Subject: Re: chicken in America: prehispanic arrival from Asia?
From: pmv100@psu.edu (Peter van Rossum)
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 13:26:02 GMT
In article <58pmi4$bnj@news1.io.org> yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
>
>********
>I've been reading a very interesting article by George Carter in MAN
>ACROSS THE SEA about the domestication of chickens world-wide. The
>big debate at that time, in the 60s, was whether or not the chickens
>existed in prehispanic America. Carter marshals VERY IMPRESSIVE
>EVIDENCE that the chicken was indeed known and WIDELY SPREAD
>pre-Columbus. IF this is true -- THIS WILL BE THE BIGGEST SMOKING
>GUN EVER!
Giving up on the other "smoking guns" already, or just resorting to
the old bait and switch????
IF the remains of chickens are found in unequivocal Pre-columbian
context, then this will be a definite candidate for a smoking gun.
To date, however, I am not aware of any such finding, therefore,
based on current research - THE CHICKEN IS NOT A SMOKING GUN.
>They even found some chicken bones in pre-Columbian
>context (p. 180).
This is incorrect. In his footnote for this find Carter reports that
the remains are definitely pre-18th century A.D. (he gives a date
but I don't have the book handy), but that no firm date for the
chicken bones are reported. This means that the remains may be
Precolumbian or they may date to up to 150-200 years after contact.
>I would really like to know if carbon tests were
>done on these finds, or if other evidence about pre-Columbus
>chickens was found since.
It doesn't look like C-14 dates have been run on the bones, at least
they haven't been reported. Maybe you should contact the original
researchers and offer up the necessary cash (assuming of course that
the bones are still available for study). Neither I, no Paul P., nor
Heiser, have ever heard of any other evidence of Precolumbian
chicken remains - it looks like none have been found.
>There's A VERY GOOD CHANCE that if this
>hypothesis is true it will be confirmed unequivocally by
>archaeological and DNA evidence in the future, if it hasn't been
>confirmed already.
>
>So where is the research to prove or to disprove this EASILY
>FALSIFIABLE hypothesis? I don't know where it is, if it exists.
>********
This is at least the third time I've tried to explain the basic
scientific process of hypothesis testing. Here we go again:
SCIENCE CAN NEVER PROVE THAT SOMETHING DID NOT HAPPEN, IT CAN
ONLY PROVE THAT SOMETHING DID HAPPEN.
^^^
THEREFORE, THE PRE-COLUMBIAN CHICKEN HYPOTHESIS IS AN EASILY
VERIFIABLE HYPOTHESIS BY FINDING PRE-COLUMBIAN CHICKEN REMAINS.
___
IT IS NOT, HOWEVER, AN EASILY FALSIFIABLE HYPOTHESIS. JUST
^^^
BECAUSE NO PRE-COLUMBIAN CHICKEN REMAINS HAVE YET BEEN FOUND
DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THEY WEREN'T HERE. IT JUST MEANS
WE HAVEN'T FOUND ANY YET.
Each time I explained this in the past you claimed you
completely understood it. Yet here you are again repeating this
misrepresentation.
>Why _should_ they be informed?
Just so you know, I for one was well aware of the arguments for
the chicken long ago, I'm sure many New World archaeologists are
aware of this idea, the fact is that the claim is presently
without archaeological support.
>Well, this is potentially a MAJOR
>"smoking gun" for the diffusion from Asia. Carter obviously believes
>that the chickens were in America well before Columbus. Not only
>that, they were in fact ALL OVER the Americas before Columbus,
>according to him. If this is indeed so, definitive archaeological
>evidence in support of his hypothesis should be _rather easy_ to
>find (if someone was looking for it -- but is anyone at all looking
>for it?).
I agree with you here that IF Carter was correct then archaeological
support should be easy to find. Most excavations which recover
animal remains go through the process of identifying the species
recovered. Given that animal remains are regularly recovered and
identified, yet no one has yet been able to verify a Precolumbian
Chicken bone leads me to conclude that the Carter's theory is on
very shakey ground. It hasn't been disproved (see above that it can
never be disproved) but this is as close to a disproof that we will
find.
>Perhaps at this point it is appropriate to quote here from a
>well-respected recent source, SEED TO CIVILIZATION, Charles B. Heiser,
>Jr., Harvard UP, 1990.
>
> After 2000 bc, chickens reached Iran, Egypt, and China; they
> became known in Europe more than a thousand years later. The
> chicken has generally been considered a post-Columbian
> introduction to the Americas, but the geographer George F.
> Carter maintains, on the basis of early literature and
> linguistic evidence, that it was fairly widespread there when
> the Spanish arrived; he has concluded that it reached the
> Americas from across the Pacific. Archaeological evidence
> confirming the early presence of chickens in the Americas
> has yet to be found, however. (p. 57)
Thank you for including this point. This is what weakens Carter's case.
>This seems to indicate that scholarship apparently stood still on this
>important matter all these years. Also, as will become apparent later in
>this essay, Carter did not reach his conclusion _only_ on the basis of
>linguistic and literary evidence. He gives plenty of zoological evidence,
>for example. And now, on to Carter's study.
This depends on what you mean by scholarship has stood still. People
are out there excavating Precolumbian sites every day and identifying
the animal remains they recover. No one designs a project to just go
out and find chicken bones (that would be stupid) but when such
remains are found they are reported. Unfortunately for Carter's
hypothesis it appears that the only New World chicken remains found
date to the post-contact period.
>It is interesting how careful Carter is in his article about claims.
>He makes no claims at all, according to him.
>
> ... no claim is made other than that it [this study] advances
> the evidence a step or two. (p. 180)
>
>I think Carter is really bending over backwards and understating his
>case. He is being super careful. I, for one, am totally convinced by
>the case he makes. It is totally inconceivable to me, after I read
>his article, that chickens were brought to America by the Spanish as
>those historians of agriculture who are aware of this problem (not
>many) seem to believe.
>
>Yuri.
Isn't that great that even though Carter admits his evidence does not
prove his claim, you are totally convinced. I guess you understand
Carter's evidence better than he does. To me this merely shows
your bias that you don't require strong evidence of contact, for you
even the hint of contact is conclusive proof.
Peter van Rossum
PMV100@PSU.EDU
Subject: Re: "Out of India"
From: mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal)
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 11:37:16 GMT
[article hasn't shown up on my main news server yet]
Vidhyanath K. Rao wrote:
>
> In article <588gah$7or@halley.pi.net>,
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:
> >whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
> >>are most helpful. Brahui, far from being geographically
> >>intermediate, is confined to the east of the Dravidian languages.
> >
> >Brahui isn't *on* the CIA map. Brahui is indeed to the east of
> >Dravidian. And to the *west* of Elamite! I think the word
> >"geographically intermediate" accurately summarizes those two facts.
>
> I am really confused. I thought that peninsular India was to the east
> of Iran (and I don't think that India curves the US does, making
> Cuba west of NY etc).
I was the one mightily confused here. Steve's "Brahui is to the
east of Dravidian" remark wrong-footed me completely (I can only
distinguish between left and right -- or east and west -- if I keep
concentrating very hard).
> >Brahui itself is the proof (or "circumstantial evidence", rather).
>
> But that begs the question of when Brahui got there. Many of the
> Dravidian languages in NE India present a tradition of having
> migrated there from more southerly areas.
As to the "when", I suggest 6,000 BC (Mehrgarh), 4,000 BC (Indus
Valley). What is the answer if Brahui came from the south? Unless one
rejects McAlpin's (and Diakonov's) Dravidian-Brahui-Elamite connection,
the terminus ante quem must be the presence of Elamites in Elam, roughly
3,000 BC [Susa C proto-Elamite writing], if not 5,000 BC [Susiana a].
Apart from the fact that such an early migration from Southern India
makes no sense archaeologically, it makes no difference at all to the
linguistic status of the Indus Valley Civilization. So, whichever way
one looks at it, the practically unavoidable conclusion from McAlpin's
Elamo-Dravidian is that the IVC was proto-Dravidian speaking. And
conversely, in order to prove that the IVC was not Proto-Dravidian, one
has to disprove the Elamo-Dravidian hypothesis. With linguistic
arguments, please.
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal ~ ~
Amsterdam _____________ ~ ~
mcv@pi.net |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig
Subject: Re: "Out of India"
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 13 Dec 1996 14:26:20 GMT
In article <58rf9o$hcf@halley.pi.net>, mcv@pi.netÁ says...
>
>[article hasn't shown up on my main news server yet]
>
>Vidhyanath K. Rao wrote:
>>
>> In article <588gah$7or@halley.pi.net>,
>> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:
>> >whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>> >>are most helpful. Brahui, far from being geographically
>> >>intermediate, is confined to the east of the Dravidian languages.
>> >
>> >Brahui isn't *on* the CIA map. Brahui is indeed to the east of
>> >Dravidian. And to the *west* of Elamite! I think the word
>> >"geographically intermediate" accurately summarizes those two facts.
>>
>> I am really confused. I thought that peninsular India was to the east
>> of Iran (and I don't think that India curves the US does, making
>> Cuba west of NY etc).
>
>I was the one mightily confused here. Steve's "Brahui is to the
>east of Dravidian" remark wrong-footed me completely (I can only
>distinguish between left and right -- or east and west -- if I keep
>concentrating very hard).
>
>> >Brahui itself is the proof (or "circumstantial evidence", rather).
It's a relatively modern language, what's the connection you see,
circumstantial or otherwise to anything going on c 6,000 or even
c 4,000 BC?
Lets keep both time and place in mind. c 4,000 BC there could be
some proto Dravidian people in Baluchestan to the west of Pakistan,
but there are no people in the Dekkan, the south and east of India
don't even have the few hundred pastoral nomads you cited as
arriving c 2,500 BC.
Baluchestan (10,000 speakers), Afghanistan (200,000 speakers) and
Pakistan (1,500,000 speakers) are the areas where people speak
Brahui. Thery generally speak it bilingually with Baluch.
>>
>> But that begs the question of when Brahui got there. Many of the
>> Dravidian languages in NE India present a tradition of having
>> migrated there from more southerly areas.
I would tend to the position that it emerged as a local dialect
of the Indus Valley speech. There is no migration from the
uninhabited south.
>
>As to the "when", I suggest 6,000 BC (Mehrgarh), 4,000 BC (Indus
>Valley).
I would suggest the 3rd millenium BC or later. The reason is that
it covers a geographic area which became relatively homogeneous
in that period.
When you look at the region in the period c 6,000 or even c 4,000 BC,
the Indus Valley civilization has not yet begun to emerge. Here is
a quick snapshot of what you have to work with. Small clusters of
extended families in the range of from 10 to 100 persons are
experimenting with neolithic farming throughout the Near East
and in the Indus valley but generally not in the deserts of
Arabia and Iran.
They live relatively isolated lives. The regions are too small
and isolated to join together in a single homogeneous region.
A wave of advance model would see a small wave radiating outward
from each little cluster individually rather a single big wave
radiating from all the clusters working as a united front.
By c 3000 BC the little waves do begin to overlap and join together
Then you can describe all their small individual actions as occuring
within a region and as that region grows you can describe its edges
as a wave of advance if you like.
With a population of 100 people living within a fifty mile radius
of each other on one river and another population of 100 people
living within a fifty mile radius of eachother on another river
several thousand miles away, it makes no sense to shade in the
area between the two rivers and call it a region.
>What is the answer if Brahui came from the south? Unless one
>rejects McAlpin's (and Diakonov's) Dravidian-Brahui-Elamite connection,
>the terminus ante quem must be the presence of Elamites in Elam, roughly
>3,000 BC [Susa C proto-Elamite writing], if not 5,000 BC [Susiana a].
The term "south" needs a referent point. South of what? If we say
south of the mouth of the Indus this might include people who have
come by water down the Persian Gulf. If we say south of Zahedan, the
point on the borders of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Baluchistan, Iran,
where Brahui speakers are most concentrated, then we might just mean
Mohenjo-Daro when we say south.
When you put the date in the 3rd millenium BC, all the necessary
ingrediants are sitting in the bowl ready to be stirred up.
>Apart from the fact that such an early migration from Southern India
>makes no sense archaeologically, it makes no difference at all to the
>linguistic status of the Indus Valley Civilization.
A third millenium BC migration from the Indus valley Civilizaation
north up the Persian Gulf along the coasts of Baluchestan and Oman
to connect with Makkan and Dilmun who are themselves connected with
Tepe Yahya, Mesopotamia and Susa works very nicely. It has the very
important additional advantage of conforming to both the necessary
linguistic and archaeological constraints.
>So, whichever way
>one looks at it, the practically unavoidable conclusion from McAlpin's
>Elamo-Dravidian is that the IVC was proto-Dravidian speaking.
Yes. The Indus valley civilization, with if you like, a wave of advance
to the nothwest in the 3rd millenium BC meets a Chlorite Culture as
defined by Intercultural Style Pottery in the middle Gulf with its
own waves of advance,northwest, south east and possibly north east
towards Zahedan.
To the northwest of the Ickthiophagian speaking Chlorite Culture is
southern Mesopotamias Euphtrates culture with its own wave going
northwest up the Euphrates through Mari to Anatiolia, Syria and
the Black Sea.
Northern Mesopotamias Tigris wave advances north following the
Zagros into the Pontic Caspian of Lake Urmia and Lake Van and to
its east runs into the proto Elamites.
Susa or Suisana is a religious center like Mekka or Jerusalem
or Rome. Any wave of advance out of Susa would have more to do
with religion than farming.
This conglomeration of separate influences and adjacencies meets
in the Persian Gulf in the 3rd Millenium BC with a major increase
in trade and thus in connections and opportunities for interaction.
>And conversely, in order to prove that the IVC was not
>Proto-Dravidian, one has to disprove the Elamo-Dravidian
>hypothesis. With linguistic arguments, please.
We don't necessarily need to prove or disprove anything to work
on the skematic diagram.
There probably was a Dravidian influence on southern Mesopotamia
by the mid third millenium BC. It was not a direct influence because
there was little or no direct contact.
I would say that each intermediate culture acts as a filter.
What effect would a filter on the respective linguistic influences of
adjacent or near adjacent languages have?
Filters tend to get filled up with bits and pieces
of the things which wash through them.
A thread here, a few words there, eventually this would build up
into a language composed of materials which came from the neighbors.
>
>
>==
>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
steve
Subject: Re: Yumpin' Yiminy! Conrad and Holden are taking over!
From: edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad)
Date: 13 Dec 1996 14:07:31 GMT
>Ben Waggoner (bmw@click2.berkely.edu)
>Department of Evil, Devilish Scientists
>Attempting To Wipe Out
>Ed's Radical Paleontology (EDSATWERP)
>University of California
>Berkeley, CA 94720 USA
>wrote:
>:> Ed Conrad wrote:
>: > You've seen a photo of this great scientist holding one of my key
>: > specimens. He had examined it very patiently and very carefully, then
>: > admitted -- in astonishment -- that it is a human calvarium (a cranium
>: > with the eye sockets broken off).
>: Can you be positive he wasn't trying to play a joke on you? I know some
>: scientists that politely brush off ridiculous finds by saying kind words
>: to the owner and also telling him to get further opinions. It's partly
>: out of the sadistic side of some scientists that they send these people
>: to others, sort of a share the joke scenario.
>Several months ago, the University of California Museum of Paleontology
>started receiving many phone calls and visits from someone who claimed to
>have found a fossilized bird egg which, when he washed it, hatched into a
>snake with a big puff of smoke. This, he said, disproved evolution
>entirely, and proved that life on Earth was under the direction of alien
>intelligence, which was speaking through him. . . and he kept saying
>things on the phone like "I don't want to get angry or hurt anyone, but
>this extraterrestrial intelligence may force me to do things. . . "
>He brought the fossil in to be examined, and it was obvious to all that
>this wasn't an egg, or any kind of fossil at all. But under the
>circumstances, the persons who had to deal with this guy were not about to
>tell him "You don't have a fossil, go home and take your thorazine!" The
>person who had to deal with him the most on the phone kept agreeing to
>everything he said -- not to be cruel, but simply because antagonizing
>this person would have done no good at all, and those veiled threats
>sounded ominous.
>There's no way to know what Krogman actually said, why he said it, or what
>he was thinking at the time. Since he's dead, we can't ask him. But he may
>well have been appearing to agree with Ed simply to avoid antagonizing
>him. Or maybe he did think it was funny. . .
~~~~~~~~~~
Ho! Ho! Ho!
Not just funny but rather hilarious, Ben, was the time your University
of California/Berkeley sent a notarized letter informing me that the
package of four specimens that I, in good faith, had sent its Museum
of Paleontology for testing NEVER arrived.
Was that a fried or scrambled egg on its face when an inspection of
records inside the Berkeley Post Office, by postal officials, resulted
in the discovery of evidence -- a signed receipt -- that the package
indeed had been delivered and signed for by a member of its staff?.
Ho! Ho! Ho!
Subject: Re: Pyramid Ventilation shaft points nowhere
From: armata@vms.cis.pitt.edu
Date: 13 Dec 96 09:15:45 EDT
>> > ...the statement 'in 245o the
>> > shouthern shaft of the Quing Chamber was pointing to Sirius' is
>> > meaningless unless you say when during that year
>> The alignments in question are said to point to the meridian transit
>> of these stars. Every day, Sirius traces the same path across the sky,
>> so every day when it reaches the meridian (its highest point in the south,
> ...the elevation (using the proper
> Astronomical term) of a star is not the same each day of the year. That
> is the reason days are longer in summer than in winter. The maximum
> elevation of the Sun at midday is higher at summer. This applies to any
> celestial body.
The Sun and the stars behave differently.
The Sun's elevation at meridian transit (noon) does change every day,
because the Sun is not a fixed star from our perspective--we are revolving
around it. It seems to move every day against the background of the
fixed stars, and the position of our angle of inclination to it changes
as we swing around it every year. So yes, the Sun is higher at summer noon
than at winter noon.
But the fixed stars don't behave this way. Think of the pole star--the
earth's axis is always pointed at it, day after day. So
as the earth spins around that axis, the fixed stars would have to trace
the same circles in the sky around the earth, day after day.
If we could stick a thumbtack in the sun at local noon today and fix it
against the star background so it rises and sets with them from now on, its
noon point would always be the same, like theirs.
Fixed stars do have the same maximum elevation every day, year in and
year out, ignoring the tiny changes over the centuries from their own
proper motion and the precessional cycle. If you line Sirius up against
a treetop or chimney on the horizon as it rises, culminates, and sets
tonight, it'll rise, culminate, and set in the same place every night, just
at different times.
Joe
armata@vms.cis.pitt.edu
Subject: Re: Phoenician Word
From: Saida
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 07:59:57 -0600
Saida wrote:
>
> SkupinM wrote:
> >
> > Phoenician inscriptions usually don't get beyond the city-state: they > > considered themselves Sidonians or Tyrians. St. Augustine in
one passage, > though, says "when we ask our country folk
(Carthaginians, > the > Phoenicians' cousins) what they are, they
answer, 'Canaanites'." > The > Paraiba Inscription has "beni cana'an"
(sons of Canaan), which is > probably > the source of the Greek word
Phoinik-, and a similar turn of > phrase occurs > in the fifth act of
Plautus' comedy "The Carthaginian" > (as read by yours > truly in my
contribution to the subject a few years
> back: "Colloquial > Carthaginian" in Epigraphic Society Occasional
> Papers, vol 19).
>
> Thanks for the info, Mike. There are a couple of mysterious things
> associated with the "Fenekhu", as the Egyptians called them. One is
> called the "Uatch-en-thehen-t". My dictionary describes it as "the
> crystal scepter which the Fenekhu gave to the deceased". "Uatch" is a
> name for any number of green stones and "thehen" means "brilliant".
> Then there is the "fire of the Fenekhu", the "Besu-en-setch-t". This
> gives no explanation. The Egyptian word means, I would think, "the
> flame of the fire", but it definitely has to do with these people. What > does it refer to--perhaps a gemstone? These are among the many
curious > things I come across every time I look in my Egyptian
dictionary--the > endless secrets of Egypt.
Another thought about "The Fire of the Fenekhu" occurred to me. Perhaps
the Phoenicians, being a sea-faring people, had a lighthouse on their
coast along the lines of the one at Alexandria, the fire of which the
Egyptians had seen.
Subject: Re: TIME Magazine (Nov 25) humans living 420 years
From: sudsm@aol.com
Date: 13 Dec 1996 16:19:09 GMT
Jim:
.
>Please remove sci.life-extension from the list of groups you respond to
.
But biblical chronology is archaeologically important science.
And, as I have pointed out many times already, the lives of Gen. 5
are lives of dynasties (not individuals) over the nation that
perished in the Tarim Basin, called "the face of the earth" at that
time (cf. Gen. 4:14). Later that tradition was the origin of
family or "clan" head names -- again not indivduals. That Abraham
was an old individual when he sired Isaac, is clear enough in the
biblical story, but since his father (head of the clan Terah)
lived over 200 years, Abraham at 100 would not be old. And while
we do not know how the "clan" name was passed on (though we know
it was not always hereditary) it is obvious that the Abraham who
married Keturah and had six more sons, was not the same individual.
.
Suds
DARWIN IS BURIED IN WESTMINSTER ABBEY WITH OTHER CHURCH OF ENGLAND GREATS
Subject: Re: Phoenician Word
From: Saida
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 10:27:52 -0600
Saida wrote:
>
> Saida wrote:
> >
> > SkupinM wrote:
> > >
> > > Phoenician inscriptions usually don't get beyond the city-state: they > > considered themselves Sidonians or Tyrians. St. Augustine in
> one passage, > though, says "when we ask our country folk
> (Carthaginians, > the > Phoenicians' cousins) what they are, they
> answer, 'Canaanites'." > The > Paraiba Inscription has "beni cana'an"
> (sons of Canaan), which is > probably > the source of the Greek word
> Phoinik-, and a similar turn of > phrase occurs > in the fifth act of
> Plautus' comedy "The Carthaginian" > (as read by yours > truly in my
> contribution to the subject a few years
> > back: "Colloquial > Carthaginian" in Epigraphic Society Occasional
> > Papers, vol 19).
> >
> > Thanks for the info, Mike. There are a couple of mysterious things
> > associated with the "Fenekhu", as the Egyptians called them. One is
> > called the "Uatch-en-thehen-t". My dictionary describes it as "the
> > crystal scepter which the Fenekhu gave to the deceased". "Uatch" is a > > name for any number of green stones and "thehen" means
"brilliant". > > Then there is the "fire of the Fenekhu", the
"Besu-en-setch-t". This > > gives no explanation. The Egyptian word
means, I would think, "the > > flame of the fire", but it definitely has
to do with these people. What > does it refer to--perhaps a gemstone?
These are among the many > curious > things I come across every time I
look in my Egyptian > dictionary--the > endless secrets of Egypt.
>
> Another thought about "The Fire of the Fenekhu" occurred to me. Perhaps > the Phoenicians, being a sea-faring people, had a lighthouse
on their > coast along the lines of the one at Alexandria, the fire of
which the > Egyptians had seen.
Looking into this further, I see that it is all out of the Book of the
Dead. Re: the "Uatch-en-thehen-t" Budge says: "The Vignette of Chapter
CLIX is a scepter, which was made of mother-of-emerald. It was placed
on the neck of the deceased and secured for him the protection of the
goddess Rennet. In the Vignette of Chapter CLX, we see Toth giving the
sceptre amulet to the deceased, and it carried with it the protection
and strength of the great god of words of power". What did this have to
do with the Fenekhu?
About the "Fire of the Fenekhu", the First Interrogation of the Book of
the Dead says "'I have witnessed the acclaim in the land of the Fenkhu.'
'What did they give you?' 'A firebrand and a faience column.' 'What did
you do with them?' 'I buried them on the shore of the pool Maaty, at the
time of the evening meal.' 'What did you find there on the shore of the
pool Maaty?' 'A scepter of flint whose name is Breath-giver.' 'What did
you do to the firebrand and the faience column when you buried them?'
'I lamented over them, I took them up. I extinguished the fire, I broke
the column, threw it in the pool.'"
Now what in the world can all this possibly mean? It is magic, but
magic in connection with a foreign people, the Fenekhu.
Subject: Re: "Out of India"
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 13 Dec 1996 15:22:02 GMT
In article <58rf9t$hch@halley.pi.net>, mcv@pi.netÁ says...
>
>[article has not shown up on my main news server yet]
>
>John A. Halloran wrote:
>>
>> Elamite invaders only entered the southern Zagros in the late 4th
millenium BC.
>
>Not according to my sources, which do not mention any major
>discontinuity or invasions during Susiana a-e (c. 5000 BC - 4000 BC) or
>Susa A-D (c. 4000 BC - 2000 BC).
Isn't there some confusion here as to "Susiana", 5,000-2,000 BC and
"southern Zagros"?
Susiana refers to a religious center which like most sacred places
was focused on a center. The closer to the center the holier and
more sacred we get. Compare modern Rome, Mekka and Jerusalem. The
religious influences might be widespread, but Susiana itself
extended from Susa to Choga Mish and not to the southern Zagros.
Elam doesn't exist until c 2000 BC so lets not confuse the two.
I don't know of any invasions by anyone in the southern Zagros
in the 4th millenium BC. For that matter, what are we defining
as the southern Zagros. I would define their southernmost extent
as the Mand river which flows into the Persian Gulf about longitude
52.5 Latitude 27.5 just south of Bandar-e Busher. The mid way point
would be close to Susa. Southern Zagros would thus span from Susa
about 450 km south to Anshan and would define Elam. The Elamites
were not invaders here but essentially just a confederation of
two existing city states after c 2000 BC.
>
>> Here is a quote from the 1997 Grolier encyclopedia on the
>>origins of the Indus civilization.
>>
>> "Because its script remains undeciphered, the Indus civilization
>>is known only from archaeological evidence. Its origins traditionally
>>were viewed as the result of the diffusion of farming and technology
>>from more advanced cultures in Mesopotamia and on the Iranian plateau
>>to Baluchistan and ultimately to the Indus Valley. Today this theory
>>is seen as largely incorrect. Knowledge about early plant and animal
>>domestication in lands east of the Iranian plateau is still obscure,
>>but the results of excavations at the important site of Mehrgarh, at
>>the foot of the Bolan Pass, indicate that large settlements may
>> have existed as early as the 7th millennium BC."
The sense is that farming did not diffuse to the IVC but was
independently invented there after c 7,000 BC. A large settlement
c 7,000 BC would be anything over 100 people. The IVC begins to
coallesce out of isolated individual settlements c 3000 BC
>You are right. I had completely forgotten about the early dates for
>Mehrgarh (6,000 BC according to my notes from this thread).
>If knowledge about early plant and animal domestication in the area is
>still obscure, the conclusion must remain, for the time being, that
>wheat/barley and sheep/goat were domesticated in the Near East.
>If this happened c. 8,000 BC in Palestine, Eastern Anatolia and the
>Zagros, there is still ample time for early farmers/pastoralists to
>reach Merhgarh by 6,000 BC.
They didn't reach Mergarh by c 6,000 BC, they were there.
Our ancestors had been widely diffused around the world by
c 750,000 BC. They had evolved from Homo Erectus toward
Homo Sapiens and then Homo Sapiens Sapiens after c 200,000 BC
independently all over the planet.
In Africa and China, Arabia the Near East, Southeast Asia,
Melaneasia and in India, there were advanced hunter populations
inhabiting the same sites in continuous occupancies from
c 60,000 BC which later saw farming.
As late as c 15,000 BC the mouth of the Euphrates was in the
Gulf of Oman and the Persian Gulf was a river valley. That is
probably where farming first started. The high tidemark of
the first farming around the mouth of that river would be
the IVC.
As the river flooded and its delta moved northeast toward
Mesopotamia so did farming. By c 6,000 BC all the earliest
sites had been submerged by the risding waters of the Persian Gulf.
>A curious parallel between Mesopotamia and the Indus Valley/Punjab is
>the apparent time gap between Neolithic techiques appearing on the hill
>sides bordering on the river valley (Jarmo, Ganj Dareh Tepe, Ali Kosh;
>Mehrgarh), and the actual colonization of the alluvial plain itself.
>Agoraphobia?
The first farming was not necessarily done in settled communities.
In "Rivers in the Desert" Nelson Glueck explained how nomadic
hunter gatherers would sow a few seeds and then come back later
hoping to find wheat or barley. Very few farming communities
existed prior to the time the Persian Gulf had flooded as far
north as the southern Zagros.
>
>> What language would you assign to Pakistan in the 7th millenium BC?
>
>Neither Mesopotamia nor the Indus Valley seem to have been very popular
>with the Mesolithic hunter-gatherer populations either.
There were hunter gatherers and farmers in Pakistan c 7,000 BC. If
you want to call them proto IVC that works for me. They probably
spoke the same language found on the Indus valley seals four millenia
later.
>Nothing can be said about the languages spoken in the area prior
>to the colonization by Neolithic farmers, except to note that the
>language isolate Burushaski (neither Dravidian nor Indo-European)
>is still spoken up in the Kashmir mountains.
It seems foolish to try to tie modern isolates to ancient languages.
The ethnolouge lists many languages with fewer than 100 speakers
in that region because habitable places in the Himalayas tend to be
isolated little river valleys amid the mountains.
It is possible to say that the Indus may not have been the first
river on which farming took place in Pakistan. An earlier dried
up river bed to its east may have lost its source of water to
the Ganges before the third millenium BC and there are traces
of settlement on this ancient river.
You could also point out that the Khyber pass from the upper
Indus into Afghanistan has been in use since c 7,000 BC
>
>
>==
>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
steve
Subject: Re: The Bridegroom is back
From: Don Judy
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 96 11:32:42 -05
Chris King wrote:
> We are currently suffering from 2000
> years of severe patriarchal delusion.
Congratulations on your longevity; chin up now, you'll snap out of it. Or do
you mean you thought for 2000 years you were a father/grandfather/greatgr...ad
infinitum but now have found out you aren't? Imagine that...she kept quiet
2000 years! BTW, do you guys really get your heat right from the ground? Wow!
Say, Maori sounds a lot like Maya....hmmm.
> In the Fall from Eden we have been robbed of our physical immortality.
> Each of you in part is 3000 million years old - no part of your genetic
> make up has ever had a single broken link from the Genesis.
I am the mushroom, I am the eggman, I am the...wait a minute! My controller
went bad once...no, wait, it wasn't Genesis, it was Atari..
> I am back
I am front
> Chris King
Billie Jean Evert
Subject: Re: "Out of India"
From: mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal)
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 17:26:46 GMT
whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>In article <58rf9t$hch@halley.pi.net>, mcv@pi.netÁ says...
>>
>>[article has not shown up on my main news server yet]
>>
>>John A. Halloran wrote:
>>>
>>> Elamite invaders only entered the southern Zagros in the late 4th
>millenium BC.
>>
>>Not according to my sources, which do not mention any major
>>discontinuity or invasions during Susiana a-e (c. 5000 BC - 4000 BC) or
>>Susa A-D (c. 4000 BC - 2000 BC).
>Isn't there some confusion here as to "Susiana", 5,000-2,000 BC and
>"southern Zagros"?
[...]
>I don't know of any invasions by anyone in the southern Zagros
>in the 4th millenium BC. For that matter, what are we defining
>as the southern Zagros. I would define their southernmost extent
>as the Mand river which flows into the Persian Gulf about longitude
>52.5 Latitude 27.5 just south of Bandar-e Busher.
The Brittanica defines the Zagros as: "[a] mountain range in SW Iran,
extending NW-SE from the Si:rva:n (Diyala) River to Shi:ra:z, about 550
mi (900 km) long and over 150 mi wide." I'd say the S. Zagros are
anything south of Luristan (roughly: the line Dezful - Isfahan) to
Shiraz (Persepolis, if you will). Khuzestan, or Susiana, or Elam, is
like a transition zone from the Zagros to Mesopotamia proper. My usage
of the term "Southern Zagros" includes Elam (and excludes the area
around Shiraz, which for me is "Persia/Fars").
>The sense is that farming did not diffuse to the IVC but was
>independently invented there after c 7,000 BC. A large settlement
>c 7,000 BC would be anything over 100 people. The IVC begins to
>coallesce out of isolated individual settlements c 3000 BC
[...]
>They didn't reach Mergarh by c 6,000 BC, they were there.
>Our ancestors had been widely diffused around the world by
>c 750,000 BC. They had evolved from Homo Erectus toward
>Homo Sapiens and then Homo Sapiens Sapiens after c 200,000 BC
>independently all over the planet.
>In Africa and China, Arabia the Near East, Southeast Asia,
>Melaneasia and in India, there were advanced hunter populations
>inhabiting the same sites in continuous occupancies from
>c 60,000 BC which later saw farming.
Here you seem to be defending two highly anti-diffusionist theories: the
biological polygenesis of HSS, and the historical polygenesis of
farming. Both respectable theories, that I happen to disagree with.
I think there's too little genetic variation in the human gene-pool to
justify polygenesis of HSS. And although I think farming and animal
domestication *were* invented independently at least in the Near East
(barley/wheat), SE Asia (rice) and Mesoamerica (maize), I would opt for
diffusion in the cases of Europe, India and quite possibly Northern
China (my arguments are mainly linguistic).
>As late as c 15,000 BC the mouth of the Euphrates was in the
>Gulf of Oman and the Persian Gulf was a river valley. That is
>probably where farming first started. The high tidemark of
>the first farming around the mouth of that river would be
>the IVC.
Well, here you seem to be back on a solidly diffusionist course...
>As the river flooded and its delta moved northeast toward
>Mesopotamia so did farming. By c 6,000 BC all the earliest
>sites had been submerged by the risding waters of the Persian Gulf.
If I were naive, I'd say: "How sad!" If I were a cynic, I'd say: "How
convenient!". I'm a bit of both.
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal ~ ~
Amsterdam _____________ ~ ~
mcv@pi.net |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig
Subject: Re: puzzle of the negrito: isolated archaic populations
From: pdeitik@bcm.tmc.edu (Philip Deitiker)
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 18:32:41 GMT
geroldf@sdd.hp.com (Gerold Firl) wrote:
>In article <589qd4$3er@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>, pdeitik@bcm.tmc.edu (Philip Deitiker) writes:
>|> 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.
>Aren't the solomon islanders melanesian? Both melanesians and negrito
>have kinky hair, but it seems a bit premature to link them purely on
>that basis.
melanesia can be divided along two lines, the solomon island-like
folks and classical east asains. The solomon island/autralo aboriginal
peoples represent an anceint (diverged) subgroups of widely scattered
people with several characterisitics in common (when comparing them
with other eurasians).
1. They migrated to the region somewhere about 55 - 40 KYA
2. In this migration they split early and gene flow between isolate
populations has been small. Again not all populations have been tested
and these are presumptions for all populations, but I strongly suspect
that the other negrito populations are going to have similar
divergence characteristic. This spread of ancient asiatics presents
several problems and I will mention these.
First, there is some evidence that there has been hybridization
between recently arrived asians and these ancient dwellers, this has
produced, by eurasian standards, genetically new populations. Each
mixing event, given the standing differences in ancient isolates is
going to have a completely different result. As a result if the
presented studies stand up, one is probably going to see 20 or 30
genetically seperable populations in the southeast asia/autralia/south
pacific region alone. This is why when you say 20 or 30 groups for the
world I kind of hold back, I suspect that africa and southeast asia
are regions where the current list can be expanded greatly and where
past definitions of what constitutes a group will be challenged. An
example might be papau new guinea where >3 qualifyable groups live on
a single island. This can be contrasted with precolumbian south and
central america which would be composed of 1.
Anyway you have to read the paper, the solomon islanders were
highlighted becasue there was a trait of blond hair in the population,
which is only seen in remote regions of africa and lead people to
believe that this group may have migrated recently from african. The
genetic strudies reveal that their closest relation is with southeast
asians (slight relative) and again the divergence time is about 45 KY.
>Also, h. erectus first entered asia about a million years ago. There
>has been a whole lot of evolution going on since. This area of the
>world is one of the places which makes the out-of-africa/genocide
>hypothesis look very questionable.
Maybe, I think it's very doubtful, though, if your making the argument
that way over here there is a group which hasn't been throughly tested
and possibly of non-african origin. There has been no other instance
that supports this belief and there is no set of charactersitcs which
suggest these people have superafrican traits (i.e. traits above and
beyond those represented by the total of other of tested humanity)
>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.
>I'm not sure which populations you refer to - melanesian? negrito?
>papuan? australian? vedda? And which african populations - negro or
>pygmy?
comparing solomon-like folks with classical east asians
>It wouldn't be surprising if the blue-water island populations prove
>to be modern, recent isolates.
Some are young (1 to 5 KYA) others present as being isolated for
(based on what I read) ~42 KY isolates. These groups are scattered
throughout the east indian and south pacific oceans, and interestingly
maintain a high degree of social separation. These peoples body forms
have consistent form and I suspect represent long term local evolution
with many similar selective pressures based upon common human
variations.
>The polynesian settlements are *very*
>recent, and open-ocean technology is viewed with scepticism anywhere
>beyond 40,000 b.p. or so. Java, on the other hand, had residant
>hominids a million years ago
True, but the fossile record dries up after that and I'm not even sure
that there were non-HS hominids in this subequatorial region when the
75K - 50KY migrants came across. There is the belief that somewhere
along the way there was a 60 mile stretch of water that had to be
crossed, and the best evidence suggests that it was first crossed 50
to 45 KYA. The latest dating for Peking man puts him at 400 KY old and
there is little evidence from that period to the present suggesting HE
presence (And I agree it seems odd that there shouldn't be). So unlike
what has been discovered in europe, which can be summerized as
evidence for interspecies cultural exchange (with a lack of any
genetic exchange) in southeast asia there is simply no evidence for
temporal territorial overlap. In addition there is no reason, based on
genetic studies, to suggest that these ancient southeast asians are
not out of africa.
If I was looking for a spur older than any spur detected in africa
(inclusive of the rest of typed eurasia) I would be looking at certain
characteristics which might be consistent with a > 200KY separation.
Such characteristics would be obvious. Examples might be extreme
differences of brain size to body, alteration in the skeleta,
particularly the hands and feet, the throat, facial brow etc. One
might also look for differences in gestation period, age of
maturation. From a chromosomal point of view a >200 KYO spur is going
to present noticably different karotype. Some or many of these things
should be obvious by now. What we see in this peoples are a different
mix of traits already seen in the presumptaviely african derived
population. Faster evolving loci such as HLA are going to present new
genotypes, but one has to focus on genes which are likely to change
over 10E5 to 10E6 years, not 10E3 to 10E4.
BTW, Unlike the IE, mediterraneans, chinese, and native americans (the
eurasioan dervied folks) this group (as we disscussed earlier) this is
an example of groups which do maintain a notable set of
characteristics which point to long term separation. The types of long
term separations appear to be similar to africa in the sense that
deglaciation is not going to result in the degree of compression and
movement when compared to temperate climates. I strongly suspect that
the isolation is the result much static societies. Thus when one uses
eurasia as a standard for measuring differences there is an inherant
problem. Since eurasia was subject to glacial movements peoples get
pushed together and spread out and this likely results in a more
protracted gradient structure with the extreems of the gradient
truncated by mixing. If this had not occurred I think that over the
same periods of time one would see more dramatic differences in the
eurasian population consistant with those differences seen in the
ancient southeast asians. My point is that maybe we should treat
african and this population as the standard for judging human
evolution rather than a population (eurasian) that has a number of
stokastic phenomena associated with it.
Philip
Subject: Re: "Out of India"
From: piotrm@umich.edu (Piotr Michalowski)
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 11:07:25
In article <58rf9t$hch@halley.pi.net> mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal) writes:
>Neither Mesopotamia nor the Indus Valley seem to have been very popular
>with the Mesolithic hunter-gatherer populations either. Nothing can be
>said about the languages spoken in the area prior to the colonization by
>Neolithic farmers, except to note that the language isolate Burushaski
>(neither Dravidian nor Indo-European) is still spoken up in the Kashmir
>mountains.
The lack of evidence for human presence in Mesopotamia before the Ubaid period
is uually explained in two ways. Either the remains of early habitation lie
buried very deep under later alluvial deposits, or there simply were not very
many earlier permanent settlements due to climactic conditions. Although
in general books one often finds simple statements about the extent of the
Persian Gulf. While it is generally agreed that the two main rivers flowed
into the sea around the Gulf of Oman around 16,000 BC, the processes of
change after the last glacial maximum are difficult to pin down. The latest
work of P. Sanlaville suggests that there was a relatively rapid increase in
the sea level, which was completed sometime between 3000 and 4000 BC. he
shows that the sea-level was still lower than today in the Ubaid period and
so there might be buried remains that we have not found. The earliest
known human occupation in southern Mesopotamia is at Tell 'Oueili, and the
"Ubaid 0" level, which was not on virgin soil, was 4,5 meters under the
current level of the plain. The water table did not permit further
excavations below. There is some debate as to the physical environment in
that period, but there is definite evidence for irrigated agriculture already
at the beginning. I should stress that the term Ubaid 0 was coined because
the levels at this one site went further back than what had until that
time been labeled Obeid 1. Even the latter is not that well known, and the
main information comes from the deep sounding at one site--Eridu. Some of
the other major cities are known to have been occupied at this or slightly
later periods only from potsherd finds on the surface. Such is the case, for
example, at Larsa (Ubaid 1 already), Girsu (4), Ur (1, just a few), or Uruk,
which has some Ubaid 4 remains. If excavations ever start again in Iraq, it
might be hoped that very expensive modern excavation techniques might reveal
more about these earliest phases of southern Mesopotamian life.
Subject: Re: RAMESSES IN BACTRIA!
From: Saida
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 11:39:28 -0600
AJenk70571 wrote:
>
> Saida wrote:
>
> >>>
>
> ayma@tip.nl wrote:
>
>
> I don't know, Aayko. I tend to share your skepticism. It is a long way > for a pharaoh to take an army unless he had a very good
reason--and I > don't think the lure of lapis-lazuli would have been a
sufficient > motivation. Yet, what was Alexander's reason for going
there?
>
>
>
> Not lapis-lazuli, that's for sure! He was chasing Bessus, who had
> assassinated Darius III and was leading the surviving Persian resistance. > Basically, he was trying to crush the final embers of
Persian resistance > to his rule.
>
> Cheers
> Chris Bennett
When Hecataeus of Abdera toured the Ramesseum in the time of Ptolemy
Soter, he wrote of the priests there telling him about a relief showing
Ramesses II fighting in Bactria, even citing how many men and chariots
he took with him. Of course, there is a scene depicting the Battle of
Kadesh in the Ramesseum, which Diodorus refers to. Who was
confused--Hecataeus or the priests? At that time the latter could still
read hieroglyphs and would have known Kadesh from Bactria, surely.
Otherwise, it is written the XIXth Dynasty pharaohs claimed their
dominions extended as far as Bactria and India--but the texts that
relate this claim are not alltogether clear. Strabo writes: "...on
certain obelisks, there are inscriptions proclaiming the wealth of the
sovereigns at the time and the extent of their dominions--as far as the
Scythians, Bactrians and Indians and what is now Ionia; and the amount
of tribute they received and the size of their armies, which numbered as
many as a million men." Well!
That is Strabo, but there are in fact a series of Ptolemaic
inscriptions, often written in hieroglyphic characters as well as Greek,
whose content exactly parallels what Strabo describes. The accounts
seem similarly implausible. Ptolemy III claimed that "he crossed the
Euphrates and made his way to Mesopotamia, Babylon, Susia, Persia and
Media, and he brought all the rest as far as Bactria under his own
dominion, and brought back to Egypt everything the Persians had looted."
Germanicus tells of a conversation he had with an elderly Egyptian
priest, who told him that a king called "Ramesses" had taken possession
of Lybia, Ethiopia, Media, Persia, Bactria and Scythia, as well as the
lands of the Armenians, Syrians, and Cappadocians. However, the name of
Ramesses the Great may have been one etched into the long-term memory of
the Egyptians and his exploits exaggerated as time went on.
Luciano Canfora, the author of "The Vanished Library" (from which I get
my information) writes: "All the same, it is difficult to understand
how historical accounts of the battle of Kadesh can have been so
entirely lost or distorted that the engagement came to be located in
Bactria, in far-off Afghanistan, one of the limits beyond which
Alexander never ventured."
Well, it seems a lot of smoke to have existed without any fire
whatsoever. As a footnote to all this, I have seen a couple of Egyptian
terms, from which period I do not know, that seem to reflect this
question. One that comes to mind is "qatshamar", which is described as
"a kind of stuff for clothing". Can this be "cashmere", the material
made out of the hair of goats, the name taken from Kashmir?
Ramesses II reigned many years and grew very old for a man of his time.
We know of his troubles with the Syrians and the Hittites and David Rohl
feels he was even the one to sack Jerusalem, being the Shishak of the
Bible. If the latter is true, then Ramesses not only was interested in
keeping the Pax Egyptica but in amassing riches for humself. How far he
was inclined to venture in this enterprise is difficult to know.
Subject: Re: Dating the Giza Pyramids: Was Re: Pyramid "Ventilation" Shaft
From: sudsm@aol.com
Date: 13 Dec 1996 16:19:06 GMT
August"
.
>C-14 has been corroborated by other dating methods back to its
>effective range
.
The corroboration, especially with dendroochronology, has
required some extraordinary adjustments, all of which has forced
Egyptological vhronology to be revised every couple of decades or
so. The changes have all foreced the chronologies to come closer
to biblical chronology, but still there are anomalies in orthodox
chronologies that are simply accepted or ignored.
All of this confusion is because of a ridiculous initial
assumption that orthodox chronlogies accept, namely that Egypt had
a 365-day "vague year" calendar that slipped a quarter day every
year, or all the wya around the year in a "sothic cycle" of 4 x
365.25 = 1461 years or 365 x 4 = 1460 "vague years". The cycle is
named for the star Sothis (Sirius) whose heliacal rising was
observed and, in effect, gave the sidereal year, or almost
exactly the solar year.
It is then assumed that the "vague year" calendar was in use
in Egypt for 4380 years without any revisions -- which is absurd!
It is recorded that the heliacal rising of Sirius coincided with
the first day of the calendar year in 139 AD. The same
coincidence is observed by Ramessu 1 and it is therefore assumed
that Ramessu 1 was 1460 years prior to 139 AD. But Ramessu 3
observes the same coincidence and there cannot possibly be 1460
years between Ramessu 1 and 3. Therefore "officially" the Ramessu
3 observation is a forgery. That he revised the calendar is not
"officially" allowable.
Similar (and even worse -- like the Turin Papyrus which was
read as covering 755 years, must have meant 1,755 years) are
"officially" assumed in order to preserve the beautifully simple,
but obviously absurd, initially assumed system. That, and, in
effect, assuming for dendrochronology that no sap crosses tree-
rings. Such is the "corroboration" of C-14 and tree-ring
chronology!
Suds
DARWIN IS BURIED IN WESTMINSTER ABBEY WITH OTHER CHURCH OF ENGLAND GREATS
Subject: Re: Pyramid Ventilation shaft points nowhere
From: paulf@peoria.mt.cs.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 11:21:21 -0500
armata@vms.cis.pitt.edu wrote:
>
> >> > ...the statement 'in 245o the
> >> > shouthern shaft of the Quing Chamber was pointing to Sirius' is
> >> > meaningless unless you say when during that year
>
> >> The alignments in question are said to point to the meridian transit
> >> of these stars. Every day, Sirius traces the same path across the sky,
> >> so every day when it reaches the meridian (its highest point in the south,
>
> > ...the elevation (using the proper
> > Astronomical term) of a star is not the same each day of the year. That
> > is the reason days are longer in summer than in winter. The maximum
> > elevation of the Sun at midday is higher at summer. This applies to any
> > celestial body.
>
> The Sun and the stars behave differently.
>
> The Sun's elevation at meridian transit (noon) does change every day,
> because the Sun is not a fixed star from our perspective--we are revolving
> around it. It seems to move every day against the background of the
> fixed stars, and the position of our angle of inclination to it changes
> as we swing around it every year. So yes, the Sun is higher at summer noon
> than at winter noon.
>
> But the fixed stars don't behave this way. Think of the pole star--the
> earth's axis is always pointed at it, day after day. So
> as the earth spins around that axis, the fixed stars would have to trace
> the same circles in the sky around the earth, day after day.
>
> If we could stick a thumbtack in the sun at local noon today and fix it
> against the star background so it rises and sets with them from now on, its
> noon point would always be the same, like theirs.
>
> Fixed stars do have the same maximum elevation every day, year in and
> year out, ignoring the tiny changes over the centuries from their own
> proper motion and the precessional cycle. If you line Sirius up against
> a treetop or chimney on the horizon as it rises, culminates, and sets
> tonight, it'll rise, culminate, and set in the same place every night, just
> at different times.
>
> Joe
> armata@vms.cis.pitt.edu
Small nit: If I remember correctly, there is a small annual
variation because the earth's orbit is an elipse and that gives it a
SMALL wobble. I do not think that this is noticable to any but the
most anal of high tech observers. I am talking factions of a second
of arc here.
Paul
Subject: Re: The Bridegroom is back
From: Pharaoh Chromium 93
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 12:07:43 -0500
Bill Oord wrote:
>
> In article <32B0B1EB.51C3@math.auckland.ac.nz>, king@math.auckland.ac.nz
> says...
> >
> >The bridegroom has returned as the divine son of the White Goddess,
> >to end the patriarchal era and bring in the immortal age.
> >I have come to halt genetic holocaust and protect the unfolding
> >diversity of life.
> >I am inviting the Goddess of fertility to join the God of wisdom as
> >Moses did at Qadesh.
> >I am returning the fruit of the Tree to Eve to end original sin.
> >I am bringing Jesus down from the Cross and freeing Mary.
> >I will stand behind the Mahdi of Fatima, the Queen of the South
> >who has abrogated the law of the predecessor.
> >I am beginning my traditional three year mission.
> >It is even more controversial than the last one.
> >
> >Sceptics and believers beware, for you are about to be joined
> >in the holy matrimony of quantum mechanics.
> >
> >I invite you to be the 'first tasters' of the Renewal:
> > at: Alta Vista Search: "Genesis of Eden"
> >Comments to king@math.auckland.ac.nz
> >
> >Chris King
>
> Jesus said:
>
> So if anyone tells you, There he is, out in the desert, do not go out; or,
> 'Here he is, in the inner rooms,' do not believe it. For as the lightning
> comes from the east and flashes to the west, so will the coming of the Son
> of Man.... At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky,
> and all the nations of earth will mourn. THEY WILL SEE the Son of Man
> coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. And he will
> send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect
> from the four winds, afrom one end of the heavens to the other.
> Matt 24:26,27,30,31
>
> After Jesus ascended back to heaven two angels said:
>
> Men of Galilee, why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same
> Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, WIL COME BACK IN THE SAME
> WAY you have SEEN him go into heaven. Acts 1:11
>
> The apostle John concerning this great day:
>
> Look, he is coming with the clouds, and EVERY EYE WILL SEE HIM, even those
> who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him.
> So shall it be! Amen. Rev 1:7
>
> Lord Jesus come back quickly and put an end to this nonsense.
>
> Bill
http://alamut.alamut.org/c73/EVLUTN2.htm
http://alamut.alamut.org/c73/index.htm
Subject: Re: chicken in America: from Asia? (cont.)
From: yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky)
Date: 13 Dec 1996 17:32:05 GMT
Greetings, all,
And here is the conclusion of my essay about the chicken. I'm glad that
the first part posted yesterday already elicited some comments. Now, that
the whole thing is out, I hope contributors will offer further commentary
after considering the complete argument.
Regards,
Yuri.
==================
[part 3 of 3]
Carter spends many pages on linguistic evidence (both in the Old,
and in the New Worlds) indicating chicken origins and diffusion in
his article. These arguments are complex, and I will not go into
them at this stage. I will provide just a brief summary.
First of all, there are two main families of names for chickens used
in S. America (not including those small areas where Spanish _gallo_
has been accepted into use). They seem to indicate connections with
the Old World as follows.
HUALPA = PIL (Hindu) = PILIJ (Turkey) = PULE (Greece)
KARA = KUKRI (Hindustani) = KHURUS (Persia)
Also,
Among the curiosa of this collection of names is the discovery
that among the Tarahumar the name for chickens is _totori_,
which duplicates the Japanese name. (p. 207)
(I would like to indicate here that I'm not basing any claims ONLY
on this seeming similarity in names. Such claims, as I found in
these discussions, tend to please greatly those who already incline
to accepting diffusion, while leaving the opponents cold.)
One general rule about linguistic evidence seems to make good sense:
The rule seems to be that where the chicken was well
established among a population that remained numerically
dominant, the native name was retained, ...
Carter continues by drawing a parallel with the name of another
important agricultural staple:
... just as in America _maize_ was retained in the area where
Indians survived, whereas _corn_ was substituted in the
British lands where the Indians were extinguished. (p. 196)
This is very important. The evidence of diffusion from the Old World
indicates strongly that tribes and peoples tend to _borrow_ existing
names when they acquire some new cultural item from other peoples,
and not to invent new names. But in those areas where the genocide
of the native peoples was entirely accomplished by the colonizers,
or in those areas where chickens were unknown to natives (Venezuela)
the Spanish names won.
The northern Venezuelan Arawak had no chickens at contact,
lack an Indian name for them, but call the chicken _gallina_,
clearly revealing a Spanish source. (p. 206)
Just as was to be expected... I have already cited an account by Acosta
from contact times where he expressed his great surprise that the natives
had their own names for chickens.
Here are a couple of summaries by Carter about linguistic evidence:
The variety of names for the chicken and the scarcity of
European names are suggestive of antiquity and of non-European
origins. (p. 202)
The gist of data from names is that, except in areas where the
chicken was absent at contact times and the introduction is
known to have been by Spaniards, the names used are non-
Spanish. Names vary considerably, suggesting plural
introductions, or much time, or both. Three names, one in S.
America, one in C. America, and one in Mexico, seem directly
related to Asiatic names for the chicken. (p. 209)
(Some of these linguistic similarities are given above.)
CONCLUSION
I have given here only a brief summary of Carter's arguments. I barely
touched upon important arguments he makes about great cultural and ritual
significance of chickens around the world, and the details about wide
diffusion of these cultural traits. Clearly, there are significant
parallels between these traditional cultural traits in America, and the
similar traits in Asia. For instance, he brings in obscure materials from
cock-fighting literature:
The total picture of [American] cockfighting is more
suggestive of a pre-Spanish pattern of Asiatic practices.
Authors flatly contradict one another on the pre- or post-
Spanish presence of cockfighting in America and seem unaware
of the wider implications of their data elsewhere. (p. 213)
Cock-fighting was of course one of the most ancient sports around
the world.
(Carter also analyses a curious case in Egypt, where the chicken was
present and apparently used ritually by the Pharaohs very early on
{around the time of Thutmose, in 1501-1447 bce}, but was not a widely
spread household bird for another 1000 years or so. {p. 187}).
I skipped most of the zoological data that Carter goes into, and
also most of his linguistic analyses. There's a lot of important
material in there. He also provides many helpful maps illustrating
diffusion of chickens and their names.
I trust I presented his arguments fairly. But what about the
clincher? Sure, I have one... If my opponents, those of the "Instant
Embrace Of The Chicken By The Natives" camp are still unpersuaded, I
have saved what I believe to be the clinching argument for the end.
This argument is that the chicken was present ALL OVER the Pacific
islands pre-contact (pp. 196ff.). The strains were all Asian. The
ritual uses were all similar to those both in Asia and in the
Americas.
Easter Island, the closest of the Polynesian group to America,
is of special interest... Metraux (1940) has supplied
considerable information on the chicken in his study of the
island. Chickens were found abundant at the time of contact.
(p. 197)
So there we are, ladies and gentlemen. Could we really suppose that
the chicken had "flown" all around across the Pacific -- as far as
the Easter Island -- as it did -- but failed to make it across the
last stretch of water before the American continent? And with all
the arguments that Carter gave, as I indicate in this essay, can we
really suppose that all these well attested Asian connections of
American chickens are merely a mirage? That the Spanish accomplished
a miraculous "Blitzkrieg Of Introduction" of the sort of a bird they
didn't themselves know before -- and of all those ritual uses
associated with it (how's that again?!) and the natives merrily went
along for the ride? Excuse me while I chuckle...
Best regards,
Yuri.
=O= Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto =O=
--- a webpage like any other... http://www.io.org/~yuku ---
It matters [whether Monte Alban ceramics reflect Chinese art forms]
because questions of human inventiveness and the nature of human
freedom are involved, and these are pivotal for the understanding of
humans everywhere. D. Frazer, THEORETICAL ISSUES IN THE TRANS-
PACIFIC CONTROVERSY, Social Research, 32 (1965) p. 453, as quoted by
J. Needham.
Subject: more on Velikovsky
From: bud.jamison@thekat.maximumaccess.com (Bud Jamison)
Date: 12 Dec 96 19:39:24
"> Some 30 years ago a number of books by IVelikovsky appeared: Ages In Chaos,
More like 40 years ago, I believe he published his first book in '56 or '58.
"> Can anyone characterize Velikovsky's impact? Did he have any? It seems to
"> me that the meteorite explanation of the extinction of the dinosaurs, which
"> is so popular now, may owe something to this man. 30 years ago such
"> Catastrophismic (is that a word?) explanations would have been laughed out
"> of geology schools.
While most scientists STILL try to show him as a kook at best, many of his
theories have proven out, such as Jupiter as a radio source, the surface
temperature and chemical makeup of the atmosphere of Venus, the
archeological significance of Thera (Santorini), and the dating of the Bible
and Egyptian Dynasties ('accepted' dates coming under severe scrutiny lately),
and MUCH more.
Some of his reasoning for his theories has been wrong, but his conclusions
have generally been right.
He preached 'multi-disiplinarianism' strongly, saying that the trend toward
specialization created scientists who wore blinders, and missed more stuff
than they caught.
... The cat is eating my mouse! No,No Kitt....
Subject: Re: The Bridegroom is back
From: pfc@rpi.edu (PFC)
Date: 13 Dec 1996 16:39:17 GMT
In article <32B19B0A.6C23@math.auckland.ac.nz>,
chris king writes:
>I will reply to Bill Oord's comments to try to clarify the situation.
>
>Christianity and all patriarchal monotheistic beliefs arise from a
>fundamental incarnate error - the immortal nature of the body is
>sacrificed to the eternal mind. We are currently suffering from 2000
>years of severe patriarchal delusion.
>
I don't follow your line of, (to put it politely), reasoning
that the patriarchal society is responsible for "the immortal
nature of the body is sacrificed to the eternal mind". :)
Are you sure in your case that it is not the other way around?
>In the Fall from Eden we have been robbed of our physical immortality.
>Each of you in part is 3000 million years old - no part of your genetic
>make up has ever had a single broken link from the Genesis.
>
Totally wrong. The atoms of my body including those in my DNA
have been parts of other things in the past, (such as plants,
animals, and other people). The DNA atoms themselves are nothing
special, and only have meaning through the structure they make
up and the information that represents. The DNA structure which
represents my physical characteristics did not exist at any time
before my conception. Changes do occur, through mutation, and
you need to start to seriously consider evolution.
>I am back to correct the incarnate error of the patriarchy.
>To bring our feet back on to the ground.
>Otherwise we will destroy our own immortality - period.
>
Our immortality cannot be destroyed, because it never
existed - period.
>Here is the key prophetic quote:Mary Magdalene's crucifixion-line from
>King Jesus: "You brought this Son of Adam into the light of day, Sister,
>but it is my task to return him to darkness ... His fault was this: that
>he tried to force the hour of doom by declaring war on the Female. BUT
>THE FEMALE ABIDES AND CANNOT BE HASTENED" ... Shelom looked despairingly
>at Jesus. His calm fortified her, and she answered, as if with his mouth
>"Peace woman! Is it not written of the Kingdom of God : 'I, the Lord
>will hasten it in his time?' "
>
Hah! From what ancient sea-scroll did you dig this gem
from? This is pretty loony, except for the shouted part
in the middle. I'm sure that all men agree when waiting
for their dates to finish getting ready that "THE FEMALE
ABIDES AND CANNOT BE HASTENED", yep.
>So this time She get's her fair half-share, to celebrate the sacred
>marriage of the Tao! That's quantum mechanics!
Oh yes... That follows easily from the above passages...NOT!
That's insanity!
>
>The miracle is that we are going to finally start taking responsibility
>for our PHYSICAL immortality - thanks to the Goddess of Fertility. This
>is the sacred marriage of the prophesied Kingdom and the immortal
>Garden. We are bringing back the tree of life!
>
>Chris King
You must be some sort of troll for posting this to
sci.skeptic... Everyone knows the Partiarchy exists
only to take care of you and protect you from the
world that nature has so ill-equipped you to deal
with. It/We are benevolent and have no wish to
assert influence over those who do not wish it. Just
click your heels together three times and say, "I
wish all men were dead...", and we will go away.
- Tata!
The above opinions are not those of my employer, or
myself. In fact, they are not anyone's that I know
of. Any similarities between the above opinions and
those of persons living or dead is completely
coincidental.
Subject: Sit, Gulf, sit!
From: mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal)
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 15:37:18 GMT
piotrm@umich.edu (Piotr Michalowski) wrote:
>In article <58rf9t$hch@halley.pi.net> mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal) writes:
>>Neither Mesopotamia nor the Indus Valley seem to have been very popular
>>with the Mesolithic hunter-gatherer populations either. Nothing can be
>>said about the languages spoken in the area prior to the colonization by
>>Neolithic farmers, except to note that the language isolate Burushaski
>>(neither Dravidian nor Indo-European) is still spoken up in the Kashmir
>>mountains.
>The lack of evidence for human presence in Mesopotamia before the Ubaid period
>is uually explained in two ways. Either the remains of early habitation lie
>buried very deep under later alluvial deposits, or there simply were not very
>many earlier permanent settlements due to climactic conditions.
Yes. As I was telling Steve, evidence from absence is a risky business
in archaeology. I'm afraid I was indulging in it myself above.
>Although in general books one often finds simple statements about the extent of the
>Persian Gulf. While it is generally agreed that the two main rivers flowed
>into the sea around the Gulf of Oman around 16,000 BC, the processes of
>change after the last glacial maximum are difficult to pin down. The latest
>work of P. Sanlaville suggests that there was a relatively rapid increase in
>the sea level, which was completed sometime between 3000 and 4000 BC. he
>shows that the sea-level was still lower than today in the Ubaid period and
>so there might be buried remains that we have not found.
And previosly, Richard Spoor had written:
>Steve Whittet wrote:
>>
>> You could do that. As the Persian Gulf hadn't flooded yet,
>> I would imagine they were probably farming the lower Euphrates
>> in the region of Bahrain.
>
>Indeed, the mouth of the Euphrates lay much further southeast somewhere
>between Bahrain and the U.A.E. However, all sites with blade-related
>industries from this area have a Mesolithic hunter-gatherer nature.
>There exists no evidence for agriculture as early as the 8th millennium
>B.C. If one expect that groups then already knew agriculture, why
>doesn't it show up on later sites. During the 6th and 4th millennium no
>traces of agriculture have been found on the "mainland", also not in
>areas which were highly suitable for agriculture. The area then was much
>wetter as it is nowadays with small lakes and creeks in the coastal
>hinterland. However, they seem to have develloped an industry of fish
>producing (for themselves and the Mesopotamian market?), so some
>organisation can be expected. Still now evidence for farming upto
>somewhere in the late 4th, early third millennium B.C.
This is all news to me (which only shows my ignorance concerning
Mesopotamian archaeology). Last I heard, the traditional standpoint
that the Gulf extended all the way to Eridu and Ur was being phased out
in favor of an unchanged coastline (at least in historical times). Now
you guys tell me the coastline has shifted all the way back to Hormuz
(at least around 16,000 BC). Confusing...
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal ~ ~
Amsterdam _____________ ~ ~
mcv@pi.net |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig
Subject: Re: Carbon dating: accuracy and limitations
From: rg10003@cus.cam.ac.uk (R. Gaenssmantel)
Date: 13 Dec 1996 18:41:01 GMT
pspinks@vegauk.co.uk wrote:
[...]
: You're completely off the mark in blaming nuclear power stations. The
: amount of C14 in the biosphere has increased, along with all other
: naturally occuring isotopes of carbon, because of our habit of digging
: up carbon deposits (coal, oil, etc.) and then burning them. If you
: measured the day-to-day radioactive emissions from a nuclear power
: plant and a coal-fired power plant, you would actually find the latter
: giving off more radioactivity, because of the C14 going up the chimney
: in the form of CO2.
Sorry, but here you are wrong - partly. As far as C14 is concerned, you are
right - nuclear power plants don't emit any carbon (you might find more C14 in
the moderator rods of old (Chernobyl-type) reactors), but they don't escape
(unless in an accident and would most likely be desposed off as highly
radioactive active waste).
However, nuclear powerplants do give off radioactivity in regular opperation
hence the many measurment sites arround the plants. Since C14 is only a trace
element in the natural carbon cocktail, but the Rn222 emitted by nuclear
powerplants is a transitory stage in the decay of uranium which a certain
percantage of uranium atoms pass through, I would guesstimate that the
radioactivity emitted is significantly higher around a nuclear plant. This goes
along with research findings and the fact that nuclear plants are permanently
monitoring the emission of radioactivity.
Since radon ist a noble gas you can't filter it out, because it doesn't react
with anything. Not every single uranium atom will become radon sooner or later,
since the chain of decay branches off in certain places.
But nevertheless, a certain proportion will be discharged through the chimney
as radioactive Rn222.
Ralf
: There are lots of valid reasons for being concerned about nuclear
: issues, but this isn't one of them.
: >Aadu Pilt
: >aadu.pilt@freenet.hamilton.on.ca
: Paul
--
Subject: Re: chicken in America: from Asia? (cont.)
From: yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky)
Date: 13 Dec 1996 16:52:21 GMT
[part 2 of 3]
Now, let's look at the eyewitness evidence more closely. We have
plenty of eyewitnesses of first contacts of Europeans with native
populations all over the Americas. It is very common to find
evidence that the Europeans found chickens in the hands of natives
in the remotest tribal settlements all around the continent at first
contact.
The first landing of Europeans on the coast of Brazil was near Bahia
in 1500 (Cabral) (p. 199). But
The first Spaniards into the interior of Brazil (Rio Ucayale,
1544; upper Amazon, 1560) found chickens already established.
(p. 200)
And
The evidence indicates that chickens were very widespread in
South America within 20 to 40 years of first contact. These
spot records indicate that the chicken was established from
the Atlantic to the Pacific and from northwest Brazil to
Argentina in less than 40 years. (p. 200)
This is, of course, totally out of sync with the evidence about the
slowness of acceptance of chickens in the Old World.
This rate of diffusion of the chicken from eastern Brazil to
Peru is totally out of step with the parallels from Eurasia.
(p. 200)
The case of the Incas is extremely curious. When the Spanish arrived
to Peru, they found chickens extremely well established and widely
used in religious rituals. The name of the last Inca, Atahualpa is
connected with the word "chicken". Also the name of his uncle.
Either these men were named after the chicken, or the chicken
was named after them. Garcilaso de la Vega says that the
chicken was named in memory of Atahualpa so that each time the
cock crowed, he would be remembered. This leaves unexplained
the naming of Atahualpa's uncle. (p. 200)
Can we really believe that the Incas would be not only accepting
this domesticated animal instantly -- but also integrating it into
their religion and government instantly? This really strains the
limits of credulity...
We have already cited the account by Acosta. Now, another source,
Capa [a scholar of Spanish conquest] says: "In the first
accounts of the conquest, we frequently hear of hens..."
(Capa, 1915: V, 427) ... Capa had access to original sources,
... His comments would seem to verify chickens for Paraguay
and Tucuman at contact time. (p. 202)
I think I should state here my belief that the last thing the
Europeans would have been worried about when they were subduing
native tribes is the derivation of the chickens. They may have been
somewhat surprised when they saw natives possessing chickens, but
they probably would not have cared less about where they came from.
Nevertheless, what they _did_ often remark upon are the unusual
varieties of chickens they saw.
In his article Carter carefully distinguishes between the chickens
found in Asia, and the varieties that existed in Europe at the time
of the conquest. This distinction is very important for his
argument.
These markers allow us to state, with some caution, that fowl
with certain characters have specific origins, and that it is
possible to distinguish with some certainty between European
and Asiatic fowl. (p. 184)
Why is this important? Because it was _the Asian_ varieties of
chickens that were all over the Americas at the time of European
colonization. I will not get into zoological details -- suffice it
to say that these distinctions are clear and agreed upon by all
specialists.
All poultry experts agree on the presence of Asiatic races,
and they almost equally uniformly blandly assume post-1500
introductions. No proof is ever offered. (p. 205)
Finsterbusch (1929: 86) specifies for Brazil: "The best breeds
there are straight Oriental, Malays, Indian type ... (p. 210)
It seems to me that the proponents of the "Instant Embrace Of
Chicken" by native peoples would like to tell us that the Spanish
not only introduced chickens with lightning speed, but they also
introduced the kind of fowl they didn't even themselves have in
Europe at that time!? Hard to believe...
Now, where are we likely to find the oldest chicken varieties in the
Americas, if chickens were indeed pre-Columbian? Naturally, one
would look to the native peoples living in remote areas who are the
most distant from European influence. But we find Asian chickens
precisely there!
It has frequently been pointed out that there are non-European
chickens in the hands of remote Indian groups (Sauer, 1952;
Castello, 1924; Latcham, 1922). ... He [Castello] stated that
there were then five types of chickens in Chile, though now
badly mixed... [only one of them being European] (p. 210)
And how about this:
It seems significant that the location of our best zoological
record is among the Araucanians [in Chile]. In this area of
minimal Spanish influence, among an Indian people who remained
fiercely free into the 19 c. with their culture fairly intact
until well toward the end of the 19 c., we find fowls with the
unique character of blue eggs. They also possess Asiatic
characteristics: ear puffs, taillessness, melanotic [traits --
this means black skin, flesh, and bones; only the colour of
the flesh is strange; the taste is apparently rather nice],
silky (or hairlike) feathers and peacombs. None of these are
traits known early to Europeans. ... One would have to look
far indeed to find a situation better suited to preserving a
precontact record of chickens ... than the Araucanian
situation. (p. 211)
[part 3 to follow]
=O= Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto =O=
--- a webpage like any other... http://www.io.org/~yuku ---
Diffusionist studies are not, as they are sometimes said to be,
attempts to depreciate the creativity of peoples; rather they are
efforts to locate and specify this creativity. D. Frazer,
THEORETICAL ISSUES IN THE TRANS-PACIFIC CONTROVERSY, Social
Research, 32 (1965) p. 454, as quoted by J. Needham.
