Subject: PALEONTOGY CAMP in the URALS, RUSSIA
From: Liza Hollingshead
Date: 15 Dec 1996 17:13:58 GMT
HISTORICAL ECOLOGY RESEARCH COURSE for STUDENTS in the URALS, RUSSIA
sponsored and organised for 7 years by:
Ecologia Foundation, Scotland
EcoInfo Ecology Centre,Ekaterinburg, Russia
Urals Institute of Ecology, Russian Academy of Sciences
HISTORICAL ECOLOGY CAMP: Archaeology & Paleontology
20 July-13 August 1997 £875 / US$1600
3 weeks with Paleontologists from the Urals Institute of Ecology,
Ekaterinburg
Students join scientists on a cave excavation in the South Urals region,
led by Dr Alexander Borodin, Senior Research Scientist. A great
opportunity to work with professionals plus lectures and extensive
practical teaching. Students are encouraged to create on their own
research projects.
Optional extra 3 days in St Petersburg for both groups
13-16 August 1997 £145 / US$250
Departures are from London with the British students unless otherwise
arranged. If you fly direct to Moscow from the US, Canada or Europe the
price will be adjusted accordingly. The cost quoted includes: Return
Airfare London to Moscow, all internal travel in Russia, Ecology
programme, Accommodation and Food, visits to Moscow & Ekaterinburg.
Travel Insurance, Visas & Museum entrance extra.
Travel Insurance is a mandatory extra. UK residents may buy their Travel
Insurance through Ecologia. Residents of all other countries must buy it
at home. Travel Insurance with adequate medical cover is also a
requirement of the Russian Embassy before they will issue a Visa.
Ecologia will arrange Visas for UK Residents. For residents of other
countries Ecologia provide you with Visa Support and detailed
instructions on how to apply for a Visa from your nearest Russian
Embassy.
US University Credit: you may be able to receive credit as a directed or
independent study course through your own university or college. Check
first and then tell us what further information you need on the Russian
scientists, their academic credentials and details of the course they
offer. You may also be in touch with them directly via e-mail:
<<<<< Apply for information SOON as many funding deadlines close in
March >>>>>
To Apply contact:
Ecologia Foundation
The Park, Forres
Moray IV36OTZ Scotland
tel/Fax: +44-(0)1309-690995
Reply To: ecoliza@rmplc.co.uk
*********************
Ecologia Foundation is a registered Scottish Charity engaged in
supporting Russian non-government organisations involved with Youth and
Ecology since 1988.
*********************
Subject: PALEONTOGY CAMP in the URALS, RUSSIA
From: Liza Hollingshead
Date: 15 Dec 1996 17:14:05 GMT
HISTORICAL ECOLOGY RESEARCH COURSE for STUDENTS in the URALS, RUSSIA
sponsored and organised for 7 years by:
Ecologia Foundation, Scotland
EcoInfo Ecology Centre,Ekaterinburg, Russia
Urals Institute of Ecology, Russian Academy of Sciences
HISTORICAL ECOLOGY CAMP: Archaeology & Paleontology
20 July-13 August 1997 £875 / US$1600
3 weeks with Paleontologists from the Urals Institute of Ecology,
Ekaterinburg
Students join scientists on a cave excavation in the South Urals region,
led by Dr Alexander Borodin, Senior Research Scientist. A great
opportunity to work with professionals plus lectures and extensive
practical teaching. Students are encouraged to create on their own
research projects.
Optional extra 3 days in St Petersburg for both groups
13-16 August 1997 £145 / US$250
Departures are from London with the British students unless otherwise
arranged. If you fly direct to Moscow from the US, Canada or Europe the
price will be adjusted accordingly. The cost quoted includes: Return
Airfare London to Moscow, all internal travel in Russia, Ecology
programme, Accommodation and Food, visits to Moscow & Ekaterinburg.
Travel Insurance, Visas & Museum entrance extra.
Travel Insurance is a mandatory extra. UK residents may buy their Travel
Insurance through Ecologia. Residents of all other countries must buy it
at home. Travel Insurance with adequate medical cover is also a
requirement of the Russian Embassy before they will issue a Visa.
Ecologia will arrange Visas for UK Residents. For residents of other
countries Ecologia provide you with Visa Support and detailed
instructions on how to apply for a Visa from your nearest Russian
Embassy.
US University Credit: you may be able to receive credit as a directed or
independent study course through your own university or college. Check
first and then tell us what further information you need on the Russian
scientists, their academic credentials and details of the course they
offer. You may also be in touch with them directly via e-mail:
<<<<< Apply for information SOON as many funding deadlines close in
March >>>>>
To Apply contact:
Ecologia Foundation
The Park, Forres
Moray IV36OTZ Scotland
tel/Fax: +44-(0)1309-690995
Reply To: ecoliza@rmplc.co.uk
*********************
Ecologia Foundation is a registered Scottish Charity engaged in
supporting Russian non-government organisations involved with Youth and
Ecology since 1988.
*********************
Subject: Re: Egyptians not black or white but Egyptian...
From: Saida
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 13:04:19 -0600
I wrote:
> >
> >The ones who have brought up the subject and forced the rest of us to
> >use these terms are the Afrocentrists, themselves, who are so in love
> >with the term "black" even though the extreme ends of the color spectrum > >are difficult to apply to human beings. I prefer
anthropological > >terminology as "caucasoid" and "negroid". Now THESE
are words used in > >Egyptology. Yet I daresay some people would object
to such terms as > >well. I am not fond of this sort of discussion, but
I don't like others > >applying what I regard as false labels to the
ancient Egyptians. As for > >the modern Egyptians, each one has the
right to call himself what he > >likes--but no one has the right--even
the US Census--to tell him what > >category he should fall under.
The Hab:
> It's interesting that a non-Egyptian seems to think that we "call
> [ourselves] what we like"...We are Egyptian like our ancestors
> nine thousand years before us.
Well, there seems to be some difference among you, at least in this
newsgroup, as to what your racial type is. I snipped most of your post
where you quoted a man named Brace as having said Egyptians were
non-white. Since he is not an Egyptian, how can he, according to your
criteria, be in a posiition to comment on the ethnicity of the
Egyptians?
How far back do you know your ancestors? If you're like most of us, not
included in the Almanache de Gotha and sans family trees that unroll
several yards, you probably don't even know who was who five generations
back. Yet you are so certain that the Egyptians of today are exactly
the same ones of five-thousand years ago! How do you know what went
into the mix of your own family and what gives you the right to speak
for every Egyptian for the last five millenia? And tell me this--why
should any other Egyptian not have the right to call himself caucasian
or white, if he chooses, just because you, yourself, have something
against these terms as applied to Egyptians?
As for my view of Egypt's ethnic history, it is the same as the
following quote (which cannot be improved upon for putting the picture
in a nutshell) from the recent "The Dictionary of Ancient Egypt", put
out by the British Museum. This is what modern scholars, for the major
part, agree upon:
"The apparently simple question of the racial origins or characteristic
racial type of the Egyptians is both difficult to answer and in some
measure irrelevant...Examination of human remains from the Predynastic
period shows a mixture of racial types, including negroid, Mediterranean
and European, and by the time that Pharaonic civilization had fully
emerged it was no longer meaningful tolook for a particular Egyptian
racial type, since they were clearly already, to some extent at least, a
mixed population. It is in the context of the Protodynastic period
(c.3100-2900 BC) that the issue of race has often been mostly hotly
debated, with a number of scholars, including W.B. Emery, claiming that
the Predynastic Egyptians were effectively conquered by a new race from
the east. Although the skeletal evidence for this theory is still
considered to be indicative of some kind of physical or racial change,
it is now thought that there was a slower period of transition which
probably involved the indigenous Egyptian population gradually being
infiltrated by a different physical type from Syria-Palestine, via the
Delta Region.
A more fruitful avenue is to inquire how the Egyptians saw themselves.
The answer to this is partly defined in the negative, in that they
clearly did not consider themselves to be either African or Asiatic;
that much is evident from their art and literature. As 'Egyptians' they
were automatically different from all their neighbors, even when certain
individuals may have appeared 'foreign' in their racial characteristics,
as in the case of Maiherpri, who held an important post and yet was
clearly of negroid origins. Clearly, despite the highly developed
iconography of foreigners, it was nevertheless possible for many
different racial types to consider themselves Egyptian. Perhaps the
clearest example of this is the case of the skeletal remains from 'the
tomb of the two brothers' at Rifeh, dating to the Middle Kingdom
(2055-1650 B.C) where the physical appearance of one of the men was
negroid, while that of his brother was more European.
It has recently been argued by certain scholars, notably Martin Bernal,
the author of "The Black Athena", that the Egyptians were essentially a
'black African' culture and that ancient Egypt should therefore be
regarded as a pinnacle of negroid achievement, the artistic and cultural
influence of which instigated the earliest achievements of the Classical
civilizations in the Mediterranean. Bernal's hypothesis might be
accused of missing the essential point, in that 'civilizations' cannot
necessarily be defined in purely racial terms. While the population at
large may consist predominantly of one or another racial group, its
'culture' and the archaeological record of its characteristics are often
the product of the interaction of many racial groups."
This may not be music to everyone's ears, but it is what the evidence
has shown us so far. So, Hab, it may be time that your sweeping
generalities caught up with science. Or can it be that your soul-mates,
those feeding you information, are certain people falsely advertising
themselves on the web as "Egyptologists" and whose input is spurious and
not to be trusted?
Subject: Re: Egyptians not black or white but Egyptian...
From: The Hab
Date: 15 Dec 1996 19:36:44 GMT
Saida wrote:
>I wrote:
>> >
>> >The ones who have brought up the subject and forced the rest of us to
>> >use these terms are the Afrocentrists, themselves, who are so in love
>> >with the term "black" even though the extreme ends of the color spectrum > >are difficult to apply to human beings. I prefer
>anthropological > >terminology as "caucasoid" and "negroid". Now THESE
>are words used in > >Egyptology. Yet I daresay some people would object
>to such terms as > >well. I am not fond of this sort of discussion, but
>I don't like others > >applying what I regard as false labels to the
>ancient Egyptians. As for > >the modern Egyptians, each one has the
>right to call himself what he > >likes--but no one has the right--even
>the US Census--to tell him what > >category he should fall under.
>
>The Hab:
>> It's interesting that a non-Egyptian seems to think that we "call
>> [ourselves] what we like"...We are Egyptian like our ancestors
>> nine thousand years before us.
>
>Well, there seems to be some difference among you, at least in this
>newsgroup, as to what your racial type is. I snipped most of your post
>where you quoted a man named Brace as having said Egyptians were
>non-white. Since he is not an Egyptian, how can he, according to your
>criteria, be in a posiition to comment on the ethnicity of the
>Egyptians?
[snip garbage]
You seem to fail in the realization that I am not commenting on ethnicity
but political/social terms like "white" and "black"...these do not apply
to us...never have and never will. Further, the scientific studies that I
accept are the ones that COMPARE rather than CLASSIFY...for example,
ancient population A is not significantly different that modern
population B...therefore, population A and B are similar. YOU, on the
other hand CLASSIFY...You make a false assumption that Egyptians of today
are different and work from there.
Realize the difference and deal with it.
Long live the true Egyptians.
The Hab
Subject: Re: Egyptian Concrete Theory?
From: cblack@rockisland.com
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 12:31:07 -0600
Dr. Ossian,
What would your opinion be of Dr. Davidovits theory that cast blocks
where set on top of
bedrock.
Regards, Aaron Black (age 11)
In article ,
clastic@metronet.com (clastic Man) wrote:
>
> As a sedimentary geologist who has visited the great pyramids on several
> occassions and examined the stones in the quaries AND in the pyramids, I
> can unequivocably state that the "concrete" idea is nonsense.
>
> The stones are roughly cut, NOT molded, they have cross bedding structures
> and fossil shell "hash" layers exactly like the stone in place in the
> adjacent quarries, the stones are filled with large and small fossils in
> LIFE positions, not in random orientation. And finally I have seen
> geologically prepared thin-sections of these stones and they are without a
> doubt composed of calcium carbonate... calcite...and NOT laced with some
> polymer, natron or whatever.
>
> Davidovitts and Morris are not geologists, have not applied geologic tests
> to the stones and have continued to ignore a blizzard of geological
> rebuttal world-wide
>
> Cheers.........
>
> Dr. Clair R. Ossian
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Subject: Re: "Out of India"
From: piotrm@umich.edu (Piotr Michalowski)
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 16:27:55
In article <591aft$r24@news.ycc.yale.edu> bdiebold@pantheon.yale.edu (Benjamin H. Diebold) writes:
>
>: Including, I must admit, the one about Nevali Cori.
>: What, where, when?
>It is in southeastern Anatolia, just north of Urfa, in a region rich with
>great early sites (Gritille is just across the river, and Cayonu and
>Hallan Cemi are not that far away). It's actually a two-part site, Nevali
>Cori I and Nevali Cori II, divided by a river. The two parts are
>contemporary, though apparently Nevali Cori II has a stronger PPNB
>component. There is also an EBA settlement.
(snip)
Thanks so much! I am very much interested in this area, as I am involved with
Patti Wattenmaker's nearby excavations at Kazane Huyuk, just next to Urfa, and
am collecting information on the area. Kazane also seems to have neolithic
remains, but they are not yet well known (but I expect that they were not
grunting at Kazane either). The site was occupied into the second millennium
and during the third reached almost 100 ha. which makes it considerably bigger
than, let us say, Ebla (c. 60 ha). Two parts of tablets came to light this
summer and I am now struggling to publish them asap and to figure out the
ancient name of the site. Got to get back to work!
Subject: Re: "Out of India"
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 15 Dec 1996 19:19:56 GMT
In article , piotrm@umich.edu says...
>
>In article <58uu98$t2u@fridge-nf0.shore.net> whittet@shore.net (Steve
Whittet) writes:
>>F
>
>>>If you are thinking about Uruk "colonies" up the Euphrates and
>>>elsewhere, this is one instance where we can see different cultures
>>>in one place in the early archaeological record.
>
>>The Simerah flows into the Tigris. I would like to suggest that
>>the Tigris is a different river than the Euphrates. The Simerah
>>has no connection with the Euphrates that I can see. Is this a
>>fair distinction to make? Is there a difference between northern
>>Mesopotamia and southern Mesopotamia? Is there a connection between
>>northern Mesopotamia and Mari down the Habur from the Tigris which
>>is separate and distinct from what goes on around Susa? Is that a
>>fair distinction to make.
>
>I still have no idea what is going on here.
The points:
1.) A single wave of proto elamite/dravidian advance coming
from somewhere in the cluster of sites Miguel named on the Simerah
toward Pakistan led by Neolithic farmers c 8,000 BC makes no sense.
A.) There were many centers
B.) These different centers are influential at different dates
C.) Farmers tend to farm river valleys in preference to deserts
2.) If there is an intermediary proto elamite/dravidian influence
we need to look for it at a different time and place
3.) Looking at sea based as well as land based cultures helps.
> Ofg course The Tigris is a very different river than the Euphrates;
>it is in a different place and has a completely different water flow,
> making it much more difficult to navigate and to irrigate from.
>It is a fair distinction to make, but what is the PURPOSE
>of all of this?
Just that a single wave of advance as described above is unlikely.
> What does the Habur, which flows into the Euphrates have to
>do with all of this? Suddenly, after all this confusion about
>Proto-Elamites and Bakhtiaries (a complete anachronism) we are
>discussing Mari? Why?
1.) Just listing several different nodes on the network
located at different times and places but interacting
in a spatially and temporally local manner rather than
as some major migration. Networking vs Migration
2.) Define proto Elamite. Does your definition embrace
the period c 8,000 BC or the 3rd millenium more closely?
3.) Do you see cultures such as Bakhtaran and Elam as connected?
If not why did you agree Miguels list of sites on the Simerah
whose headwaters are at Bakhtaran was proto Elamite as opposed
to proto Bakhtaran?
>WHy Mari and Babylon during the Jemder Nasr period?
The Elamites eventually reached Babylon, but not so far as I know,
Mari. Consider the fact that this occurs seven millenia after the
period in which Miguel proposed a wave of advance reached Pakistan.
If there were one radial wave of advance from Susa and it was
supposed to reach Pakistan c 8000 BC, how come it never managed
to reach Mari?
> No one would question that there was a difference between cultural
>development in Susa and Mari, but this is a given.
If that is a given, then it doesn't follow Renfrews model of a uniform
radial wave of advance which Miguel has been using.
> You have been throwing around so many names and places that you
>have lost all sight of anything.
This is all still just discovery, be patient and I will connect it
all together as we proceed, unless you have some further objection
the question before you is: What is the definition of proto Elamite?
What is it that makes them what they are. What is it that makes them
not something else.
>What are you trying to say about Mari and Susa?
Mari is not reached by a proto Elamite/Dravidian wave of advance
some seven millenia after it is supposed to have reached Pakistan
so either such a wave never existed or it is directionally focused
toward Pakistan.
>What time period are you talking about?
I am talking about the mid third millenium BC.
>What is your evidence
My evidence is the archaeological evidence of connections between
cultures, or for that matter, the lack of it.
>and what are you trying to prove?
That Mallory, in citing McAlpins idea of a proto Elamite/Dravidian
intermediary language is looking in the wrong place and at the wrong
time to find any such connection. (Esfhan, Iran in the 8th millenium BC)
>
>>> Gil Stein;s excavations on the upper Euphrates apparently allow
>>>us to distinguish parts of a mound occupied by people from
>>>"Uruk" from the locals, as opposed to such places as
>>>Habuba Kebira which were all built by the visitors.
>
>>How does that help us determine if a "wave of advance" model
>>is appropriate to evaluate the ethnic and linguistic interactions
>>of the proto-elamites? Are there proto-elamites on the upper
>>Euphrates in the Jemdet Nasr period?
>
>You seem to have a total lack of comprehension about the debates on
>ethnicity in archeology in recent years. I gave you an example of a
>place where work ins being carried out that provides some interesting
>data on such matters.
Ok, its an interesting digression, can we save it for later?
>Now it turns out that you are only interested in Proto-Elamites.
>Fine, then say something cogent about them. What, to you, is
>Proto-Elamite culture and what does it have to do with your
>imaginary "chlorite culture" and all the other
>squid ink and amoeba stuff you have been peddling here.
The linguistic theory seems to be that there was a
proto-elamite/dravidian intermediary language which
explains the similarity between modern languages in
Pakistan and Iran.
I objected that the dates being thrown around were two early.
Iran was largely uninhabited. I offered as an alternative
that at a later date in the third millenium when Susa and
Anshan are establishing connections, we have an intermediate
culture in place, actually we have two of them, Makkan and Dilmun.
>Most archaeologists have a pretty good idea of what they mean
>when they use the term Proto-Elamite and there is no mystery there.
Ok good. Since you supported Miguels proposal you tell me what
proto-elamite dravidian canditade populations you want to look
at c 8,000 BC.
> As for language, once again, would it be too much to ask to
>say that linguistic arguments need some linguistic facts?
First put some men on the gameboard, then we will open their
mouths and have them tell us where they want to go.
>
>>>I also do not get your insistence on the ceremonial nature
>>>of Susa and Susiana (the latter is a modern idea and is
>>>purely geographical, not ideological).
>
>>The ceremonial nature of the sites as evidenced by altars and the
>>bones of sacrificial animals, as well as by tokens and images,
>>connects to a couple of other things.
>
>That is not the point and you know it. Of course there were
>temples in Susa, but you claimed that the place had no other
>major function and that is simply incorrect.
Urban planners tend to identify the major functions of some
places as markets, soukhs, agoras etc; others are ports,
still others are fortresses or mines or manufacturing centers.
Some places are identified as sacred places, centers of worship.
Susa is identified as such in the literature I have read. If that
is incorrect, tell me what you think its principal function was.
Was it a fortress? was it a port? Is Susa a major agricultural
area?
Tokens, by the way, even in S-B's theories, are not religious but
>economic control items.
>
>>1.) The ceremonial nature of Bahrain with its 200,000 some odd
>>burials and the Babar temple. What did the priestesses of Babar
>>celebrate? Who were the equivalents of Enki and Enlil at Susa?
>
>etc.
>
>SO what? No one denies the significance of religion.
>What does the excavation of a temple have to do with the fact
>that you claimed that Susa was only a religiuous center and
>that its influence was only religious? Once again you
>threw out nonsense and now you are spreading ink.
What do you claim its influence was from which a wave of advance
was emitted to cross the deserts of Iran and reach Pakistan?
>
>
>>2.) The use of Frankincense to mask the odor of the sacrificed
>>animals. Frankincense must have been used in every temple after
>>the 3rd millenium BC. Did ships come from Mohenjo-Daro to Oman
>>to get it?
>
>Whjat evidence do you have of Frankincense, as you call it, in the third
>millennium in India, or for that matter in Mesopotamia? I do know know of
>any, and would be happy for the references.
I believe the recent TV documentary on the lost city of Ubar
indicated that Juris Zahrins had found pottery there dating
to the 3rd millenium BC from all the major neighboring
civilizations. There have been many finds of Harrapan pottery
in Oman.
http://www-dial.jpl.nasa.gov/kidsat/exploration/Explorations_TEAM
/Russell_Moffitt/ubarpage/index.html
They were successful in tracking the Thomas road which was a major
caravan route used for over a thousand years. The artifacts that
Zarins found and examined along the path were from the older
Neolithic Age (6000 B.C to 3500 B.C.) and there were too few
of them to suggest that they were near a settlement such as Ubar.
The team realized that they had been traveling in the wrong direction
on the road and they turned back south to Shisur. At the village
Kristine used a subsurface interface radar system to aid the excavation.
This instrument was used to measure the depth of the rubble in the
area. It turned out that because it extended for a large distance
underground, there were probably ruins below.
In late December 1991, Zarins brought with him four archaeological
students to begin an excavation of the site at Shisur.
Soon they had uncovered evidence of an octagonal fortified city with
30-foot towers and thick walls. Inside were many buildings including
storerooms and a large structure in the center of the settlement.
The well still supplies the village with water. They also discovered
frankincense burners and pottery shards from various regions dating
back to about 2000 B.C. And all the discoveries were recorded by
Clapp and his camera and sound crew for his film; even if it did mean
reenacting great finds for a second time to get it on tape.
From what they uncovered, the legends were fairly accurate in their
descriptions of Ubar and of its fatal conclusion. The real truth
behind it is that the walls were built over a limestone cavern which
probably collapsed sometime during the fourth century when the water
was drained out from the well. The ruins of this once prosperous city
were then buried by the advancing sand dunes. Before its demise, Ubar
might have appeared as a spectacular sight to caravan traders after a
long journey across the Empty Quarter to a city built on many levels.
Northeast of the Ubar site, Zarins discovered small firepits, flint
tools, and pieces of pottery near a now long gone slow-flowing river.
>I know alot about Mesopotamian ritual and there were various
>aromatics used (mainly from Iran, received overland, I am afraid),
>but nothing in the early periods from Arabia. In fact, just
>recently a fascinating texts was published that describes what
>might be the first known major caravan coming from there to
>Mesopotamia, and there is no mention at all of this famous item.
I would like to see more of this site myself, as I recall the
pottery found included some dated to c 3000 BC.
>
>>>I should add that the analogy to Mecca or Jerusalem is
>>>anachronistic, as no really ancient religions of the area
>>>that we know of had similar universalistic or even nationalistic
>>>ideologies nor is there evidence for the kind of pilgrimage
>>>concepts that one has in Islam and certain other religions.
>
>>There are sacred places Ba-maa'ts or high places dedicated
>>to ancient gods in Palestine, some were near Jerusalem though
>>that began which go back to the mid 5th millenium BC perhaps
>>earlier. There is a sacred place in the mountains above Mecca
>>arrived at through Taif. People have assembled together on
>>these places at certain times since the paleolithic.
>
>This has nothing at all to do with cities that quickly grow
>to 100 hectares or so.
Cities grow rapidly because a region has become urban; too many
people trying to do too many things in too small a geographical
area. Some of those things are related to a cities primary function
and other are support services.
>
>>>Do you have any evidence, and I assume that it would have to
>>>be later written evidence, for Susa as a strictly religious
>>center, and for conversion or anything that one could call
>>>"religious advance", whatever that might mean?
>
>>I was thinking of the distribution pattern of tokens and images
>>associated with the worship practiced at Susa. Hollow clay balls,
>>that sort of thing.
>
>Tokens and hollow clay balls have nothing at all to do with worship.
>They are administrative control mechanisms. Temples were, of course,
>mighty economic centers, but it still has nothing to do with your
>sweeping statement about religion.
One way of building political support is to get people who think
they believe in something to let you lead them. As you point out,
a temple is a service industry and can be big business. If you
choose to focus on the economic infrastructure as opposed to the
social psychology of the belief system that's fine. The bottom
line is that the clay balls ended up widely diffused while Susa
itself did not.
>Just one more wrong piece of the puzzle. There is also the minor
>issue of the fact that the clay balls are not "native" but an intrusive,
>short-lived artifact at Susa from Uruk, but that is another story.
By all means feel free to tell it.
>
>We are back full circle. Instead of checking things out and
>concentrating on a few things at a time, you create total chaos
>by throwing out dozens of disconnected facts, many of which are
>simply wrong, and the are suprised when the scatter produces only
negative reactions.
It takes a while for generalists and specialists to learn to
work together since the methodologies are essentially direct
opposites.
>It would be so refreshing if you surprised us all by saying
>something that makes some kind of historical and logical sense
>and were not bolstered by confused chronology and wrong
>data. How about a new year's peresent?
Let's give that a shot.
By the 3rd millenium BC a trade network existed which
included both land and sea routes connecting India with
Mesopotamia and points beyond through at least two
intermediate cultures, Dilmun and Makkan.
A trade connection in the 3rd millenium is at least as viable a
mechanism for the diffusion of language as a proto-elamite/dravidian
wave of advance in the 8th millenium.
steve
>
Subject: Re: "Out of India"
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 15 Dec 1996 19:58:09 GMT
In article , piotrm@umich.edu says...
>
>
>>bdiebold@pantheon.yale.edu (Benjamin H. Diebold) wrote:
>
>>>The neolithic is an exciting period, but neither you nor anyone
>>>else knows what's going on linguistically before then. Most people
>>>I know think language really got underway in the Middle Paleolithic,
>>>when Homo Sapiens emerged and began engaging in symbolic expression.
Homo Sapiens had the ability to speak c 200,000 BC
Advanced hunters painting caves in france c 30,000 BC
The Neolithic comes after c 8,000 BC
Written language begins with Sumer and Akkad c 3000 BC
It is entirely possible to begin speaking with grunts and growls
and in the period between the start of the Paleolithic and the start
of the Neolithic to make as much progress in 22,000 years as in
the entire preceeding 170,000 years.
You could go on to say in the period between the start of the
Neolithic and the start of written language people made as much
progress in 5,000 years as in the entire preceeding 22,000 years.
>>>Do you think the people who built Catal Huyuk, Abu Hureyra,
>>>Jericho, and Nevali Cori (the great PPNA site no one's ever heard of)
>>>only grunted at each other?
No, but I don't think they had an extensive vocabulary either.
>>>Were the great cave painters of the Upper Paleolithic in France
>>>incapable of speech? We already know that Neanderthals were
>>>perfectly capable of speech,biologically.
I don't know as I would confuse the ability to speak with
the ability to communicate effectively with a common language.
If you will allow that people in the Neolithic made as much
linguistic progress as in the entire preceeding 22,000 years,
and that the advanced hunters who preceeded the Neolithic and
painted the walls of caves in France c 30,000 BC had similarly
progressed over the Homo Sapiens who first developed the capacity
of speech, would you go on to say that people continued to advance
their linguistic skills?
Did this development come to an end with the invention of writing
and as of that point we have remained essentially possessed of
exactly the same language as was used in Sumer and Akkad or have
we continued to double our ability to communicate in shorter and
shorter periods of time?
>
>How refreshing! We are finally getting beyond nonsense
>(the idea that Neolithic people communicated by token
>rather than natural language!) and into the realm of reality.
The question is: Has the rate of increase in linguistic capability
not increased at all in the last 200,000 years?, or if it has
increased, has it increased steadily at about the same rate,
or has the rate of increase increased at an increasing rate?
>This is, of course, the area where the nostraticists
>and other grand comparativists come in. There had been attempts by
>Cavalli-Sfortza and his colleagues to map DNA distribution and modern
>languages in order to try to figure out ancient linguistic distribution.
Does this make sense to you Piotr? Think of the languages spoken
by advanced hunters as analagous to indiginous hunter gatherer
peoples being overwhelmed by a wave of advance of farmers. How
much of the indiginous culture or language gets preserved?
>This was highly ahistorical to start with and I remember reading
>that some recent research had undermined their findings.
Such as for example the survival of Homo Erectus with out the
ability of speech alongside modern Homo Sapiens with the ability
of speech.
> Perhaps someone can help with this. The interesting fact is
>that it looks now as if we have to deal with major, relatively
>quick linguistic replacement in antiquity rather than with slow
>diffusion (this would go against Steve's slow amoeba model),
No. Sorry Piotr, but I favor the rapid replacement model. What
I don't think works is the long slow tedious wave of advance
model proposed by Renfrew. The reason I used the organic
analogy was that I see many small independently invented
attempts at language coalescing into one unified consensus.
How long does that take? My thought is that it is very similar
to what happens with all the other urban interactions we have
observed.
It goes pretty quick, in hundreds rather than thousands of years.
>and this makes the connection between material culture and language
>particularly difficult to make.
Why?
> If we look at the evidence for Hurrian, and, more visibly, for more
>than one West Semitic spread (Amorite, Aramaic, and the latter. although
>more recent, is in many ways the more problematical), we see rather quick
>replacement in a very large area.
Why wouldn't that be exactly what we would expect to see?
> This does not always mean that all elements of culture chance.
>In the case of Amorite there are many connections with earlier
>cultural elements, and if we did not have personal names from a
>very large area of Western Asia, we would never guess that such
>a quick spread had taken place.
Why not?
> Therefore, it is extremely difficult to make any intelligent
>guesses about linguistic identity in the paleolithic, although
>I would, on theoretical grounds, assume that the species was
>yakking away very nicely, thank you.
The basic question remains the same.
The question is: Has the rate of increase in linguistic capability
not increased at all in the last 200,000 years?, or if it has
increased, has it increased steadily at about the same rate,
or has the rate of increase increased at an increasing rate?
>Even the nostraticists, as their tools become more refined,
>are being more cautious about their reconstructions and are
>questioning the range of Nostratic. It now appears that they
>will not be including Afroasiatic within this macro-family,
>and that raises many new questions.
No Egyptian? Why doesn't that seem to make any sense?
steve
Subject: Re: "Out of India"
From: mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal)
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 20:56:27 GMT
piotrm@umich.edu (Piotr Michalowski) wrote:
>There had been attempts by
>Cavalli-Sfortza and his colleagues to map DNA distribution and modern
>languages in order to try to figure out ancient linguistic distribution. This
>was highly ahistorical to start with and I remember reading that some recent
>research had undermined their findings. Perhaps someone can help with this.
I don't know if it helps, but I can repeat what I said about Merritt
Ruhlen's use of Cavalli-Sforza's data in support of his Proto-World and
similar theories (from my review of Merrit Ruhlen "On the Origin of
Language" on sci.lang some time ago):
|As a final argument for the validity of the "Greenberg method" in
|general and Amerind and Na-Dene in particular, Ruhlen again discusses
|Cavalli-Sforza's human genetic taxonomy, and its relation to linguistic
|classification, as he did in "Volume 1". The same figure is reproduced,
|and I really don't know why... Mapping Cavalli- Sforza's results 1-to-1
|unto linguistic "groupings" (and ignoring the really clever [misleading
|might be a better word] way in which the graphic was composed), the
|classification of the world's languages should be:
|
|1. Pygmy [no such language family]
|2. Niger-Kordofanian [does not include Bantu]
|3. Nilo-Bantu [Bantu goes with Niger-Kord.]
|4. Koisan-Cushitic [Cushitic goes with Afro-Asiatic]
|5. Afro-European [European goes with Indo-]
|6. Sardinian [no such language family]
|7. Indo-Dravidian [Indo- goes with European]
|8. Saami (Lappish) [Saami goes with Uralic]
|9. Ural-Altaic [not generally recognized]
|10. Tibetan-Korean-Japanese [Tibetan goes with Sino-]
|11. Ainu [Ainu goes with Kor/Jap?]
|12. Turkic-Chukchi-Eskimo [Turkic goes with Altaic]
|13. Amerind
|14. Na-Dene
|15. Sino-Austric [Sino- goes with Tibetan]
|16. Nesian [Nesian goes with Austro-]
|17. Papuan-Australian [not generally recognized]
|
|In fact, the ONLY linguistic groupings correctly identified are Na-Dene
|and Amerind, and even here I don't really believe it applies to
|Apache-Navajo, does it?
<>
The above is a somewhat malicious assessment, but it stresses the fact
that 1-to-1 correspondences between language and DNA should not be
expected. For instance, the title of this thread ("Out of India")
refers to one such discrepancy (item 7. in the above list).
>Even the nostraticists, as their tools become more refined, are
>being more cautious about their reconstructions and are questioning the range
>of Nostratic. It now appears that they will not be including Afroasiatic
>within this macro-family, and that raises many new questions.
This depends on which Nostraticists you're talking to. The "Moscow
School" is based on Illich-Svitych's work, and his original proposal
included:
WESTERN GROUP:
- Afro-Asiatic
- Kartvelian
- Indo-European
EASTERN GROUP:
- Uralic
- Altaic (incl. Korean)
- Dravidian
Starostin, an influential member of the "Moscow School" has indeed
suggested that Afro-Asiatic should be considered a sister-language of
Nostratic, and that Dravidian is the most divergent member within
Nostratic proper. I do not know what this is based upon.
The Greenberg-Ruhlen school opts for "Eurasiatic", a language phylum
consisting of (from right to left):
Eskimo-Aleut, Chukchi-Kamchatkan, Gilyak, Ainu, Japanese, Korean,
Altaic, Yukaghir, Uralic, Indo-European.
Ruhlen argues for Amerind as a sister language of Eurasiatic, while
Starostin for his part argues for Dene-Caucasian as a sister language of
Nostratic.
This Dene-Caucasian family is a construct built on Starostin's
connection of Yeniseian (Ket) and North-Caucasian [itself linked to
Hurrian and Hattic in other proposals] (which seems plausible to me),
combined with Sapir's old idea of a connection between Na-Dene and
Sino-Tibetan (I'm not convinced by what I've seen). Ruhlen et al.,
despite what Piotr says above about caution, have added to
Dene-Caucasian such diverse items as Burushaski, Nahali, Sumerian and
Basque. The evidence adduced is completely insufficient, in my opinion.
To end on a positive note:
While there is still an awful lot of work to do in the matter of
long-range comparisons, and the work to date has been of mixed quality,
I am sympathetic to it in principle. I think there is enough
circumstantial evidence to warrant a full-scale investigation. I know
most linguists would not agree, and consider it a complete waste of
time. As a "Neo-neo-grammarian" I think most linguists have been
wasting their time anyway, this century, so I say what the heck :-)
What the evidence so far seems to indicate (really simplifying here) are
some very large and wide-spread families in what can roughly be
described as the "Northern Hemisphere": Nostratic/Eurasiatic [minus
Afro-Asiatic and Elamo-Dravidian], Dene-Caucasian [minus Burushaski-
Nahali-Sumerian-Basque] and Amerind. This contrasts with the situation
in the "Southern Hemisphere", where we have at least: Khoisan,
Niger-Kordofanian, Nilo-Saharan, Afro-Asiatic, Basque, Sumerian,
Elamo-Dravidian, Burushaski, Nahali, Austric (=Austro-Asiatic, Miao-Yao,
Daic and Austronesian), Andamanese, Papuan, Australian and Tasmanian.
This agrees well with what Philip Deitiker says in a recent posting to
this newsgroup (in the "Negrito" thread), about the relative genetic
uniformity of the Eurasiatic-Amerind populations compared to Africa and
Melanesia. Always keeping in mind, of course, that DNA is not language,
just like pots [or stone tools in this case] are not language either.
It also might relate to what Ben Diebold has said about the Middle
Paleolithic. The long range comparisons seem to suggest that Homo
Sapiens spread over the world in two stages: first (Middle Paleolithic?)
Africa, the Near East, India and SE Asia. More recently (Upper
Paleolithic?): Europe, Northern Asia and America. Genetics, archaeology
and linguistics can work together to trace our ancestors' steps as they
spread out over the world. Isn't that's great?
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal ~ ~
Amsterdam _____________ ~ ~
mcv@pi.net |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig
Subject: Re: The Bridegroom is back
From: chris king
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 11:03:26 +0000
Please remember: Use Alta Vista search to find "Genesis of Eden"
There you will find the source - the unfolding Path of the Seed.
Please post a copy of any comment to: king@math.auckland.ac.nz.
I will reply to these comments only for a finite period.
The course of history will not be changed by personal argument.
_________________________________________________________
Next clarification is to the materialist skeptic PFC:
1. > 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". :)
In the crucifixion, Jesus attempted to force the arrival of the immortal
Kingdom by rejecting the original sin of Eve, which was believed to be
responsible for the Fall. This 'fall' is still with us as ecocrisis and
genetic holocaust. All monotheistic patriarchal religions: Judaism,
Christianity, Islam, Krishna etc. believe that there is another bodyless
heaven where the imperfect 'world' is left behind. This causes us to
fail to take responsibility for the living world in which we exist,
perpetuating the fall, through patriarchal belief in dominion over
nature - a sky-father earth-mother fallacy which nearly brought nuclear
death and could yet destroy is all.
2. > 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 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 an evolutionary biologist with published work in Genetica and the
Journal of Theoretical Biology. Neither atoms nor exact genetic
structures persist - ALL is flux, but the biosphere has no fixed
lifespan, and each of us exists in an unbroken generative web from the
source. By understanding how we fit with this immortal web we become an
integral part of it and can promote the unfolding evolutionary future
and rejoice emotionally, because as conscious beings we can also
experience the eternal conscious mind and understand the divine
connecting principle of creation across space-time - transactional
supercausality, the ultimate Tao of physics.
3. > Our immortality cannot be destroyed, because it never
> existed - period.
Our collective immortality does exist, but not for long given our
current destructive attitudes. It is the pathetic fallacy of
mechanistic materialism which doesn't actually exist in the implicate
order of quantum mechanics (See Bertrand Russell's quote at the end).
4. > 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"
Another defensive male. He who insults Robert Graves insults poetry
itself. He who insults the White Goddess will become the 'stuff of
nightmares'. The time is long overdue for men to stop regarding
womankind as - 'their dates', 'their possessions' or the passive
receptacle of male fertility.
5. I am posting this to sci.sceptic because I am aware of the pathetic
fallacy of materialism as noted by Bertrand Russel - and its resolution:
"Such in outline, but even more purposeless, more devoid of meaning is
the world which science presents for our belief. Amid such a world, if
anywhere, our ideals henceforward must find a home. That man is the
product of causes that had no previson of the end they were achieving;
that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his
beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that
no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve
an individual life beyond the grave, that all the labours of the ages,
all the devotion, all the inspirations, all the noon-day brightness of
human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar
system, and that the whole temple of man's achievement must inevitably
be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins - all these things,
if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no
philosophy that rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the
scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding
despair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built. ... Brief
and powerless is man's life, on him and all his race the slow, sure doom
falls pitiless and dark ... "
Subject: Re: TIME Magazine (Nov 25) humans living 420 years
From: Morris
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 17:33:03 -0800
SteveB wrote:
>
>
>
> Wow! Such authoritative statements this poster is making. Don't fool
> yourself -- just because "modern science" says something doesn't make it
> so. Science, by nature, constantly changes its "facts" based on whatever
> evidence is at hand and upon whatever the latest theories are in fashion.
And so do Christians. Theologians are constantly changing their
positions
on various issues to keep up with science. It is Science that is on the
cutting edge. And your dark ages mythology is always trying to keep pace
and to me its a joke. Your are right that science constantly changes
its
position based on new facts...but so does religion. The difference is
this: At least science is honest enough to say "we do not really know
any of this for certain but based on the available facts, this is our
best explanation. Christians on the other hand are so damn arrogant and
sure in their beliefs that they say "I know this and I know that blah
blah
blah" My response is, you can't really know anything. As for certain
facts we can be reasonably certain but everything is subject to change
.....I guess with the exception of Christians silly mythologies!
It must be carved in stone....or better yet on some stone tablets.
another thing I am sick of hearing from these Christians is this little
line....I know you all have heard it right....."Well I know in my heart
that
jesus loves me" or other such non-sense. The bottom line is that this
phrase
is stupid, ignorant, and indicative of the IQ level of the people we are
dealing with here. The heart is an organ that pumps blood up to your
brain.
It does'nt "know" anything you bunch of dolts!. The heart can not
"know"
and process information...the brain does that. You goofs should spend
some time in a class room or, if you have already gone....go back and
actually
learn something this time! How about this one? "Well I feel in my
heart....
blah blah blah...." I mean is this stupid or what? For the last
time....
THE HEART IS A BIG BLOODY DAMN ORGAN. It does'nt know, feel etc....
Do we have any Christian doctors on here? If so.....you should be
ashamed
of yourself. You are a disgrace. The next time you are operating on
someone
stop and just start praying.......and watch the person DIE! And then get
sued by people like me for malpractice! "Well if its god's will"
Have you heard this idiotic line before. Is this not the most ignorant
thing you have ever heard.
I read a study the other day that concluded that educational levels,
socio-economic status, and IQ go down as belief in religious ideas
go up. For some reason I am not shocked at this. Does this mean that
there are no intelligent, well educated christians? Well obviously
not! (they should be ashamed too....damn traitors!) But the point is
this: People are more likely to sit in church on sunday and cry and
blubber and wave their hands around singing "bringing in the sheaves
bringing in the sheaves....", if they are ignorant and uneducated.
This makes sense to me. After church they go back to their paneled
trailor homes and eat tuna casserole and watch the Walton's and
blubber about John Boy being such a sweet boy....God I'am going to
puke just thinking about.
> The absolute truth of Newton's description of the physical world
As opposed to what other world? The halls of Valhalla? Nirvana?
Heaven (you know the place right...angels and harps and streets of
gold for all the mistreated jews and ignorant Gentiles.) The 7th
dimension? The Klingon home world? Come on people, mythology
is mythology.....lets get REAL! Why can you Christians not just admit,
in fact, have the courage to admit, that we are going to rot in the
damn ground! Thats it. Game over. End of the line. See ya....would'nt
want to be ya. Yes folks, it's that simple.....your born, you live,
along the way you have a little fun, screw around, reproduce, defecate,
laugh, cry, get in a few heated debates....(like this one) and then
you die AND ROT! A little honesty does the mind well. You will be
all much better off when you can accept this fact and come to grips
with it and quit clinging to all those old silly ass mythologies of
heaven and hell and this that and the other...YOU PEOPLE ARE HOLDING
BACK THE SPECIES.....GO AWAY PLEASE! LEAVE! THANKS FOR CALLING!
> overturned by Einstein... etc... As to Darwin, even die-hard modern
> evolutionists have problems with Darwin's model. Paleontologists
> recently came to the conclusion that dinosaurs were warm-blooded and
> birdlike.
Well there would be no Paleontologist today if we had listened to the
backward dumbass's in the dark ages that were beating and whipping
themselves
waiting for jesus to come back. Religion has a long history of
intolerance
to Science...but it is Science and technology that has provided us with
everything we have.......including newsgroups and E-mail!
In fact you Christians do not belong on here at all. You need to move
back
in a cave somewhere and wait for Jesus to come get you and take you
away!
If it were not for science and the genius of a few talented
people.....you
would not be reading this post! God did'nt create the internet! The
continual
evolution and progression of our species has been directly related to
the
degree to which we have been willing to discard religious theories,
shake them
off and move on! At some point in our past I can imagine some cave man
looking
at an erupting volcanoe and saying......."all power to the fire god!"
Science has since been able to provide us with quite adequate
explanations
of Volcanic activities. It is a pattern that has continued throughout
human
history. Religious explanations give us a temporary explanation until
some
more rational theory can shed more light on the subject, at which time
the
mystical, is then discarded. Demon possession becomes epilepsy. The
fire
god becomes a Volcanic eruption....you get the idea. My point is this:
If we can understand that this is indeed the process.....what is
actually
going on...then why do we not just go ahead and discard all the
mystical\
religious theories outright. Its obvious they serve no purpose other
than
to provide some peace of mind to their frighten, pitiful adherents.
Lets dump it all. If science can not explain something then we will
just
say "we don't know yet...." Imagine that! New concept!
I mean is it so crucial that we know the answer to everything that if we
can not fiqure it out we have to resort to Mythology. Have we as a
species
not at least progressed passed that stage?
Now the latest fad is to say that they really were
> cold-blooded after all. From what evidence? A bunch of fossilized
> bones? It really is possible for someone to have more education than his
> intelligence is capable of bearing. It is simply foolish to say that
> science has all the answers. Today's scientific "proof" has a way of
> becoming tomorrow's primitive explanations about the world.
I have already covered this....Science does not have all the answers but
lets not "make up" shit to cover the gaps in our knowledge.
>
> BTW, the Bible does not give the age of the earth. And how can you say
> with certainty that there was not a flood, or that the earth was not
> created in six days? (At least get your story straight -- the Bible says
> six, not seven.) Were you there when it happened? Don't overestimate
> the power of human reasoning. We are but gnats compared to the Creator
> of the universe.
I am not a Gnat.......speak for yourself.....I think Christians need to
bolster their self confidence and quit referring to the Human race as
Gnats! We have done a whole lot better than Gnats..I do not see any
Gnat footprints on the Moon!.
>
>
>
Subject: Re: Egyptians not black or white but Egyptian...
From: Saida
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 16:27:17 -0600
The Hab wrote:
>
> Saida wrote:
> >I wrote:
> >> >
> >> >The ones who have brought up the subject and forced the rest of us to > >> >use these terms are the Afrocentrists, themselves, who are so
in love > >> >with the term "black" even though the extreme ends of the
color spectrum > >are difficult to apply to human beings. I prefer
> >anthropological > >terminology as "caucasoid" and "negroid". Now THESE > >are words used in > >Egyptology. Yet I daresay some people
would object > >to such terms as > >well. I am not fond of this sort of
discussion, but > >I don't like others > >applying what I regard as
false labels to the > >ancient Egyptians. As for > >the modern
Egyptians, each one has the > >right to call himself what he >
>likes--but no one has the right--even
> >the US Census--to tell him what > >category he should fall under.
> >
> >The Hab:
> >> It's interesting that a non-Egyptian seems to think that we "call
> >> [ourselves] what we like"...We are Egyptian like our ancestors
> >> nine thousand years before us.
> >
> >Well, there seems to be some difference among you, at least in this
> >newsgroup, as to what your racial type is. I snipped most of your post > >where you quoted a man named Brace as having said Egyptians were
> >non-white. Since he is not an Egyptian, how can he, according to your > >criteria, be in a posiition to comment on the ethnicity of the
> >Egyptians?
>
> [snip garbage]
>
> You seem to fail in the realization that I am not commenting on ethnicity > but political/social terms like "white" and "black"...these
do not apply > to us...never have and never will.
What is this crap? In another thread running concurrently you told a
gentleman named Assad that Egyptians couldn't possibly be considered
white. It seems to me that you are, indeed, dealing in that
terminology. I am contradicting you by saying that it is my belief that
many Egyptians are caucasian people. Call that white, beige, pink,
yellow or whatever you like. But it's not black.
Further, the scientific studies that I
> accept are the ones that COMPARE rather than CLASSIFY...for example,
> ancient population A is not significantly different that modern
> population B...therefore, population A and B are similar.
I go for that.
YOU, on the
> other hand CLASSIFY...You make a false assumption that Egyptians of today > are different and work from there.
Different from what? Which Egyptians have I classified? I gave you the
opinions of scientists and you called it "garbage". Excuse us all if we
don't bow down to your superior knowledge. The man called you a
"mixture of arrogance and ignorance", something like that. I can't
think of a better description.
>
> Realize the difference and deal with it.
I fully realize the difference between you and myself and can only be
grateful for it.
>
> Long live the true Egyptians.
>
> The Hab
I notice every time you get on the subject of Egyptian ethnicity, you
start this flag-waving "long live the Egyptians" stuff like you, living
in Toronto most of your life, were the expert on all things Egyptian and
anybody who disagrees with you is against Egyptians. Who is supposed to
be impressed by this? You treat the Egyptians like they were ignorant
old-time fellahin in the fields, like they didn't know a thing, couldn't
think for themselves, and need you to tell them what's what. Every time
you cry "long live the real Egyptians" they should rally behind you like
a bunch of blind followers with you, the big shot, as their leader. I
don't think you've been elected king yet, ya faret el habs. Ya Misriyye,
Allah yahfazek! Whomever you feel that you are, let no man tell you
otherwise.
Subject: Re: TIME Magazine (Nov 25) humans living 420 years
From: Shez
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 21:54:44 +0000
In article <32bd2f3d.17218679@news.ezo.net>, SteveB
writes
>BTW, the Bible does not give the age of the earth. And how can you say
>with certainty that there was not a flood, or that the earth was not
>created in six days? (At least get your story straight -- the Bible says
>six, not seven.) Were you there when it happened? Don't overestimate
>the power of human reasoning. We are but gnats compared to the Creator
>of the universe.
>
>SteveB
First the creator is all loving, all knowing, and would not miss the
fall of a sparrow, and now were all gnats.
If the earth were created in six days, the why bother to make the earth
look vastly old, why the dinasore bones, why the evidence of huge ice
ages, and the evidence of vastly old volcanos, and the shifting of
continents.
perhaps hitch hikers guide to the Galaxy was right, and the creator or
at least his workmen, had a sense of humour.
--
Shez shez@oldcity.demon.co.uk
The 'Old Craft' lady http://www.oldcity.demon.co.uk/
------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Egyptians not black or white but Egyptian...
From: The Hab
Date: 16 Dec 1996 00:31:27 GMT
Saida wrote:
>The Hab wrote:
>>
>> Saida wrote:
>> >I wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >The ones who have brought up the subject and forced the rest of us to > >> >use these terms are the Afrocentrists, themselves, who are so
>in love > >> >with the term "black" even though the extreme ends of the
>color spectrum > >are difficult to apply to human beings. I prefer
>> >anthropological > >terminology as "caucasoid" and "negroid". Now THESE > >are words used in > >Egyptology. Yet I daresay some people
>would object > >to such terms as > >well. I am not fond of this sort of
>discussion, but > >I don't like others > >applying what I regard as
>false labels to the > >ancient Egyptians. As for > >the modern
>Egyptians, each one has the > >right to call himself what he >
>>likes--but no one has the right--even
>> >the US Census--to tell him what > >category he should fall under.
>> >
>> >The Hab:
>> >> It's interesting that a non-Egyptian seems to think that we "call
>> >> [ourselves] what we like"...We are Egyptian like our ancestors
>> >> nine thousand years before us.
>> >
>> >Well, there seems to be some difference among you, at least in this
>> >newsgroup, as to what your racial type is. I snipped most of your post > >where you quoted a man named Brace as having said Egyptians were
>> >non-white. Since he is not an Egyptian, how can he, according to your > >criteria, be in a posiition to comment on the ethnicity of the
>> >Egyptians?
>>
>> [snip garbage]
>>
>> You seem to fail in the realization that I am not commenting on ethnicity > but political/social terms like "white" and "black"...these
>do not apply > to us...never have and never will.
>
>What is this crap? In another thread running concurrently you told a
>gentleman named Assad that Egyptians couldn't possibly be considered
>white. It seems to me that you are, indeed, dealing in that
>terminology. I am contradicting you by saying that it is my belief that
> many Egyptians are caucasian people. Call that white, beige, pink,
>yellow or whatever you like. But it's not black.
Ignorant boy, Caucasian is a racial term and "white" is
social/political...We may be Caucasian (in that we are closest physically
to Caucasians than non-Caucasians) but we certainly aren't "white". Try
to understand this point.
> Further, the scientific studies that I
>> accept are the ones that COMPARE rather than CLASSIFY...for example,
>> ancient population A is not significantly different that modern
>> population B...therefore, population A and B are similar.
>
>I go for that.
Then GIVE ME ONE anthropological comparison study that claims we are
different than the ancestors.
> YOU, on the
>> other hand CLASSIFY...You make a false assumption that Egyptians of today > are different and work from there.
>
>Different from what? Which Egyptians have I classified? I gave you the
>opinions of scientists and you called it "garbage". Excuse us all if we
>don't bow down to your superior knowledge. The man called you a
>"mixture of arrogance and ignorance", something like that. I can't
>think of a better description.
Ignorance has never been a friend of mine. If you think that I claim some
sort of superiority, you are in fact reflecting upon yourself. It is you
who has some sort of inferiority complex...why do you assume that I think
I am superior than you?
>> Realize the difference and deal with it.
>
>I fully realize the difference between you and myself and can only be
>grateful for it.
Again, you insult me. Why do you feel the need to?
>Long live the true Egyptians.
>>
>> The Hab
>
>I notice every time you get on the subject of Egyptian ethnicity, you
>start this flag-waving "long live the Egyptians" stuff like you, living
>in Toronto most of your life, were the expert on all things Egyptian and
>anybody who disagrees with you is against Egyptians.
Everyone who denies the Egyptian continuity is against Egyptians. And
Toronto has nothing to do with my Egyptian identity.
>Who is supposed to
>be impressed by this? You treat the Egyptians like they were ignorant
>old-time fellahin in the fields, like they didn't know a thing, couldn't
>think for themselves, and need you to tell them what's what. Every time
>you cry "long live the real Egyptians" they should rally behind you like
>a bunch of blind followers with you, the big shot, as their leader. I
>don't think you've been elected king yet, ya faret el habs. Ya Misriyye,
>Allah yahfazek! Whomever you feel that you are, let no man tell you
>otherwise.
I feel that I am Egyptian and no man shall tell me otherwise.
The Hab
Subject: Re: Dating the Giza Pyramids
From: Rodney Small
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 09:34:05 -0800
armata@vms.cis.pitt.edu wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> I think the words "exact match" need to be seriously defined here.
> How exact? The shift in the positions of the belt stars relative to
> the meridian are infinitesimal from century to century, let alone
> year to year. Trying to pin the pyramid angles to the star angles of
> a certain year or even century won't hold water if any wiggle room at all
> is allowed in the exactness of the match. The best that could be claimed
> is a match to a span of several thousand years, depending on the wiggle
> room allowed.
>
> And wiggle room has to be allowed--the pyramids do not culminate in
> nice bright hard points at the top that we can use as our measuring
> points. They are old, and their apices (?) have been weathered down.
> The best we could do is extrapolate from the base and sides to figure
> out just where the apex should be, but the base and sides are not
> exact themselves, so extrapolating from them cannot give us an
> exact apex point. We don't have any precise points on the ground
> to compare to the precise points of the stars in the sky. The argument
> is, well, pointless (yuk yuk).
As I have previously posted, based on the current best evidence, the relative angles of
the belt stars have in fact changed significantly since 10,500 BC. While I agree that
the change is minor from century to century, you may not be aware of another aspect of
Bauval's correlation theory, which I have not seen challenged. According to him, in
10,500 BC the Milky Way as seen from the Giza Plateau appeared to be a celestial
extension of the Nile simultaneous with the belt stars reaching meridian transit at
their lowest point in the 26,000 year precessional cycle; i.e., in 10,500 BC the belt
stars as seen from Giza were just above the horizon at meridian transit with the Milky
Way to the east directly above the Nile. Accordingly, the unique configuration of the
Milky Way and belt stars with the Nile would have been eye-catching even to a casual
observer and may have led to the pyramid builders positioning the three major pyramids
in the same relationship to the Nile as the belt stars then bore to the Milky Way.
Therefore, if it can be established that the belt star angles were the same (within,
let us say, 1/4 degree, which is about the limit of the eye to resolve) as the pyramid
angles, it seems to me that it would be difficult to argue that this is just a
coincidence.
Finally, with respect to your point about the original angles of the apexes of the
three pyramids to one another, there is more than enough remaining of the pyramids to
determine these angles quite accurately. In their book L'Architettura Delle Piramide
Menfite, Italian archaeologists Vito Maragioglio and Celeste Rinaldi state that the
azimuth of the Great Pyramid to the Second and Third Pyramids is respectively, 223
degrees and 217 degrees; i.e, the Second Pyramid is 47 degrees to the southwest of the
Great Pyramid and the Third Pyramid is 53 degrees to the southwest of the Great
Pyramid.
Regards,
Rodney
Subject: Re: TIME Magazine (Nov 25) humans living 420 years
From: sudsm@aol.com
Date: 16 Dec 1996 01:04:46 GMT
Steve:
.
You quote bcolias@ix.netcom.com as saying:
>the cosmology portrayed in the Old Testament has been proven
>wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt by modern science
To which you add:
>just because "modern science" says something doesn't make it so
.
Since the cosmogony and cosmology of Gen. 1 portrays a "Big
Bang" concept, as described by Bishop Grosseteste of Oxford, and
the Jewish scholar Nahmanides, in the 12th century, modern science
has been adjusting and extending that idea in an effort to make it
fit current observations. Great satisfaction was expressed when
COBE seemed to show that the "background radiation" (as it is
called) is not EXACTLY uniform.
It is a long way, however, from that to show that the non-
uniformities are greater than those of the present universe --
which must be shown if the 2nd law is not violated.
In any event, Quantum Mechanics holds that current theories
are only probably (i.e. statistically) acceptable -- no more.
.
Your correspondent also says:
>The earth is not 6000 years old
.
You might have pointed out that the 4 1/2 billion year old
(solid) earth was not conceived of much more than a century ago,
which makes it much less than 6000 years old. The Bible, however,
divides cosmology into six periods of "evening to morning" which
is not, by any stretch of the imagination, an earth day, much less
a period of 24 hours! Checking the Hebrew roots they are "chaos"
and "order" respectively. The Bible thus suggests dividing
creation into six periods of entropy-lowering (we would say) for
each period, of unspecified duration. I do not know of any modern
physicist who would not agree that lowering entropy (even on this
planet [i.e. locally], as the Bible suggests) is creative.
.
Your correspondent goes on:
>man is a creature evolved from animals (see Origin of the Species
>by Darwin)
.
Since I am a product of the Church of England, I would have
pointed out to him that, in spite of opponents like "Soapy" Sam
Wilberforce, Darwin's defenders in the Church, like Charles
Kingsley, finally won out, and Darwin is therefore buried in
Westminster Abbey. Hence Christians, like myself, accept his
theory of evolution, which also the Bible describes. Darwin,
however, was concerned with the species homo sapiens whereas in
the Bible MAN is VERBAL ("homo sapiens litterati") not organic,
which is as old as the alphabet, but that is all we can say about
biblical MAN. According to Petrie that makes MAN about 6000 years
old, but others (e.g. Frank Cross) say the alphabet is not even
that old!
.
Also, says your correspondent:
>There is no proof of world wide flood in fossil records
.
And blind-faith (uninformed) Christians who believe in such
nonsense have obviously not read the Bible (Gen. 4:14), which
restricts the Deluge to "the face of the earth" from which the
Kenites (Cain) had been expelled. The so-called "face of the
earth" was the Tarim Basin, adjacent to what we now call "the roof
of the world" (Tibet), by which we don't mean a roof over the
whole planet.
The Deluge, however, was a world-wide disaster because it
destroyed the homeland of Adamkind (mankind -- KJV), which had
become the source of all knowledge and culture in the world at
that time.
.
Finally your correspondent says:
>the earth was not created in 7 days
.
Since the Bible uses "day" (Heb. YUM) as we do, for any
period of time identified with a characterizing property (e.g. the
presence of sunlight, or, in the day of dinosaurs, the presence of
dinosaurs) the statement is meaningless -- as you should have told
him.
Suds
smb@eznets.canton.oh.us
DARWIN IS BURIED IN WESTMINSTER ABBEY WITH OTHER CHURCH OF ENGLAND GREATS
