Newsgroup sci.archaeology 52401

Directory

Norb Bielat  wrote:
>Responding to:
>Helen M, UK,
>and John W. Hoopes, U.Kans,
>In this study, I used: "Archaeological Atlas of the World" by David and
>Ruth Witehouse and the "Atlas of Ancient Archaeology" by Jaxquetta
>Hawkes.  Both are excellent as a source of ancient cultures. I also used
>the "Times Atlas of World History" although
>the first two books were my major source. 
[snipped loads...}
>Good Luck in your studies Helen.
Thanks!!
I have the Time Archeology Atlas of Ancient Civ's so I will look up
your info in that...
Have you published your ideas?
Helen, UK

Norb Bielat  wrote:
>Responding to:
>Helen M, UK,
>and John W. Hoopes, U.Kans,
>In this study, I used: "Archaeological Atlas of the World" by David and
>Ruth Witehouse and the "Atlas of Ancient Archaeology" by Jaxquetta
>Hawkes.  Both are excellent as a source of ancient cultures. I also used
>the "Times Atlas of World History" although
>the first two books were my major source. 
[snipped loads...}
>Good Luck in your studies Helen.
Thanks!!
I have the Time Archeology Atlas of Ancient Civ's so I will look up
your info in that...
Have you published your ideas?
Helen, UK

Benjamin H. Diebold wrote:
> 
> I frankly do not understand this obsession with dating a single instance
> of monumental architecture. Especially one that appears so
> wrong-headed as this. Apparently, based on eyeball-measured
> astronomical alignments people are prepared to conjure up utterly
> hypothetical and completely unsubstantiated large scale injections of c14
> contaminants, reject known archaeological contexts of these
> structures, and ignore all relevant ceramic sequences or settlement
> pattern data of the people associated with these structures (who built
> them).
> 
> People built these structures at 10,500 BC, eh? Who? Where did they live?
> Is there a single site dating to this period in this area with a sedentary
> population? (No.) So they built pyramids, but had no houses, no
> agriculture, no ceramics, and no other material culture, aside from a few
> stone tools (which are nothing fancy, believe me)? And only these
> pyramids, and none others? If there are others, which? and how do you
> know? How likely does this seem?
> 
> It's not as if there hasn't been any archaeology in Egypt. It may seem as
> if all Egyptologists do is rummage around New Kingdom tombs, but there
> actually is such a field as Egyptian prehistory, and a fair amount is
> known of the material culture of the people who occupied Egypt from the
> Middle Paleolithic down. I have a stack of Nubian lithics on my desk in
> the lab as I write this. (I should be looking at them, and not doinking
> around on the internet, but...) This period is not some tabula rasa where
> you can project anything you want. There has to be some meaningful attempt
> to place this structure in context, whether you choose to place it at
> 10,500 BC (where it doesn't fit) or at 2500 BC (where it does). It should
> not be dealt with as an artifact divorced from archaeological or social
> context.
> 
> Perhaps now is the time to invoke the International Archaeological
> Conspiracy (tm).
> 
> Please note that this does not mean I believe the astronomical alignment
> does not exist. I have no opinion on that topic. I just don't believe that
> this structure, Egyptian chronology, or c14 dating should get yanked
> around in such an extreme fashion without any serious attempt being made
> to account for it on the basis of such slender evidence.
First of all, Bauval and Hancock do not claim that the Pyramids were 
actually constructed in 10,500 BC, although they do think the Sphinx was 
built then.  But let me ask you something:  In what sense do the three 
major pyramids "fit" in the 2500 BC time frame?  The carbon dates 
indicate that the laughably inferior Step Pyramid was built shortly after 
the Great Pyramid -- how do you explain that?  The fact is that no 
archaeologist has ever come close to explaining how three pyramids with 
unequalled workmanship arose almost at the beginning of recorded 
civilization.  Consider this quotation from Flinders Petrie regarding the 
Great Pyramid's casing stones:  "...the mean variation of the cutting of 
the stone from a straight line and from a true square, is but .01 inch on 
a length of 75 inches up the face, an amount of accuracy equal to most 
modern opticians' straight-edges of such a length.  These joints, with an 
area of some 35 square feet each, were not only worked as finely as this, 
but cemented throughout.  Though the stones were brought as close as 
1/500 inch, or, in fact, into contact, and the mean opening of the joint 
was but 1/50 inch, yet the builders manged to fill the joint with cement, 
despite the great area of it, and the weight of the stone to be moved -- 
some 16 tons.  To merely place such stones in exact contact at the sides 
would be careful work; but to do so with cement in the joints seems 
almost impossible."  See Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh (Histories and 
Mysteries of Man, Ltd., London,, 1990), p. 13.
David Carrara wrote:
>So let me get this straight...
>At the end of the ice age someone poked 3 small holes in a piece of
>papyrus and stuck it in his pocket. And then 6000-7000 years later
>someone found the piece of papyrus and saw some profound importance in
>it and decided to expend the GNP of an entire nation for 50 years to
>preserve it.
>Hmmmm.... not bloody likely.
I think the "3 small holes in a piece of papyrus" theory is original with 
you.  But let me ask you a question:  Why do YOU think someone "decided 
to expend the GNP of an entire nation for 50 years" -- to make Khufu, 
Khafra, and Menkaura happy?  
Regards,
Rodney

Jeff,
I absolutely agree with your point.
Paul 
- -
 ("`-''-/").___..--''"`-._         
  `6_ 6  )   `-.  (    ).`-.__.`)  Paul E. Pettennude, Ph.D.
  (_Y_.)'  ._   )  `._ `.``-..-'   Maya Underwater Research Center
 _..`--'_..-_/  /--'_.' ,'           pettennude@usa.net
(il),-''  (li),'  ((!.-'                 305-554-1557
Jeffrey L Baker  wrote in article
...
> 
> 
> On 16 Dec 1996, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> 
> > Jeffrey L Baker (jbaker@gas.uug.arizona.edu) wrote:
> 
> > : very dense, agricultural populations. This would tend to ease the 
> > : movement of the chicken across the continent.
> > 
> > I find it highly ironic that the same people who generally resist any
> > suggestion of diffusion, even overland, are so glad to make an
exception
> > in the case of the chicken. All of a sudden, these same people become
> > fanatical diffusionists in this one case. 
> 
> When has myself, Peter, Greg or Paul ever said that diffusion never takes
> place? We could all provide examples of diffusion within the Old or the 
> New World. We question the evidence for Prehispanic diffusion between
> the Old and the New World.
> 
> 
> Jeff Baker
> 

Saida  wrote:
[snip]
>Please forgive me for not being you.
>
>Xina
>
>All right, Xina, I take back every hurtful word and I hope you'll do the 
>same.  I have posted a private e-mail from Katherine Griffis although, 
>unlike yourself, she didn't give me permission to do so.  Well, I don't 
>care.  Read that letter and think about what I told you.
Just my opinion, but I think this "Saida" beast is one wacked-out 
individual.
The Hab

All snipped---
Saida,
And you are an archaeologist, a scientist, an academic, a human being?
Who do you think is going to believe such second rate sub-human crap?
Such - theatre! This isn't even flaming, in the usual sense. I wonder
who or what's "operating you", and, most interestingly, why is the
guardia academica so strangely silent. Let this one do the dirty work,
so that those others, with killfiles in full motor can come in for the -
save the day kill. The unimportant postings are thus neatly sideswiped,
the topic is smothered - and who stands to profit? 
Vladimir

In article <5996v4$j01@news1.io.org>, yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>agdndmc@showme.missouri.edu (DomingoMartinez-Castilla) wrote:
>: Acosta, Mr Kuchinsky, is NOT, repeat , NOT an early observer for South 
>: American standards: 1590 is late, very late.
>
>Yes, but he was an early observer in _that area_.
False.  Carter mentions Acosta's surprise about finding words for hen and egg 
(this one still makes me smile) in the Kechwa language of the Incas... in 
1590!  Spanish towns and cities were well established all over the Andes by 
then.  There were no conquistadors left anymore, and the Spanish polity was 
already established all over the Andes.  Sheesh!  You hate to recognize that 
somebody else may be right even when that person is providing a better source 
than the one Carter gives!
>
>I am grateful to you for finding that quote from Trujillo. But that quote
>doesn't exactly disprove what I said. It may indeed add weght to it...
Another bigger sheesh!  Of course it adds weight to Carter's argument.  The 
problem is that the argument itself is not such a thing.  Carter talks about a 
*hypothesis*, doesn't he?  In your lovely "essay about the chicken" you claim 
that such hypothesis has not been disproven!  Can you tell me of a hypothesis 
that has?  Any hypothesis?  Hypotheses are meant to be proved, not the other 
way around, lest they become religion.
If I posted the Diego de Trujillo quote it was because it is part of my 
interest in a topic very dear to you: diffusion, especially related to 
agriculture, has not been studied as much as it should.  (Of course, the only 
diffusion you care to "study" is the one coming from Eurasia or Africa before 
Columbus, especially if it is "documented" in one of the ...er... abundant 
sources you quote ad nauseaum.)  I am of course more interested in the 
consequences of the introduction of the very few and successful Eurasian 
domesticates (plants and animals) in an agricultural environment dominated by 
the largest (by far) variety of domestic plants (and the lowest in domestic 
animals).  But that is another thread altogether.
The history of American pre-Columbian agriculture has not been written yet.  
We do not even have enough information to understand how research and 
development of the abundant  varieties (very necessary in such a varied 
environment) of local crops were accomplished and, yes, diffused.  We still 
are fighting with the concept of multicrop agriculture vis-a-vis specialized 
monocrops. En fin...
Perhaps you have all the answers to those issues as well...
Domingo Martinez Castilla
agdndmc@showme.missouri.edu

In article <594h5f$5rj@bignews.shef.ac.uk>
           martins@dcs.shef.ac.uk "Martin Stower" writes:
>solos@enterprise.net (Adrian Gilbert) wrote:
>[. . .]
>>Martin, I'm not clear about this. Are you suggesting that the shafts have a 
>>purely geometric meaning or are you in agreement with the star-shaft theory?
>
>I'm defending the star-shaft theory. 
Then both of ye are wrong.  The shaft was plainly used as an inlet for the 
knives and chisels that the ancients sharpened therein.
>On the basis of TOM I take it seriously.  There were some things about the
>book - and the `packaging' of the book - I didn't like, but by and large
>it presented fresh ideas, at least prima facie cogent, was mercifully free
>of the usual Pyramidological cliches, and had plenty of interesting stuff
>in it.  That's why I find the Hancock link-up and KOG/MOS so disappointing.
Worse, it did not predict the coming of the comet on March 23.  
--
The voice of one sobbing in the Wilderness; Matthew 3:3

In article <01bbec74$58f60420$c257eecd@plantin.bendata.com>
           gtodd@bendata.com "Glen Todd" writes:
>> If they will not heed your proof of the Flood you would do better to tell
>> of their impending doom on March 23 when their godless nations and whole 
>> peoples will be swept into the ocean depths by the LORD.
>Oh, get real.   Your desert godling and his puffed-up followers may have
>nothing better to do than manufacture junk like this, but it has _no_
>relation to the world we live in.
You say it has no relation to the world but it will have when the LORD sends
His comet to destroy the faithless ones and the false heathens of California
and Asia.  That was why I told brother Elijah only to post about what was 
important rather than wasting his time with trivia.
--
The voice of one sobbing in the Wilderness; Matthew 3:3

David:
.
>Does sin exist do you think?  Other than as a label I mean,  and 
>even then it's not a label everyone uses.  This is a  totally 
>misplaced thread,  perhaps better not to post!
.
     Not as misplaced as you think.  Archaeology is concerned with 
very early history, and so-called "original sin", if properly 
understood from the biblical record, is very much a related 
concern.
     Without the Bible we know that the species homo erectus pre- 
ceded the homo sapiens species which was followed by homo sapiens 
sapiens, our immediate ancestors.  The difference between homo 
sapiens and homo sapiens sapiens is more behavioral than organic. 
Then came homo sapiens litterati, when literacy ("Adam") was born 
-- about 4000 BC by our best estimates.
     But, according to the biblical record, "Adam" tried to 
establish a prohibition law (outlawing nakedness) by force, 
instead of using his supernatural (i.e. superior-to-natural) gift 
of verbal comprehension and example.  He chose instead the natural 
way -- force.  Thereby he condemned us to wars and the search for 
better and better weapons.
     That original sin, and the six thousand year search for the 
ultimate weapon that it initiated, is very much related to history 
and archaeology!
                                                      Suds
knocker@pylon.u-net.com

DARWIN IS BURIED IN WESTMINSTER ABBEY WITH OTHER CHURCH OF ENGLAND GREATS

David:
.
>Does sin exist do you think?  Other than as a label I mean,  and 
>even then it's not a label everyone uses.  This is a  totally 
>misplaced thread,  perhaps better not to post!
.
     Not as misplaced as you think.  Archaeology is concerned with 
very early history, and so-called "original sin", if properly 
understood from the biblical record, is very much a related 
concern.
     Without the Bible we know that the species homo erectus pre- 
ceded the homo sapiens species which was followed by homo sapiens 
sapiens, our immediate ancestors.  The difference between homo 
sapiens and homo sapiens sapiens is more behavioral than organic. 
Then came homo sapiens litterati, when literacy ("Adam") was born 
-- about 4000 BC by our best estimates.
     But, according to the biblical record, "Adam" tried to 
establish a prohibition law (outlawing nakedness) by force, 
instead of using his supernatural (i.e. superior-to-natural) gift 
of verbal comprehension and example.  He chose instead the natural 
way -- force.  Thereby he condemned us to wars and the search for 
better and better weapons.
     That original sin, and the six thousand year search for the 
ultimate weapon that it initiated, is very much related to history 
and archaeology!
                                                      Suds
knocker@pylon.u-net.com

DARWIN IS BURIED IN WESTMINSTER ABBEY WITH OTHER CHURCH OF ENGLAND GREATS

Monica:
.
>Hey, here's a note people seem to have missed - The Israeli's WON 
>the damn seven day war
.
     Nobody missed it.  The trouble is that it made more-or-less 
certain that the modern Israeli State will ultimately be destroyed 
not only because the Arabs outnumber the Israelis, but because 
there are many states Arabs can ally themselves with on any attack 
on the Israeli.  Only the U.S. and the British can be counted on 
to protect the Israeli.  Giving land for peace can buy time.
.
                                                      Suds


DARWIN IS BURIED IN WESTMINSTER ABBEY WITH OTHER CHURCH OF ENGLAND GREATS

Dave:
.
>Evolution for the most part is a load of crap
.
     Then you are saying that the Bible is a load of crap since 
Genesis, in chapter 1, completely describes and supports 
evolution.  It is more likely, however, that your preachers have 
exposed you to a load of crap!
     For instance, did your preachers point out to you that the 
word "day" (Heb. YUM) is used in Hebrew, as in English, for any 
period of time identified with a characterizing property -- like 
the presence of sunlight, or, in the day of dinosaurs, the 
presence of dinosaurs?  Did they point out to you that the six 
days identified with creation are one day in Gen. 2:4?
     It is more likely that each of the "evening to morning" eras 
in Gen. 1 you were told was an earth day -- though that is a 
stretch of imagination that even you should not have swallowed!  
An earth night, maybe, but an earth day (?) -- that's idiotic!  
Look up the Hebrew roots, however, and you will find they are 
chaos and order, respectively.
     So each era, or day, of creation is equated with passing from 
a state of chaos (nothing distinguishable from anything else) to a 
state of order (things distinguishable from one another).  We 
today would say each was a period in which entropy on earth was 
lowered, and any scientist would agree that corresponds to 
creation.  Entropy, on earth, is lowered by energy from the sun.
     Thus, as Darwin saw, the Bible describes a process of 
evolution, following the initial creation.  That process led 
eventually to homo sapiens, then to homo sapiens sapiens, and 
finally to homo sapiens litterati (Adam) and the birth of 
literacy.  In other words, God got it right the first time, except 
for minor interventions along the way.  Unless, as you intimate, 
there was no evolution and the Bible is a load of crap like you 
say.
                                                      Suds

DARWIN IS BURIED IN WESTMINSTER ABBEY WITH OTHER CHURCH OF ENGLAND GREATS

Shez:
.
>I do not fear your god, or worship him either, and your threats 
>are childish.  For a supposedly educated man, rather pathetic
.
     That may be true of what you interpreted of what you read, 
but you obviously believe in, and worship (i.e. "worth-shape" or 
ascribe worth to) the biblical God (supreme ruling entity) which 
the Bible clearly says is manifested only in WORDS (Gen. 2:19, 
Deut. 4:12 et seq., John 1:1 6:62, for example).  Of course if you 
don't believe in and worship that God we won't be seeing you here 
any more since you will no longer depend on words.
                                                      Suds



DARWIN IS BURIED IN WESTMINSTER ABBEY WITH OTHER CHURCH OF ENGLAND GREATS

In article <597ja1$e0@fridge-nf0.shore.net>, which I happily note as the
sort of occasional "this is where the moving target is now" article I
recently called for, whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote a great deal,
most of which I lack time to comment on now.  One exception, however:
>What is the story on these Harrappan inscriptions found in Oman?
>I understand this language is in the process of being deciphered.
>Dr Rao has apparently been able to make some sense of some tokens.
>
>His reasoning is apparently that the image of a god plus a
>short inscription associates the inscription with the name
>of the god. Apparently the names of the gods are known. This
>allows him to assign certain symols to certain sounds. I
>really have no idea how much progress has been made on this
>how much is wishful thinking, but some sources suggest that
>the language of the seals is the language of the vedas and
>that the date of these could easily be c 3,000 BC.
There are two competing decipherments going forward now.  I've previously
indicated my own prejudiced opinion that anyone claiming to have deciphered
the IVC script must be a kook, ergo Parpola and Rao are kooks; but this is
the opinion of one who knows no linguistics at all, and who knows, maybe
such miracles really are possible.
That said, *if* Rao's method is as you describe it (I assume here you're
referring to his article in  which is your
"BTTA"?) then it's circular, and patently untrustworthy.
The names of the Indus Valley Civilisation's gods are NOT known.  We do
not, in fact, know that the figures on the seals were worshipped.  We do
have some grounds for thinking that some of the standard associations with
those figures, most notably the "proto-Siva" one, are faulty.  (The Siva
figure is dressed, hair and jewelry I mean, in ways restricted to female
figures in all other IVC iconography, or so I've read in a reference I
unfortunately can't find - Mr. Belcher?)
*If* you assume that the IVC is Vedic, then you can start making
assumptions about who the figures in IVC iconography, including the seals,
are, based on the Vedas.  In turn, this permits you to name them
(especially if you're really arguing the actual Vedic *texts* date from the
IVC, as Frawley for example does; if you're just arguing that the IVC spoke
Indo-Aryan, your names could have shifted, messing up your translation).
Astonishingly, when you associate Indo-Aryan (Sanskrit) names with the IVC
script, you get an Indo-Aryan translation for the essentially fragmentary
remains of that script!
Now, I don't say this *is* Rao's method.  I haven't read his work,
preferring not to pretend I have the linguistic competence to evaluate it
(it's bad enough that I imitate both archaeologist and historian, thank
you).  But *if* you've correctly described his method, in that case his
work is poppycock.
Vidyanath Rao meanwhile is enthusiastically insisting on the dubiousness of
much of what Parpola says.
And I cheerfully continue in my ill-informed and prejudiced opinion that
Harappan remains unknown and linguists who say otherwise are loons...
Joe Bernstein
-- 
Joe Bernstein, writer, banker, bookseller joe@sfbooks.com
speaking for myself alone http://www.tezcat.com/~josephb/
But...co-proponent for soc.history.ancient, now back under
discussion in news.groups!

I agree with Joe that until we find some form of "bilingual texts" the
Indus script will not likely be deciphered. Although I do agree with
Parpola's decipherment strategy, his basic assumption is that it is
Dravidian in nature - and there is no reason to assume that this is true,
except for the standard Brahui explanation, etc. Based on reading most of
Parpola's writings and having several long conversations with him, I do
think that he is on the right track, although he admitted in a meeting last
October that he has gone as far as he can with this problem and cannot go
any further.
Also, we do not know the names of the Indus gods or goddesses, we don't
even know what their religion was....as for the so-called proto-Shiva
figure - based on the phallus present on the figure, it does seem to be a
male...the association of Shiva is based on the animals and their
association with the figure...we are continuing to find "narratives" that
are depicted in much later Hindu mythology (Durga battling a water buffalo,
etc.). It's an interesting problem and I don't agree with assigning names
to these figures based on much later gods and goddesses as it causes
serious confusion.
Anyway, it's late and I seem to be rambling....

In article <599jlo$fgl@news.unocal.com>, stgprao@sugarland.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini) writes:
>Traditional Chinese compasses point south and are still used in feng shui (geomancy).
>
So, if I got a Chinese south-pointing compass and mounted its needle on the same 
shaft as a conventional north-pointing compass, aligning Chinese south with occidental 
north, would the compass align itself along the equator, or would it continue to spin, 
never pointing any one direction?  Have I just got the Fleischmann-Pons award for 
perpetual motion, or did it go to the man who strapped a buttered piece of toast, 
sticky side up, to the back of a cat, and drop it from the Eiffel Tower?  Nobody 
answer this, it's just too close to Christmas to begin doing anything sensible now!
[What do you mean I haven't done anything sensible yet?]
>I would have guessed a north bias would be a result of navigating by
>the fixed north star.
>
Last time I looked at an atlas, all of China WAS also north of the equator, and so 
they too should have seen the same pole star.  On the other hand if various theories 
about the rates of continental drift, the age of the earth, fossils just being God's 
little joke, aliens building the pyramids on their day off while constructing the 
earth and especially its glaciers......
8^) to all, Chris H.

In the Velikovsky posts I have read no one has mentioned the work of Bob
Forrest; is he not well known, or have I missed references to him?
Forrest did an exhaustive survey of the citations in Velikovsky's three
catastrophism books, and made a devastating case against V. for
misquotations, misrepresenting his sources and skewing of his citations on
a grand scale.  
Forrest's original work is a series of homely, xeroxed, stapled-together
monographs that runs into hundreds of pages.  He later published a
hardbound version of the same.  If it's not well known, it should be; for
my money, it damns V.'s integrity (and therefore his work) much more
decisively than objections about individual scientific points. 
For the record, I have not read more than a few pages of Velikovsky's
three big catastrophism books.  I tried; they are unreadable.   
Ah, but *Oedipus and Akhnaton*!  Now, there's a jewel!  
vale
Mike Skupin
.

In article <32B8CDA6.4EC6@erols.com>, Rodney says...
>

In article <32B8CDA6.4EC6@erols.com>, Rodney says...
>
>Benjamin H. Diebold wrote:

>> Please note that this does not mean I believe the astronomical alignment
>> does not exist. I have no opinion on that topic. I just don't believe that
>> this structure, Egyptian chronology, or c14 dating should get yanked
>> around in such an extreme fashion without any serious attempt being made
>> to account for it on the basis of such slender evidence.
>First of all, Bauval and Hancock do not claim that the Pyramids were 
>actually constructed in 10,500 BC, although they do think the Sphinx was 
>built then.  But let me ask you something:  In what sense do the three 
>major pyramids "fit" in the 2500 BC time frame?  The carbon dates 
>indicate that the laughably inferior Step Pyramid was built shortly after 
>the Great Pyramid -- how do you explain that?  The fact is that no 
>archaeologist has ever come close to explaining how three pyramids with 
>unequalled workmanship arose almost at the beginning of recorded 
>civilization.  Consider this quotation from Flinders Petrie regarding the 
>Great Pyramid's casing stones:  "...the mean variation of the cutting of 
>the stone from a straight line and from a true square, is but .01 inch on 
>a length of 75 inches up the face, an amount of accuracy equal to most 
>modern opticians' straight-edges of such a length.  These joints, with an 
>area of some 35 square feet each, were not only worked as finely as this, 
>but cemented throughout.  Though the stones were brought as close as 
>1/500 inch, or, in fact, into contact, and the mean opening of the joint 
>was but 1/50 inch, yet the builders manged to fill the joint with cement, 
>despite the great area of it, and the weight of the stone to be moved -- 
>some 16 tons.  To merely place such stones in exact contact at the sides 
>would be careful work; but to do so with cement in the joints seems 
>almost impossible."  See Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh (Histories and 
>Mysteries of Man, Ltd., London,, 1990), p. 13.
>
>David Carrara wrote:
>
>>So let me get this straight...
>
>>At the end of the ice age someone poked 3 small holes in a piece of
>>papyrus and stuck it in his pocket. And then 6000-7000 years later
>>someone found the piece of papyrus and saw some profound importance in
>>it and decided to expend the GNP of an entire nation for 50 years to
>>preserve it.
>
>>Hmmmm.... not bloody likely.
>I think the "3 small holes in a piece of papyrus" theory is original with 
>you.
So you do not think that all that is needed in someone to mark the 
position of the stars by poking small holes in in a piece of paper 
in order to obtain accurate information on their orientation This 
certainly does not require an advanced civilization or some dramatic 
earth changing catastrophe to wipe then from existence.
>  But let me ask you a question:  Why do YOU think someone "decided 
>to expend the GNP of an entire nation for 50 years" -- to make Khufu, 
>Khafra, and Menkaura happy?  
Well since the pyramids are not the only large structure that the 
Egyptians built I would say that whatever reason they had it 
certainly wasn’t restricted to Khufu, Khafra, and Menkaura 
happiness. Unless you are  suggesting that all of the structures 
in Egypt were built for the same reason at the same time  by 
the same people. It is quite apparent that they had no problem 
dishing out large sums of money to build grandiose things. Since 
the leaders of the people control that money  why would you not 
expect them to spend some on themselves?
BTW, as far as the joints go I suggest you get a rock mechanics or 
structural engineering handbook and look up what elastic strain 
and creep deformation is. You do realize that each of those 
limestone blocks  have 4 to 5  tonnes per cm^2 pushing down on 
then from above. If you think that they originally made those 
joints 1/50 inch then they were not as smart as you are suggesting. 
The joints are so tight because they had good stone masons (limestone 
is not difficult to cut, grind and shape certainly not as difficult 
as granite which would have been a much better choice as far as rock 
deformation is concerned) and the rock deformed into the joint spaces 
as a result of lithostatic loading. If you are assuming that they 
originally made the joints to 1/50th of an inch then those pyramids 
would not be in as good a shape as you see them today. Ever take a 
close look at the surface of the great pyramid and see all those 
fractures parallel to the faces- that is a direct result of 
the joint tightness that exists today.
David Carrara 
>Regards,
>
>Rodney

Yuri wrote:
> 
> Ed Conrad (edconrad@prolog.net) wrote:
> 
> : My ticket is bought, my bags are packed and, if I listen closely
> : enough, I think I can even hear the traveling music.
> 
> And what else do you hear in your head, Ed? Your shrink SHOULD know.
> 
> Yuri.
> --
> 
>              #%    Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto    %#
>   --  a webpage like any other...  http://www.io.org/~yuku  --
>  
> Welcome to President Bush, Mrs. Bush, and my fellow 
> astronauts     ======     Vice President Dan Quayle
It sounds as if the fillings in his molars are tuned to the John Denver 
station, so he's probably hearing about a certain "rocky mountain high", 
perhaps the very same condition from which he (and then everyone else who 
reads this newsgroup) suffers. If you ARE his shrink, Yuri, perhaps you could 
gently nudge him in a less controversial direction than evolution and 
fossilized skulls....maybe diffusionism? #8^)

> Traditional Chinese compasses point south and are still used in feng shui
(geomancy).
> 
> I would have guessed a north bias would be a result of navigating by
> the fixed north star.
Which was is North?
Up.

I'm a new comer to this discussion, and this is of some interest to me.
Couple of months ego one my old school teachers asked me to dig up some
material about the latest theory on origin of life on earth and related
things. I find this thread and this 'thingamadoodle' is exactly what he
wants.
Could the participants kindly provide me some materials and references,
which I can collect and send him? 
Thanks
Shyam
-- 
Shyam Sundar Chakraborty
Comm. Lab. HUT, Finland
Tel: 3580-4512350; 
Fax: 3580-4512345/460224.

Spark The Heretic (tjmiller@nwark.com) wrote:
: While in Turin during the mid-1500's (the thing did change locations
: quite a bit), was damaged by a fire in the basilica it was being stored
: in. The corners that were singed (While folded) had been patched
: afterwards. That accounts for the twin pear-shaped marks in a pattern
: about the whole shroud. The singeing was caused, I believe, by molten
: silver from the case it was stored in dripping onto the cloth. 
Who cares?
Can you say H*O*A*X?    <======
Perhaps the most amusing thing to me about this whole deal is that the 
honchos of the Xian religion believe that religion to be so weak that 
they feel compelled to foster crap like "The Shroud Of Turin" (tm) on 
their unsuspecting followers from time to time.
It reminds me of what a priest once told me.  He said that if all of the 
pieces of the "True Cross" were to be gathered together, there would be 
enough wood collected to rebuild St. Patrick's Cathedral.  
That was the only issue about which I was prepared to believe him.
#%^>
E*
-- 
        *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
        | "No hay mal que por bien no venga." -- Gloria Estefan |
        *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

the Hab wrote:
> 
> Xina  wrote:
> >Saida wrote:
> >
> >> 
> >> Dun't fuck with me, Xina.  Your guns are not big enough.  I will blow
> >> you to kingdom come.  Better go back to arguing with Elijah.
> >
> >Excuse me?  I wasnt aware I had declared a war on you?  As for Elijah, I
> >bowed out of that one a while ago, and you had a go at him yourself.
> >>e of the aforementioned condescention.
> >> 
> >> Ha,ha,ha!  That was written by Katherine Griffis!  You got that one
> >> right, Xina.
> >
> >*shakes head*
> >
> >> My "poking fun" at everyone else is a delusion of yours.
> >
> >So is my  alleged "fucking with you".  
> 
> 
> Hehehehehe...this is really funny.
> 
> 
> 
> The Hab
> 
So, Marc gives a civilized reply that can stand on its own, yet somehow we 
still get to view mud wrestling via some sort of spontaneous combustion in 
this thread. Wha' happen? Hmmm?

On 19 Dec 1996 06:55:59 GMT, skupinm@aol.com (SkupinM) wrote:
>Ah, but *Oedipus and Akhnaton*!  Now, there's a jewel!  
yes...yes...yes..yes...
frank

Well, folks...that's about it for this semester...just when it seems to get
interesting and we have some "good" discussion on South Asia! Oh well...I'm
moving to Washington State where my wife and I will be having our first
child in a couple of weeks and then in late January, I'm heading off to
Harappa for two months (yes, I realize that I'm a cad for leaving my
newborn so soon, but academia is often like the military - missions and
deployment). We are supposed to have e-mail, so if someone would like to
volunteer, I will forward a report of our excavations from the field, if
they wouldn't mind posting it for me.