Newsgroup sci.archaeology 52000

Directory

In article <58s801$7un@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> dolmen1@ix.netcom.com(Leonard M. Keane) writes:
>In <32c57aef.82775737@news.demon.co.uk> dweller@ramtops.demon.co.uk
>(Douglas Weller) writes: 
>>
>>Agreed. Any excavation needs to have a very good reason (a new road
>going
>>through the site is such a reason).  Far too many excavations have
>destroyed
>>valuable, sometimes vital evidence.
>And I've heard about a number of sites that have been found by
>construction people and plowed under to avoid a disruption in the work.
>Len.
Couldn't agree with you more.  Within the context of your problem, however,
I suggest that another course of action would be to keep as close an eye on the
site as possible and if you receive word of impending destruction contact the
state archaeologists again about a possible salvage dig.  They might either 
contract their own work or maybe allow your crew to do your research since 
the site is going to be destroyed anyway.
Peter van Rossum
PMV100@PSU.EDU

In article <58s3ul$k8b@news1.io.org> yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
>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.
>
>Yuri.
Well thanks for a good summary of the Carter article.  I don't really see
any point in going round and round over linguistic arguments when the
chicken should have left remains if it existed in Precolumbian times.  Do
you by any chance have any explanation for why if it was widespread
as Carter claims, no one has yet reported such remains?
Peter van Rossum
PMV100@PSU.EDU

yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>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)
If I have read the menus of Tandoori restaurants carefully enough, the
usual Hindi (Hindustani) word for "chicken" is MURGH.
PILIJ, if that's how it's written in Turkish, cannot possibly be a
native Turkish word.
For Greek POULI, see Italian POLLO, French POULET, Spanish POLLO, all
"chicken".  Also Dutch POELE-POELE, calling cry for chickens.
And most importantly, what has HUALPA (=WALPA) to do with any of those?
It's not even remotely similar.
KARA is of course onomatopoeic, like Spanish CACAREAR (the sound
chickens make), Dutch KAKELEN.  Compare also French COQ, English COCK;
Slav KURA "hen", Skrt. KRKA-, etc.
>      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 guess that's an allusion to Japanese TORI "bird".  Again, onomatopoeia
seems much more likely, given the irresistible urge people have of
making "toc toc" or "poc poc" noises whenever chickens are mentioned.
Is this pitiful collection really the best Carter could do?
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal                     ~ ~
Amsterdam                   _____________  ~ ~
mcv@pi.net                 |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig

Can anyone provide me with a cite (in English, please, and no UFO 
ravings) for the tradition that the goddess Ishtar and her attendents, 
the Ishtaritu came to Earth from the planet we call Venus?
-- 
KIWI CARLISLE
CARLISLE@WUCHEM.WUSTL.EDU
NO UNSOLICITED COMMERCIAL EMAIL 
ACCEPTED AT THIS ADDRESS.  NO EXCEPTIONS.

In article , dbarnes@liv.ac.uk (Dan Barnes) writes:
|> In article <584qot$p0j@news.sdd.hp.com>, geroldf@sdd.hp.com says...
|> >Remnant populations of small, frizzy-haired, forest-dwelling peoples
|> >still exist (or did within the last century) in isolated pockets 
|> >throughout asia, from the phillipines, malaysia, indonesia, the
|> >andaman islands, and possibly india as well. Average height for men
|> >ranged from around 4 1/2 feet to just under 5, leading to the name
|> >"negrito", and begging the question of relations to the african
|> >pygmies. How did the negritos come to be? The answer to this question
|> >could have important implications for the history of human evolution.
|> If Ruff (1994) is correct then a reduction in stature is a response to adaptations 
|> to rain forest conditions (and I'm sure sexual selection comes into it as well). 
On the first count, yes - not only humans, but a variety of other 
species have also adapted to rainforest conditions with smaller body 
size. I'm wondering about your second point: why would you expect sexual
selection to play a role?
He 
|> examined the width of fossil Apiths and H.e. (admittedly a very small sample as 
|> pelvises, which he used, are rare) and showed that they fit into a general 
|> climatic distribution of moderns. Since, in the generalisation of the human body 
|> (a cylinder), there is no change in surface area to volume ratios with increasing 
|> height he came to the conclusion that the difference in height correlated to the 
|> greater volume need for water storage that a savannah dwelling hominid would 
|> need. 
Risky conclusion; human morphology ranges over a wide spectrum of
area/volume ratios. It's one of the primary evolutionary responses to
climatic conditions. The yahgan of tierra del fuego, who probably
represented the most advanced physiological adaptation to cold among any
modern humans, had very truncated extremities. Some of the nilo-sudanese
peoples, such as the watutsi, represent the other extreme; they are
extremely tall and slender, with proportionately longer arms and legs. I
haven't seen any data of how the area/volume (A/V) ratio of the pygmies
compares with their taller neighbors, but they may be similar. Pygmies
are not nearly as gracile as the watutsi, but because they are so much
smaller, their A/V ratio is boosted. (Note: if the human body type is
approximated as a cylindar, A/V is inversely proportional to size.)
|> From these results it is not suprising that a people who have spent a long 
|> time living exclusively in rain forests would develop a decrease in height. 
Right, though the relative importance of temperature regulation and
mobility in tangled overgrowth is unclear to me; both seem to be
significant.
Thermoregulatory sidebar: the human sweat system is uniquely adapted to
high-temperature activity, and constitutes one of our core adaptations.
In high-humidity environments, however, the efficacy of evaporative
cooling goes way down. Equatorial rainforests can be hot and humid, and
in such conditions *convective* cooling must be relied upon exclusively;
sweat simply does not evaporate. A high A/V ratio will increase cooling
efficiency, *regardless* of whether evaporative or convective cooling is
used. Thus, from a thermoregulatory prespective, small size is not
necessarily adaptive in the rainforest; A/V ratio is a more significant
parameter.
It 
|> would seem that if Ruff's analysis is valid that it is an example of parallel 
|> evolution - with two groups of people adapting to similar environmental 
|> conditions.
Entirely possible. The question then would be, from which ancestral
population did the negrito evolve? 
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Disclaimer claims dat de claims claimed in dis are de claims of meself,
me, and me alone, so sue us god. I won't tell Bill & Dave if you won't.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=----   Gerold Firl @ ..hplabs!hp-sdd!geroldf

Paul E. Pettennude (pettennude@usa.net) wrote:
: Peter,
: We ain't going to save the world.  Yuri is a crackpot and anybody who
: believes this nonsense probably won't believe the truth either.
Dear friends in these newsgroups,
There's been some questions addressed to me the other day about certain
rather numerous errors of fact that somehow managed to slip into the
posts authored by Paul P., posts otherwise renown for their remarkable
brevity, balance, clarity of presentation, and fairness of
characterization. 
Well, why not? In the interests of scholarship, I will offer some
corrections from time to time, as time permits. In particular, Paul
offered this (my today's replies are inserted into his post):
Subject:      Re: coconut diffusion
From:         "Paul E. Pettennude" 
Date:         1996/11/27
Newsgroups:   sci.archaeology.mesoamerican,sci.bio.botany
Yuri,
I read all of Columbus' journals again before responding.  No where does he
discuss coconuts.  What is your source for coconuts being restricted to a
narrow band of Columbia?  Which variety of coconut was this?
[Yuri replies:] 
Paul, I trust you have received the post where I provided the information
you requested. I was correct on this.
[Paul continued:]
I know that Caribbean coconuts were brought into Belize and Yucatan by the
British.  I think you'll find there's an indigenous species in the
Caribbean.
[Yuri replies:] 
I will provide at the end the citation that makes it quite clear you're
in error on this one. 
[Paul continued:]
I called Dr. Ray Porter, one of the world's specialists on tropical plants.
He's looking further into his notes but off the top of his head he says you
might be confused.
[end of quoted text]
Paul, I'm still waiting for your latest update about what new Dr. Ray
Porter has to contribute about this. It might come in useful for my long
file concerning woful lack of awareness in specialized academic circles
about these important matters. These are the people who are _supposed_ to
know, but somehow they missed the bus. Or something. Who's the one
confused, may I ask? 
And now the promised citation that indicates that you're in error on
this. From Jonathan Sauer, in MAN ACROSS THE SEA, p. 309:
"It should be stipulated at the outset that the entire distribution of
the coconut in the Atlantic-Caribbean region is an artifact. The species
was brought from the Indian Ocean region to West Africa and Brazil by the
Portuguese, and its diffusion through the Caribbean during the colonial
period is a coherent and well-documented story. There are no traces of
early aborigianl cutivation or of natural groves in this region..."
I trust that, in the best academic fashion, you will admit it when you're
wrong. Surely we should expect nothing less from a man of your stature
and responsibility.
Respectfully,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky ::    	*	*	*	*	*	*
Toronto        ::    All power corrupts, but we need the electricity.
:::::::::::::::::		 	  	 	 	 
http://www.io.org/~yuku

In article <58s1k6$k8b@news1.io.org> yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
>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)
I don't understand why Carter thinks this is a problem.  If Atahualpa was
named after his uncle and the chicken was named after Atahualpa why
is this a problem for the naming of the uncle?  The uncle was given his
name by his parents, end of story.
In case that doesn't make sense, my grandfather's name is Peter, I'm named
after him.  If someone named an animal Pete after me what problem
would that pose for the naming of my grandfather?
Peter van Rossum
PMV100@PSU.EDU

To Emmett:  I do not understand your post.  I was citing the attested
confusion of "merchant" and "Canaanite."  
I was not suggesting that the Phoenicians only used one word (whether
"ros" or another) for opposite nautical phenomena like a bay (where you
can drop anchor) from a cape (where you run aground).  Nor do I recall
right offhand a text where "ros" (I take it you're referring to the
cognate for the Hebrew "rosh" [head]) is used in that sense.  
I have argued that the Greek translator of Hanno's Periplus jumbled the
terms (he has the Carthaginians dropping anchor on Cape So-and-so, and one
doesn't drop anchor on a cape), but that's in my as yet unpublished book
on the Periplus, and except for the UK volcanologist Fitton and a couple
of other specialist types, nobody's read it yet, so I am confused.
vale anyway
Mike Skupin

Looks2Sky wrote:
> 
> A question for those who doubt the Biblical Universal/Global flood.  Why is
> it that the vast majority of ethnic groups have "mythological" stories
> dealing with a  World Flood?
Because, sometime or other, it rains everywhere?  Given the primitive
counting skills (one, two, many), it's not hard to imagine a local event
becoming a world event.  Add the human enjoyment of a good story (or the
tendency to lie to gain status), and it is more amazing that some
cultures don't have flood legends.
Grond
********************************************************************
All opinions expressed are my own.  If they were my company's
you'd have to pay for them.  :)
********************************************************************

ljh6145@garnet.acns.fsu.edu wrote in article
<32AF8A9C.21C6@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>...
> Is it proper to place available archaeological postions here?
> 
It's not my place to answer on an official basis, but my answer, on a
personal basis, is a WHOLEHEARTED YES!!! 
Barry Sacharow
a051794t@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us

Bud Jamison wrote:
> 
> "> 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),
I don't know about Jupiter and Venus.  Also, I don't know if Velikovsky 
was the one to point out the "archaeological significance of Thera".  
But as to his dating the Bible and Egyptian dynasties--forget it!  I 
must disagree with you when you say that the accepted dates are coming 
under severe scrutiny lately.  By whom?  Just David Rohl, insofar as I 
know.
> and MUCH more.
God forbid.
> 
> Some of his reasoning for his theories has been wrong, but his conclusions > have generally been right.
If his reasoning for his theories was wrong, it seems unlikely that the 
conclusions could have come out right.
> 
> He preached 'multi-disiplinarianism' strongly, saying that the trend toward > specialization created scientists who wore blinders, and missed 
more stuff > than they caught.
How about the people, like Velikovsky, who see the importance in 
everything unimportant?
> 
> ... The cat is eating my mouse! No,No Kitt....

In article <01bbe893$e57afde0$95122399@atlatl>,
Looks2Sky  wrote:
>Sumerian, to the New Guinean, etc.  Even the norse have a world flood
>story.  They believed that it snowed for x amount of days, at that the
>world was covered by ice.  This variations is probably due to the fact that
>the flood story was passed on by their elders, but because of their cold
>region, they altered the story to fit their particular climatic
>circumstances.  
	Maybe the Ice age?  
	Spammers beware, Since I was reading this in sci.life.extension
I'll spam back...  Spammers be careful, spam, the evil luncheon meat, contains,
amoung other things, sodium nitrate.  Sodium Nitrate is a carcinogen.  It
is what gives spam its pink color.  In a science news article sodium nitrate
was linked to colon cancer. The study (if memory serves me right) found that
sodium nitrate in fact accounted for 'red meats' colon cancer risk.  This 
study found that the colon cancer risk for non-sodium-nitrate containing
meat was negligable.  Of course for regular meat consumtion there still may
be the problems of too much protein, and sat. fat. etc. etc.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
"O senseless man, who cannot possibly make a worm and yet will make 
Gods by the dozen!" -- Michel de Montaigne (1533-92).
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Someone wrote:
> Now that we are done with preliminaries, the big question comes,
> Were they present in the Americas before Columbus? It is amazing
> that this rather simple matter is unknown at present (there is no
> consensus among scholars). George F. Carter has done as much as he
> could to clarify this matter in his PRE-COLUMBIAN CHICKENS IN
> AMERICA, in MAN ACROSS THE SEA, Carroll L. Riley, et al, eds., U of
> Texas Press, 1971. To the best of my knowledge, this matter has not
> been addressed by any serious studies since then. Does anyone care?
> Are scholars of American pre-history informed about this conundrum?
Would this be the conundrum:
Q:  Why did the chicken cross the Bering Strait?
A:  To get to the other side.
-- 
< Paul >

Prof Michalowski,
With all respect, I have to agree with MLevi on the sorry state of Near
Eastern language studies. I don't know about U of Michigan, but while
studying Semitic languages in grad school at UCLA I discovered that the
grad students at that school were considered merely incidental to the
"educational" process. Virtually all courses were taught at precisely the
same time, 10am, making it impossible to satisfy course requirements in a
reasonable period. The profs couldn't be bothered to offer their courses at
other times because it was too convenient for them. They simply weren't
interested in the students' welfare, and no one cared enough to change
this. 
That, plus the fact that UCLA lost my aid application TWICE in one
semester, and that my advisor couldn't speak English, and excelled at
giving bad advice, and that the school kicked all the grad students out of
the grad dorm to make room for incoming freshmen so that I had to live out
of my car while attending school... well, let's just say that after
spending every last dime to attend UCLA's program, because it was something
I wanted to do more than anything else, I decided I had been royally
swindled and, after making my usual straight A's, left after one
semester...
Now that I've probably alienated you for all time, maybe you can translate
a passage that's been giving me trouble!  It's from Antar, batal al-^arab,
published Beirut 1959 by Umar Abu al-Nasr: [al-Mu'atamar] ^uqida [passive]
fii al-Kuwait li-shahrein khalawaa. What does this mean?  The convention
was held in Kuwait two months ago? Or the convention has been held in
Kuwait for two months now [duration]?  Khalawaa implies "complete" I think.
For two complete months?  I've had two profs of Arabic debate the use of
the word in this context without coming to a conclusion.
If Arabic is not your forte, maybe you have a colleague who is interested.
thanks.
Piotr Michalowski  wrote in article
...
> In article <5787po$e54@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
m.levi@ix.netcom.com(M.Levi) writes:
> .
> 
> >There was a time when there was nothing I wanted to do more than study
> >ancient Near Eastern languages, and it took years of egregious teaching
> >to discourage my interest.  Leaving me mildly disgruntled considering
> >that I am still paying back umpteen thousands of dollars in tuition,
> >Piotr.
>   
> 
> 

An Associated Press story today reports that new dating techniques have
yielded dates between 53,000 and 27,000 BP for fossils of Homo erectus
from Java.  The dates were reported by Carl Swisher III of the Berkeley
Geochronology Center.  A quote in the article from Susan Anton at the
University of Florida notes that, "This is the first time that [Homo
erectus and Homo sapiens] have been shown to coexist.  Even in Africa,
they didn't overlap."  Swisher notes that Homo sapiens probably arrived
in Indonesia around 40,000 BP.
Needless to say, this is an amazingly recent date for Homo erectus.  The
implication is that two distinct breeding populations of human beings
were living on Java for over 10,000 years.  Modern humans occupied the
same island as archaic-looking "missing links", who may have been
genetically isolated from modern populations for over 100,000 years. 
This sure rocks my own picture of human evolution.  Not THAT it
happened, of course, but what new stories about it remain to be told.
The study reportedly appeared in today's issue of "Science".  Does
anyone have additional information on this data?
John Hoopes
hoopes@ukans.edu
http://www.cc.ukans.edu/~hoopes

As I stated in an earlier post (one that lost the thread) we have very
little information on interactions between Europeans and Native Americans
at this time period. However there must have been some trading going on. As
an emissary or trader for the local temporary fishing colony, he would have
had status within the tribe or tribes he traded with.
Also contact must have existed because of the infections that decimated the
coastal New England tribes in the years before the Plymouth Colony was
established.
Barry Sacharow
a051794t@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us 

Has anyone read or seen the book The Animal World of the Pharaohs by P.F.
Houlihan? Would it make a good gift for an Egyptophile?
Regards,
Francis

A chaque fou sa marotte.  Bye-bye!
vale
Mike Skupin
buffoon of buffoons 

To D.K.
I can't send you a copy of Rudersdorf's paper if you don't send me an
address, now can I?
vale
Mike Skupin

Saida  wrote:
>geo@3-cities.com wrote:
>> 
>> Eliyah  wrote:
>> 
>> >You use incest as a dirty word.
>> 
>> In most states it is not only a dirty word, it is illegal.
>> 
>> >Abram was married to his half-sister.
>> 
>> Which proves the mental instability in his progeny. 
>I don't think the mental stability (or agility) of the progeny of 
>Abraham has been much called into question over the millenia.
You're not much of a student of Middle Eastern history, are you?
The sheer insanity of the Jews and the Pallistinians in the Middle
East is proof enough for me.
Gei

On Tue, 10 Dec 1996, Piotr Michalowski wrote:
> Anyone who thinks that the "token" teories of D. Schmandt-Besserat are without 
> fault should read the review of her book by Paul Zimansky, Journal of Field 
> Archeology 20 (1993) 513-17.
To Prof. Michalowski's reference, I dare add Lieberman's great article in
_American Journal of Archaeology_ 84 (1980): 340-358; Michalowski
_American Anthropologist_ 95 (1993): 996 ff.; Powell _Journal of the
American Oriental Society_ 114 (1994): 96 ff. In spite of what someone has
said here before, *most* Assyriologists I know (and I happen to be "one in
progress"), do *not* subscribe Schmandt-Besserat's theories at all. In
fact, her whole theory is based on a hunch Limet had one in class --class
she was taking--, and she decided to develop his theory. In terms of
scholarship, if one checks carefully all the references, it is striking to
find out that sometimes she lists twice the same token (one with a museum
number, and another with a publication reference, for instance, from
_AfO_), but having different shapes... I mean, one she says it's round and
another square... --I debt this observation to a friend. In general, all
her analysis seem not to fit into what the Berlin team (Englund, Nissen,
etc.)  are finding out. I never post in this list, but I though that the
observation about who writes a prologue for a book and assumptions about
scholarly support and so on, was just funny --especially when it comes
from a well-intentioned amateur.
---------------------------
Gonzalo Rubio
Near Eastern Studies
Johns Hopkins University
gonzalor@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu
---------------------------

I just want make people aware that there is a moderated archaeology
group. Ed Conrad can be quite amusing at times, but I hate having to
wade through all of the speculations and paranoia here to get to the
good bits. So please, join me as I abandon this group for
sci.archaeology.moderated.
Doug Weller, please keep knocking the nutties on the head, you rather
seem to enjoy it, but do come over for a cup of tea at
sci.archaeology.moderated once in a while.
Dan Ullén
Stockholm
Sweden

Since Spam lasts forever, maybe it is a life extension substance?

In <32b15aa9.1519364@news.mulberry.com> profner@mulberry.com (Peter
Rofner) writes: 
>
>unsubscribing to sci.arch due to unprofessional  and senseless
>postings by buffoons wanting to spout off to an audience. You no
>longer have us as audience.
Hey, don't read them.  Certain people never have something real to
contribute, so I just don't waste my time.  I SKIP OVER THEM.  I find a
lot of sincere serious people on these newsgroups, and I find that I
can get my serious issues addressed and get a lot out of this
experience.
Don't throw out the baby with the bath water.
Dr. Doug

In article <01bbe893$e57afde0$95122399@atlatl>, "Looks2Sky"  wrote:
>A question for those who doubt the Biblical Universal/Global flood.  Why is
>it that the vast majority of ethnic groups have "mythological" stories
>dealing with a  World Flood.  From the Polynesians, to the Maya, to the
Because all of the ethnic groups which have flood myths lived where flooding 
occurred.  It's precisely the same kind of mythmaking as the modern "The Big 
One Is Coming" earthquake-lore you hear everywhere on the Pacific coast.
-------
Jim Cowling, moderator, rec.arts.comics.info
Editor, IN CHARACTER, An Electronic Journal about Games
http://www.islandnet.com/~scowling/inc.htm
-------

Peter,
I repeat.  There were no chickens in Precolumbian America.  The Maya even
referred to Yucatan as "The Land of The Turkey and The Deer".  There are
numerous examples of turkey glyphs on structures (see Chicanna).  The Mayan
word for turkey is Kut'z.  The word for chicken came after the arrival of
the Spanish as evidenced in a number of colonial Maya-Spanish dictionaries.
 I know for ABSOLUTE FACT the Maya had no word for chicken prior to the
Spanish and no glyph has ever been found for this creature.
Paul Pettennude
Peter van Rossum  wrote in article
...
> In article <58s1k6$k8b@news1.io.org> yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
> >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)
>  
> I don't understand why Carter thinks this is a problem.  If Atahualpa was
> named after his uncle and the chicken was named after Atahualpa why
> is this a problem for the naming of the uncle?  The uncle was given his
> name by his parents, end of story.
> 
> In case that doesn't make sense, my grandfather's name is Peter, I'm
named
> after him.  If someone named an animal Pete after me what problem
> would that pose for the naming of my grandfather?
> 
> Peter van Rossum
> PMV100@PSU.EDU
> 
> 

Charlie Rigano wrote:
> 
> Rodney Small  wrote:
> 
> >>
> >> I don't understand, why not? Even very unlikely coincidences occur in real
> >> life.
> >
> >True, but some of us regard "very unlikely coincidences" as what Carl
> >Jung called "synchronicity".  That's a whole different subject, but my
> >point in the above post was that if it turns out that data from the
> >Hipparcos satellite indicate that there was an exact match between the
> >belt star angles in 10,500 BC and the three major Giza pyramid angles, I
> >don't think it would be scientific to simply dismiss that as coincidence.
> 
> Are you suggesting that the Egyptians of 2500BC understood
> precession and proper motion well enough to be able to
> identify specific star locations 8,000 years earlier?  Do
> you have any evidence that their scientific and
> mathimatical abilities were advanced enough for this
> understanding?
No, if it turns out that there there is an exact match between the belt 
star angles in 10,500 BC and the three major Giza pyramid angles, I 
would say it is more likely that:  1) The three pyramids were at least 
planned, if not actually constructed, in 10,500 BC; or 2) Knowledge of 
the belt star postions in 10,500 BC was passed down from generation to 
generation until about 2600 BC, when the pyramids were built to 
commemmorate the positions of the belt stars in 10,500 BC.

In article , dbarnes@liv.ac.uk (Dan Barnes) wrote:
> In article <584qot$p0j@news.sdd.hp.com>, geroldf@sdd.hp.com says...
> >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
> need. From these results it is not suprising that a people who have spent a long 
> time living exclusively in rain forests would develop a decrease in height. It 
> would seem that if Ruff's analysis is valid that it is an example of parallel 
> evolution - with two groups of people adapting to similar environmental 
This whole discussion is based on the proposition that height is determined
by genetics.  This is not true.  The average caucasian height was 5'4" only
a century ago, and has varied up and down with diet for centuries. It
takes at least two generations of changed diet to express fully, probably
because of maternal influences.
Put them on a beefsteak and bean diet for two generations and then measure
their height.  Until then, you have no data whatever.
-- Larry

Kevin Goldstein (kg@kg.com) wrote:
: Eliyah  wrote:
: >Traditions are found everywhere.
: >EXAMPLE
: >One says Nimrod lived or reigned 52 years,
: >another says he lived or reigned 500 years.
: * rest snipped *
: This post is completely inappropriate to this newsgroup. This group is
: for the discussion of scientific methods for extending life span.
: Discussions like this do not belong on this newsgroup.
So what?  Why do you state the obvious?  This trash doesn't belong on any 
of these news groups.  These are the mad ravings of a village idiot.  He 
will post them where he pleases without regard to the sensibilities of 
others.  To respond to them just gives them longer life.  To request 
respite for your favorite newsgroup is futile.  Learn to use the killfile 
feature of your news reader.  Most importantly, relax, take a deep breath 
and think a happy thought; you'll live longer.
--
              A_A     
John Davis   (o o)    "An injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere."
----------oOO-(^)-OOo----------------------------------------------------
               ~               Samual Johnson
jrdavis@databasix.com

Dan Ullén  wrote:
>I just want make people aware that there is a moderated archaeology
>group. Ed Conrad can be quite amusing at times, but I hate having to
>wade through all of the speculations and paranoia here to get to the
>good bits. So please, join me as I abandon this group for
>sci.archaeology.moderated.
>Doug Weller, please keep knocking the nutties on the head, you rather
>seem to enjoy it, but do come over for a cup of tea at
>sci.archaeology.moderated once in a while.
>
>Dan Ullén
>Stockholm
>Sweden
Bravo Dan!
Yes, Ed and the other nuts can be very entertaining and have certainly
brought life to sci.arch. However, once having our attention, the nuts
fail to appease the appetite with intelligent  discussion. 
See you in sci.archaeology.moderated
Peter

"John W. Hoopes"  wrote:
>Brockstroh wrote:
>> 
>> Does anyone know if Peter Tomkins's "Secrets of the Great Pyramid" is
>> considered to be a "good" source on information on the Great Pyramid?
>
>Sure.  It's well known that it is NOT a good source, but includes a
>bunch of baloney designed to sell books.  Another of Tompkins'
>potboilers was "The Secret Life of Plants."  Remember when folks were
>playing music to their houseplants to try and make them grow faster?  If
>you can turn a philodendron on to the Moody Blues, surely a pyramid will
>make your razor blades sharp again...
>
>Got some bucks to throw away?  I'll be glad to take 'em off your hands
>and not leave you as confused as Tompkins' stuff does.
>
>						John Hoopes
I think it's got lots of good info and lore about the pyramids. There is 
nothing  in it going along with making  razor blades sharp. It presents 
all the lore and debates about the pyramids. My plants grow best with 
Berlioz, List, Mahler, and Hovhanes. And Mozart too. Oh yeh and Mohamed 
Abdel Wahab, Om Kalthoum and Rabih Abou-Khalil. Of course plants respond 
to music and a friendly voice.
-- 
_
_____
Greg Reeder
On the WWW
Reeder's Egypt Page
---------------->http://www.sirius.com/~reeder/egypt.html
reeder@sirius.com

Peter,
The only thing smoking here is the chicken.  I think this thread is
overcooked.
Paul pettennude
Peter van Rossum  wrote in article
...
> 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
> 
> 

Greg Reeder  wrote:
>"John W. Hoopes"  wrote:
>>Brockstroh wrote:
>>> 
>>> Does anyone know if Peter Tomkins's "Secrets of the Great Pyramid" is
>>> considered to be a "good" source on information on the Great Pyramid?
>>
>>Sure.  It's well known that it is NOT a good source, but includes a
>>bunch of baloney designed to sell books.  Another of Tompkins'
>>potboilers was "The Secret Life of Plants."  Remember when folks were
>>playing music to their houseplants to try and make them grow faster?  If
>>you can turn a philodendron on to the Moody Blues, surely a pyramid will
>>make your razor blades sharp again...
>>
>>Got some bucks to throw away?  I'll be glad to take 'em off your hands
>>and not leave you as confused as Tompkins' stuff does.
>>
>>						John Hoopes
>
>I think it's got lots of good info and lore about the pyramids. There is 
>nothing  in it going along with making  razor blades sharp. It presents 
>all the lore and debates about the pyramids. My plants grow best with 
>Berlioz, List,
That's Liszt!
> Mahler, and Hovhanes. And Mozart too. Oh yeh and Mohamed 
>Abdel Wahab, Om Kalthoum and Rabih Abou-Khalil. Of course plants respond 
>to music and a friendly voice.
>-- 
>
>_
-- 
_
_____
Greg Reeder
On the WWW
Reeder's Egypt Page
---------------->http://www.sirius.com/~reeder/egypt.html
reeder@sirius.com

Dan Ullén wrote:
> 
> I just want make people aware that there is a moderated archaeology
> group. Ed Conrad can be quite amusing at times, but I hate having to
> wade through all of the speculations and paranoia here to get to the
> good bits. So please, join me as I abandon this group for
> sci.archaeology.moderated.
> Doug Weller, please keep knocking the nutties on the head, you rather
> seem to enjoy it, but do come over for a cup of tea at
> sci.archaeology.moderated once in a while.
Dan,
I'll see you there.  But just one point of Usenet history: 
Doug Weller was the proponent of sci.arch.mod;  he had the 
unenviable task of shepherding its creation.
Regards,
August Matthusen

Group,
Ray Porter confirmed what I said in my previous posting.  There were no
coconuts brought to Precolumbian America by anything other than the ocean's
currents.
As far as Yuri's comments about my "numerous" errors.  Let me convey my
background.  I think once you've read where I've been and what I do, you'll
understand why Yuri has such frustration with my responses to his absurd
claims.  For me archaeology is not my hobby.  It is my life.  I am not some
rookie wannabe in Toronto tied to his computer and reciting from out-of
date texts.  My numerous errors exist only in his imagination.
I am 52 years old and have been a Mesoamerican archaeologist since 1971. 
That puts me in the field for 31 years.  I have a Ph.D. in anthropology. 
My field projects include the Maya sites of: Tikal, Calakmul, Kohunlich,
Caracol, Chichen Itza, Rio Azul, Balakbal, Coba, Santa Rosa Xtampak,
Lamanai, Lake Peten Itza, Lake Atitlan and El Tigre.  I am currently
codirector of the El Tigre Archaeological Project.
My Ph.D. thesis was entitled "Water Storage Technology at Tikal,Guatemala".
 I have been to the bottom of the cenotes at Chichen Itza, the lakes at
Coba, the bottom of the Rio Hondo, the bottom of the New River, the bottom
of the Rio Candelaria, the reservoirs of Caracol and numerous cenotes
throughout the Maya area.  I am a trained cave diver and have dove in
numerous underwater caves once used by early peoples in Mesoamerica. 
When I'm not in the field I am usually knocking about the Maya area at
least three times per year.  I have probably been in at least a thousand
Precolumbian centers in the past 30 years.  I speak Spanish and am able to
hold my own in Yucatec Maya. I go to places where the governments of
Mesoamerica don't sell tickets to tourists.  I have permanent documents
from Mexico, Guatemala, Belize and Honduras allowing me access to any site.
This spring I will be on the Rio Usumacinta covering the sites from Altar
down to Piedras Negras.  My objectives are to locate the canal mentioned in
colonial Spanish documents which assert the Maya built a canal connecting
the Rio Candelaria with the Rio Usumacinta.  I will also be diving in the
Usumacinta at the sites of Altar de Sacrificios, Yaxchilan and Piedras
Negras.  I want to examine the riverbeds at their ports.  I also want to
locate the remains of a large suspension bridge thought to have been at the
site of Yaxchilan.  Surface structures indicate its existence.  I wan to
view this evidence from underwater.
In early summer I will return to the El Tigre area.  This is the ancient
site of Itzamkanac, the heartland of the Chontal Maya.  The whole region is
only now being systematically explored.  Where we're going and what we're
investigating has never been attempted before.  Major new evidence about
Preclassic Maya society and beliefs is being uncovered.  We are literally
writing history.  That's what archaeology is all about.  We have a site
upriver from Itzamkanac now called Cerros de Los Muertos--the hill of the
dead.  It is a giant pyramidal structure which has never been studied (and
never looted).  Cerros has major connections to the Rio Candelaria which
include riverside platforms used for religious activities.  These will be
examined for the first time.  We have a lake at the headwaters of the
Candelaria which contains numerous Preclassic island fortresses which lie
untouched.  We will study these as well.  The work is also proceeding on
land.
Later this year I will be in Belize looking for ports at several ancient
coastal centers.
Just this year alone I have been in 51 sites from Mexico to Honduras,
including the national museums of Mexico, Guatemala and Honduras as well as
the Rosalila Museum at Copan.
Paul E. Pettennude

Brockstroh wrote:
> 
> Does anyone know if Peter Tomkins's "Secrets of the Great Pyramid" is
> considered to be a "good" source on information on the Great Pyramid?
Sure.  It's well known that it is NOT a good source, but includes a
bunch of baloney designed to sell books.  Another of Tompkins'
potboilers was "The Secret Life of Plants."  Remember when folks were
playing music to their houseplants to try and make them grow faster?  If
you can turn a philodendron on to the Moody Blues, surely a pyramid will
make your razor blades sharp again...
Got some bucks to throw away?  I'll be glad to take 'em off your hands
and not leave you as confused as Tompkins' stuff does.
						John Hoopes

Bill Oord wrote:
> Lord Jesus come back quickly and put an end to this nonsense.
Hell, SOMEONE sure needs to!  I have a feeling Jesus would have little
patience for all of this "Christian" garbage.  It's insane how many
millions have been deluded all because poor Paul had a nervous breakdown
(complete with hallucinations) and turned into a Jew-hating evangelical.
It's amazing how collective guilt over the brutal execution of a sweet,
well-meaning, social activist has turned into this bizarre personality
cult.  If Jesus did "come back", he'd undoubtedly be crucified again
(and quickly forgotten this time) by the likes of the Christian
Coalition.  How in the world did people get it so screwed up?

August Matthusen  wrote:
>You got the attributions wrong.  Everything above was written
>by Elijah (Eliyah aka Richard Schiller).  I didn't write any of 
>that.  Ask Richard why he answered me after claiming he wouldn't.
>I couldn't presume to understand how his mind works.
>Regards,
>August Matthusen
Ok, after re-reading the post, I see my error and do apologise, so I
rephrase the question as follows:
Eliyah:
Quick question, and then I will get out of your hair.
If you never answer his questions, then why did you just answer his
question???
Sounds like a contradiction, a paradox....
Just thought I'd point that out.
Topher,
Even those who claim to be gods are not immune to Paradox.

Looks2Sky wrote:
> 
> A question for those who doubt the Biblical Universal/Global flood.  Why is
> it that the vast majority of ethnic groups have "mythological" stories
> dealing with a  World Flood.  From the Polynesians, to the Maya, to the
> Sumerian, to the New Guinean, etc.
Even a *wee* bit of ethnographic research would demonstrate that your
premise is fatally flawed.  Flood stories are nowhere near as prevalent
as you suggest.  Among living groups, it is difficult to prove that most
of those stories existed prior to the arrival of Christian missionaries.
Even IF the vast majority of ethnic groups (however in the hell you
define THOSE) had stories dealing with a "World Flood", what evidence is
there that their conception of "the World" was anything resembling your
own?  None of the groups that you mention was aware of a world much
beyond their own small patch of the globe.  For the Sumerians,a big
deluge on the lower Euphrates would probably make it seem as if most of
their "world" were in fact under water.
Even if a "world wide" flood were not part of cultural memory, flood
myths were for many ancient peoples good working explanations for why so
many remains of even more ancient cultures were buried in stratified
deposits. Today, the same phenomena are readily explained by
sedimentology without resorting to global floods.
Flood stories are not difficult to explain.  The notion of a global
flood is, however, patently ridiculous in light of 20th century
knowledge.

In <32B1E20C.477A@ukans.edu> "John W. Hoopes" 
writes: 
>he
>same island as archaic-looking "missing links", who may have been
>genetically isolated from modern populations for over 100,000 years. 
>This sure rocks my own picture of human evolution.  Not THAT it
>happened, of course, but what new stories about it remain to be told.
>
>The study reportedly appeared in today's issue of "Science".  Does
>anyone have additional information on this data?
>
One day humans on this good 'ol earth are going to wake up to the 
realisation that the mind is not in the brain, but that the brain
is in the mind. They'll *discover* a strange phenomenon known as 
thought induced physiomorphic regression, and find extinct species
of humans suddenly appearing on the earth again. Watch for it in
your favorite sections of _Science_ as the scientists catch up 
once again with reality. Life is a circle.
pmj