by a man, who apparently didn't even realize that
the name "Ramesses" is written, not with an "r" but with the sign
denoting the disc "Ra."
Subject: Re: Shang script among Olmecs
From: yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky)
Date: 6 Dec 1996 18:26:34 GMT
Benjamin H. Diebold (bdiebold@pantheon.yale.edu) wrote:
: Yuri Kuchinsky (yuku@io.org) wrote:
: : 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.
Ben,
Thank you for this info, but I thought I heard it somewhere before...
: 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?!
No, I'm not. You said that there were no alphabets in Asia in 500 bce, and
I said that this is incorrect.
: : 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.
Well, you made a doubtful claim, and now you have no interest in this...
: I entered this thread as a result of
: a specific claim by Needham as reported by you that there were Babylonian
: seals in Mesoamerica.
Ben, you obviously misunderstood. Neither I nor Needham claimed this. What
Needham said was that both cultures used cylinder seals, and that some
similarities have been noted. He's never seen this as a major piece of
evidence for diffusion. I'm sorry for any misunderstanding, but I don't
see how I am to be blamed for it.
...
: Fell figures prominently in your intellectual phylogeny. You quote
: Needham. Needham quotes Carter. Carter is based on Fell.
I doubt that Carter is based on Fell in any substantial way.
: 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;
I doubt that Carter did no independent Mesoamerican research.
Yours,
Yuri.
--
#% 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
