Subject: What's this????
From: "Michael Misenheimer"
Date: 19 Dec 1996 16:00:37 GMT
I have recently become interested in Archeology and I was overjoyed when I
found that there was news group on my server that was dedicated to this
field.
So.....I subscribed to that news group and what do I find??
This!!!
Katherine Griffis wrote:
>
> Saida wrote:
>
> >This is what I found in my mailbox from Katherine Griffis. Maybe
> >posting this here will teach her to stay out of my mailbox once and for
> >all.
>
>
All written by you, Katherine, O Queen of Prevaricators. I don't blame
you for wanted to snip it out. You really embarrassed yourself.
>
> Normally, I would not respond in any manner to such rudeness, but I
> post this to say to *anyone* who wishes to know the truth of my
> background and credential in this area, they may contact MY Dean of
> the Department of Special Studies at the University of Alabama at
> Birmingham to find out the REAL story. That telephone number of the
> US is 205/934-7451.
That's probably Katherine's home number. Try (205) 934-8740. Katherine
Griffis teaches an adult education course for persons not actually
enrolled at the University of Alabama. Her class is in "Grant
Writing". It has absolutely nothing to do with Egyptology. Anyway, the
University of Alabama does not have a department of Near Eastern
studies, as far as I know. Griffis touts herself as an Egyptologist,
which most definitely she is not. Even an "armchair Egyptologist", as
she calls me, can tell that. That fact is abundantly clear--even were
she to show me a sheepskin as big as a Navajo blanket, I would still
never believe Katherine Griffis is an Egyptologist. Nevertheless, she
has listed herself on Nigel Strudwick's Egypt pages as an Egyptologist
out of the University of Alabama on a list of e-mail addresses of
Egyptologists around the world. Strudwick, however, being no fool,
prints a disclaimer at the start of this list, saying that he feels sure
that not all the persons therein are accredited in this field. Griffis
has also placed herself on a list of North American Egyptologists on the
web pages of the OI, I believe, and has actually been advising people to
go to the site and see her name. I have known about this for a long
time and have said nothing until Griffis began to use her "credentials"
and started to drop the names of actual Egyptologists she "hobnobs with"
to attack me, I got fed up. I asked her just what her position was at
the university she always puts after her name. The result was the
vicious e-mail I posted at the start of this thread. Not content to
perpetuate falsehoods concerning herself, she is now spreading lies
about me and my activities in the newsgroups. She was asking for a dime
to be dropped on her. This is it. People work hard and make many
sacrifices to earn their PhDs. Why a person like Katherine Griffis
feels she has the right to circumvent all this and simply pluck a degree
out of Cracker Jack box in order to lend herself some sort of cachet in
a science-oriented newsgroup, is incomprehensible to me. It implies a
basic lack of self-confidence that seems odd in such an arrogant
individual.
>
> Saida has made it clear that she is *out to get me*, and for what
> reason, I do NOT care.
>
> Regards --
>
> Katherine Griffis (Greenberg)
> Member of the American Research Center in Egypt
>
> University of Alabama at Birmingham
> Special Studies
>
> http://www.ccer.ggl.ruu.nl/ccer/PEOPLE2.HTML
I am out to get you? You con-artist! You should have dropped this like
a hot potato, but it looks like you want to continue. Nobody could do
your reputation more damage than you are currently doing to yourself.
Here--in case anybody missed your letter to me--is what you wrote. It
looks to me like the person who was out to "get" somebody, to do a good
job of slandering, is none other than yourself! So why don't you tell
us where you got your degree in Egyptology, which year, and where you
completed your studies.
This is what I found in my mailbox from Katherine Griffis. Maybe
posting this here will teach her to stay out of my mailbox once and for
all.
ue, 17 Dec 1996 17:06:38 GMT
From:
grifcon@mindspring.com (Katherine Griffis)
Reply-To:
grifcon@mindspring.com
To:
Saida , Marc Line
On Tue, 17 Dec 1996 08:38:28 -0600, you wrote:
>> I think that you misinterpret the issues of Egyptology, Saida, if you
>> think that it is of primary interest as to what "race" the Egyptians
>> were.
>"Primary" is your word, not mine.
> It is NOT a primary concern to anyone that *I* am aware of in
>> the field,
>You are not in a position to know. You are not an Egyptologist.
You know, lady, and I use this term quite loosely here, you wouldn't
know a real Egyptologist should one bite you: that is apparent from
the trash YOU read. I have pointed out that some of your ideas are
*off the mark*: you take umbance: fine. However, if MY e-mailbox is
to be believed, I find that YOU are not believed in half of what you
say, and that you have more gall than anyone I have ever met in this
area of "armchair Egyptologists". I read far more than you have, or
>likely ever will, and my credentials are known. YOURS?
Saida:
What are your credentials? You advertise yourself as an Egyptologist on
at least two sites on the web. In order to do that, you ought to have a
PhD in Egyptology. Well, from your posts, a student in Egyptology 101
would know that you don't. Underneath your signature, you claim to be
affiliated with the University of Alabama. According to your superior,
you teach an adult education course in "Grant Proposal Writing". That's
it.
>but that the issue has been blown out of proportion by both
>> Afrocentrist and Eurocentrist thought (better called Ameri-centrist,
>> as Miguel pointed out on sci.arch some months ago). Having just spent
>> a better part of the month with several European and Canadian
>> Egyptologists, I can say, with some certainty, that they find this
>> whole issue somewhat confusing and *definitely* not an issue that
>> **they** are and will be concerned with.
>Tell that to Dr. Rosalie David of Manchester University. Also, did you
>happen to read the issue of Archaeology ( Sept./Oct.) dedicated to the
>study of DNA? Did you happen to see the article "The Great DNA
>Hunt--Genetic archaeology zeroes in on the origins of modern human."?
>Did you see the article by Prof. Scott Woodward? Here is an e-mail I
>received from him a while back:
>Organization:
> Brigham Young University
> To:
> Saida
>Dear Saida,
>We do have enough information that we will probably publish within
>the next couple of months concerning the mitochondrial DNA of some of
>the 18th and 19th Dynasties. We do not yet have a complete sampling
>of all of the available mummies but do have an interesting group at
>the beginning of the 18th and surrounding Rameses II in the 19th.
>Concerning the ethnic origins of the rulers of the dynasties. One
>of the things that we are trying to do is to determine just what
>exactly is an Egyptian. It well may be that an Egyptian was a very
>mixed and cosmopolitan group. Egypt has always been a place of
>refuge from famines and other natural disasters. Peoples from a wide
>area have always moved into the Nile valley. There is probably a
>good chance that we will find a wide mix of people in the genealogies
>of ancient Egypt.
>I will keep you informed as soon as the paper is accepted for
>publication. (end of letter)
And Scott is telling you what here, Saida?
Scott? Now you are claiming a personal relationship with Dr. Woodward,
too? Dr. Woodward is telling me his aims. That the populace of ancient
Egypt was mixed, I already know.
Katherine:
Nothing that indicates
that *ethnicity* is a real concern, but that he acknowledges that "an
Egyptian was a very mixed and cosmopolitan group. Egypt has always
been a place of refuge from famines and other natural disasters.
Peoples from a wide area have always moved into the Nile valley."
Tell me *where* this indicates an overwhelming interest in the very
issues that YOU have talked about with your "white"/Caucasian
Egyptians and other weird concepts that you have been espousing the
past few days.
Saida:
Egyptians are varied. Many of them, past and present, have every right
to call themselves Caucasian, because they were and are. Even your
friend, the Hab, admits that much. Let's hear a few of my other "weird"
concepts.
> God, you sound worst than Seligman, and I thought**those** days were
over.
What days are those? What in the hell are you spouting off about?
>I can't imagine which "Egyptologists" you were talking to. Perhaps they
>had the same credentials as yourself.
Katherine:
Yeah, well, your fantasy may continue as long as you wish. I could
bite back as to what Yurco and others have said about you to my face,
but why bother? YOU have such airs about you that it's pathetic.
Saida:
You fucking, crazy bitch. Now you have compromised Professor Yurco.
I'm sure he'll thank you for that.
>> If the American line of
>> thought to *you* seems predisposed to it, it is primarily in response
>> to allegations made by the Afrocentrist scholarship, which is a
>> uniquely American phenomenon.
Saida:
>Nonsense! Afrocentrist "scholarship" has nothing to do with any of the
>studies now going on.
No, but YOUR interpretation of them certainly is the *opposite mirror*
of the Afrocentric ideology. Truly bizarre, Saida, and I think you
harbor some strange racist tendencies of your own: your attitude to the
modern Egyptians is appalling, to say the least.
Saida:
You're insane. My father was a survivor of the Holocaust. What right
would I have to be racist against any people? Show me one racist remark
I have ever made!
Katherine:
>>
>> When I stated earlier that the US Census defined term "white" was not
>> properly used in talking about Egyptians of ancient times, you came
>> back with the term "Caucasoid" as a reference to a group of people,
>> and equating them as the same. This is fairly vague as a "racial"
>> designation, as in speaking of remains, the term "Caucasoid" refers
>> primarily to bone and physical characteristics of groups of people who
>> came (possibly) from a certain location (the Caucasus Mtns), and
NOT >> to any *detailed* and definite "race" of people.
Saida:
>Wrong again. My dictionary says this: "designating one of the main
>ethnic divisions of the human race; it includes Mediterranean, Alpine
>and Nordic subdivisions and is loosely called the 'white race'. When
>was the last time you heard somebody say, :I am a Caucasian--I come from
>the Caucasus Mountains?
>And such designation is outdated: has been for about 40-50 years. Get
better books.
Saida:
It looks to me like your dictionary was printed in the Caucasus
mountains!
Such terms as these are used in default of better ones. They are only
bad when used in hate or as a means of discrimination.
Anthropologically, they are harmless.
Katherine:
>> Race, as far as > Egyptology has been concerned, is a term of
**modern** socio-political > importance,
Saida:
>I thought you just said that it has no importance whatsoever. The above
>statement is false.
>Read it again, Saida: I said that the **concept** of "race" is of modern
socio-political importance and NOT one that concerns people in
Egyptology.
I read it right the first time.
Katherine:
It is primarily a US concept, and its usage is particular
to the US, as the European and Canadians tend to find it just of NO
importance whatsoever: if I am to believe Marc Line's comments, I
would venture to say that it really doesn't concern the Brits as
well. So, what does that say to YOU?
Saida:
You are so full of manure you could fertilize the entire Nile Valley.
Katherine:
>> and not one of concern BY the ancient Egyptians (and
>> likely the modern ones as well), who were know for their ability to
>> assimilate peoples,
Saida:
>The ancient Egyptians are concerned about nothing. They are long dead.
>As for the modern Egyptians, their ability to "assimilate peoples" has
>its limits, too. Or have you forgotten all the persons who were forced
>to leave Egypt during the Nasser era?
Katherine:
Yeah, troll on. Ain't biting: who cares?
>> and yes, this includes the Nubian groups you refer
>> to earlier. The "fighting" you refer to is an ancient tussle over the
>> use of the waterways and trade routes between the ancient
Egyptians >> and Nubians, and I sincerely doubt (as would Bruce
Williams, Lanny > Bell, Donald Redford, among others), that it was based
upon any >> so-called "racial hatred" of peoples, as you have somewhat
implied, >> from what I have seen of your most recent posts.
>Name-dropping again! I have implied nothing of the sort. Show me where I
have said any such >things. And don't ever try to associate me
with "racial hatred". I>have no interest in this topic.
Katherine:
Really? I see you begin fights with modern Egyptians on NG's because
you don't like them *as Egyptians*, and make some of the most
outrageous statements to the likes of Everett Battle (Groove You) that
are truly embarrassing to read. No racial hatred? Then, proofread
before you post.
Saida:
You are not only a fraud, but a shameless liar. I have never picked a
fight with anyone in any newsgroup. I like Egyptians just fine, BTW.
The only ones I object to are rude, boorish people like your soulmate,
the Hab.
Katherine:
>>
>> Further, you make reference in another post to Shaw and Nicholson's
>> definition within "The Dictionary of Ancient Egypt" wherein they
>> recount the **various theories** of where the ancient Egyptians have
>> been theorized as coming from. Please note that this definition does
>> NOT (repeat: NOT) say anything definitive as to any sort of "race"of
>> the ancient Egyptians, but discusses merely the various theories that
>> have been postulated over the many years of Egyptology, i.e.. from the
>> 19th century CE onward. The so-called "dynastic race" theory of
>> Emery, BTW, was disproved by Egyptologists in the early 1960's, and
>> has not been considered a *valid theory* for many years.
>Well, at least you have read my quote from the "Dictionary correctly. I
find it an excellent summary of the topic of the ethnicity of the
ancient Egyptians and I concur with it to the last semi-colon.
>Katherine:
>> So, if you have *YOUR* theories as to your origin of the Egyptians,
>> fine.
She hasn't the slightest notion what my "theories" are.
> But I find little evidence within your posts that reflect much
>> of the *real* issues that concern Egyptologists.
Take those *real* issues and stick them. Why don't you be specific so
people will know which posts you're referring to?
>Again, how would you know the *real* issues that concern Egyptologists?
> The airs you give yourself are really quite ludicrous, Katherine.
Katherine:
And YOU do? Give me a break, Saida: you still buy into Budge, for
God's sake.
I'm not buying and I'm not selling. There are plenty of good things in
Budge's writings. I also read Heroditus, Diodorus Siculus, Josephus,
etc. They predate Budge by a few millennia. Are they no good, as well?
Katherine:
When your readings take you into the 20th century
scholarship issues, I'll listen to this trip you have been putting
out. You haven't a clue, as far as I see.
As I said, you wouldn't know. I don't see you participating in any of
the discussions I take part in here and I hear that you don't know
ancient Egyptian at all--strange for an Egyptologist. Give it up,
Katherine, while you have some face to save.
>>
>> Katherine Griffis (Greenberg)
>> Member of the American Research Center in Egypt
>In case anyone believes otherwise, the ARCE is an organization anyone
>can join without having any particular knowledge of Egypt whatsoever.
Yeah: you are not obviously a member, either. Honestly, Saida: get a
better hobby: this one has made you bitter.
Saida:
It is your "hobby" as well as mine. I think it's a pretty good one.
Katherine:
KMT is a popular magazine that *anybody* can subscribe to as well: so
is Archaeology, and BAR. JARCE is, at least, peer reviewed. However,
since THAT publication could give two flips about your theories, why
*would* you bother??
>>
>> University of Alabama at Birmingham
>> Special Studies
>What are "Special Studies" and what have you to do with them?
I would warrant you a real answer here, but why bother? Suffice to
say that I have been with them for over 16 years as an
instructor/consultant, in this field and others. Live with it.
>>
>> http://www.ccer.ggl.ruu.nl/ccer/PEOPLE2.HTML
Now from hereon, if you have problems with what I post, deal with
*that* issue, madam. I have seen what you post to others online and
off, and should you wish to flame me again, better do it to my mailbox
and deal with my response. I WILL take action should you post it to
the NG's again.
Saida:
So THAT's your real occupation--running an espionage ring! Who would
show you my off-line correspondence? Is everyone you know as phony as
you are?
Katherine
I told you quite awhile ago to stay out of my mailbox. I have no desire
to write you anything. I'll answer you in the newsgroups, if I feel
like it. Your threats don't worry me in the least.
I thought that this was a serious news group, it now appears that I was
incorrect in my assumption. I should have known.....when I was in the
Service I was told that to "Assume" makes an "Ass" of "U" and "Me". When
will I ever learn......
Maybe I'll try Paleontology...................
Subject: Are Egyptologists Interested In Ethnicity (was "A Question For Marc Line)
From: Saida
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 11:56:51 -0600
Saida wrote:
>
> Katherine Griffis wrote:
> >
> > Saida wrote:
> >
> > Xina wrote:
> >
> > >(a big snip)
> >
> > >> > The truth is only good for those who want to believe it.
> > >>
> > >> Indeed. And until we find out without a shadow of a doubt what that > >> "truth" is, it really is a moot point. Modern day racial
> dividing lines > need not apply. It seems rather odd that those the most > > >concerned over > the race of the Ancient Egyptians, just so
happen to be > >Americans.
> >
> > T0 which Saida replied:
> >
> > >Xina, there is absolutely nothing odd about it whatsoever. There is not > >one Egyptologist in America disinterested in the matter to
which > you > >refer. Why should they be? You seem to infer that there
is > something > >wrong with wanting to know who the ancient Egyptians
were. > How can that > >be? This is all part and parcel of the science
of > Egyptology. (snip) the ability > to discern race, to some >
>degree, from blood, is around the corner if > not already here.
Katherine Griffis wrote:
> > I think that you misinterpret the issues of Egyptology, Saida, if you > > think that it is of primary interest as to what "race" the
Egyptians > > were.
Saida:
> "Primary" is your word, not mine.
> It is NOT a primary concern to anyone that *I* am aware of in
> > the field,
Saida:
> You are not in a position to know. You are not an Egyptologist.
Griffis:
> but that the issue has been blown out of proportion by both
> > Afrocentrist and Eurocentrist thought (better called Ameri-centrist,
> > as Miguel pointed out on sci.arch some months ago). Having just spent > > a better part of the month with several European and Canadian
> > Egyptologists, I can say, with some certainty, that they find this
> > whole issue somewhat confusing and *definitely* not an issue that
> > **they** are and will be concerned with.
>
> Tell that to Dr. Rosalie David of Manchester University. Also, did you > happen to read the issue of Archaeology ( Sept./Oct.) dedicated to
the > study of DNA? Did you happen to see the article "The Great DNA
> Hunt--Genetic archaeology zeroes in on the origins of modern human."?
> Did you see the article by Prof. Scott Woodward? Here is an e-mail I
> received from him a while back:
> Organization:
> Brigham Young University
> To:
> Saida
>
> Dear Saida,
>
> We do have enough information that we will probably publish within
> the next couple of months concerning the mitochondrial DNA of some of
> the 18th and 19th Dynasties. We do not yet have a comlete sampling
> of all of the available mummies but do have an interesting group at
> the beginning of the 18th and surrounding Rameses II in the 19th.
>
> Concerning the ethinic origins of the rulers of the dynasties. One
> of the things that we are trying to do is to determine just what
> exactly is an Egyptian. It well may be that an Egyptian was a very
> mixed and cosmopolitian group. Egypt has always been a place of
> refuge from famines and other natural disasters. Peoples from a wide
> area have always moved into the Nile valley. There is probably a
> good chance that we will find a wide mix of people in the genealogies
> of ancient Egypt.
>
> I will keep you informed as soon as the paper is accepted for
> publication. (end of letter)
>
> I can't imagine which "Egyptologists" you were talking to. Perhaps they > had the same credentials as yourself.
> Griffis:
> > If the American line of > > thought to *you* seems predisposed to it, it is primarily in response > > to allegations made by the
Afrocentrist scholarship, which is a > > uniquely American phenomenon.
> Saida:
> Nonsense! Afrocentrist "scholarship" has nothing to do with any of the > studies now going on.
> >
>
> > Race, as far as > Egyptology has been concerned, is a term of **modern** socio-political > importance,
>
> I thought you just said that it has no importance whatsoever. The above > statement is false.
Griffis:
> > and yes, this includes the Nubian groups you refer
> > to earlier. The "fighting" you refer to is an ancient tussle over the > > use of the waterways and trade routes between the ancient
Egyptians > > and Nubians, and I sincerely doubt (as would Bruce
Williams, Lanny > > Bell, Donald Redford, among others), that it was
based upon any > > so-called "racial hatred" of peoples, as you have
somewhat implied, > > from what I have seen of your most recent posts.
Saida:
> I have implied nothing of the sort. Show me where I have said any such > things. And don't ever try to associate me with "racial hatred".
I > have no interest in this topic.
(snip)
Griffis
> >
> > So, if you have *YOUR* theories as to your origin of the Egyptians,
> > fine. But I find little evidence within your posts that reflect much > > of the *real* issues that concern Egyptologists,
>
> Again, how would you know the *real* issues that concern Egyptologists? > The airs you give yourself are really quite ludicrous,
Katherine.
Griffis:
>
> as they work to fit
> > together the puzzles of what is *still* not known about the ancient
> > Egyptian culture and history, as in detailed timelines, etc....the
> > question of "ethnicity/race/color" is of little or no importance to
> > the professionals *I* am talking to.
> Saida:
> "Ethnicity, race, color" all in one breath, eh? Why don't you just
> stick with ethnicity as it refers to groups who might have settled in
> the Nile Valley. I think Egyptologists are quite sufficiently
> interested in those.
So, Katherine Griffis claims that her "colleagues" (she is NOT an
Egyptologist) have no interest in ancient in ancient Egyptian ethnicity.
Yet here is something I found in my trash that she wrote some time
back. You will see here that Ms Griffis is not above using words like
"black" and "negroid", even though she objected to my use of the word
"Caucasian" with regard to certain Egyptians.
Griffith in response to Stella Nemeth :
>Many times, the choice of specific paintings and sculpture *are*
>*black* in features. I don't think *anyone in Egyptology* would deny
>that, Stella,nor that it is possible that blacks did not exist in
>positions of power within the Royal House, up to and including family.
> It all has to do with the fact that it probably didn't matter one way
>or another to the *ancient Egyptians*.
>It certainly seems to matter *one way or the other* to the AfroC scholars. Everybody, to them, as a rule, *has to* be "black".
>However, where actual DNA/pathology and and so on indicate other traits
>not consistent with a negroid individual (and there are some genetic
>markers that can be found, BTW), then we argue in a Jesuit logic
>fashion (IMHO) to say, "Well, their statuary *looks* black..."
This seems to contradict Griffis' statement that scientists have no
interest in race.
Either Griffis or Stella wrote this:
>Tiye is a good example: In many of the statuary and paintings of the
>period, she is exhibited in a rather "bland fashion", as much of
>canonical art is: She's youthful, her limbs are full and supple, and
>so on. As the Amarna influences in art become set into the system (and
>this began during the reign of Amenhotep III), more *realistic
>features* began to shown themselves: A determined chin (carried to
>extremes in example, with the statuary of Meritaten (Tiye's
>granddaughter) such that it *must be a "family trait"*), almond shaped
>eyes, full lips (but not a Negroid lip, as shown in Egyptian art) with
>a "downturn to the mouth", and a more "slimming to her figure" as time goes on.
Griffis:
>This was *news* back then, Stella: wow! This was how she looked. However, as to *color*, she remains painted in the yellow-pink ranges,
and ONLY, and I mean ONLY, in the yew-wood head of such and much
discussion, is she shown BLACK. There is also a yellow jasper head
(partial) that I can refer to you, and several alabaster (white) statues
>as well. Does this mean that Tiye was a "calico"??(snip)
Stella:
>Well, see, this can be cleared up with DNA analysis, but the government
> have the hell of a time proving that she is the mother without it .
Griffis:
.It IS known, however, that based on "familial DNA studies" which were
done some time ago, Tiye and Tutankhamen *are* directly related (this
done from some DNA secured some years ago, and compared with Tiye's
"hair lock" in a so-named locket found in his tomb. Further, DNA
studies performed on Tiye's *named parents*, Yuya and Thuya, do not
indicate that they were black, and that it is likely that they are
related to the mummy known as the "Elder Lady" (Saida holds out, I
think, for someone else: perhaps Hatshepsut). Is the Elder Lady Tiye?
>there is *strong evidence* to support that.
So here we have quite an interest in race from one "Egyptologist",
namely Katherine Griffis. However, she is wrong about several things.
At the time she wrote this, it was not known that ANY DNA testing had
been done on the royal mummies. In fact, the results of the testing
that HAS actually been done has yet to be disclosed. Tutankhamun and
the "Elder Lady" have not been specified to have been related by blood
at all. The only thing proven in the past is that the lock of hair
found in Tut's tomb matches the hair on the head of the "Elder Lady".
And no, I am not holding out for this mummy to be Hatshepsut. I have no
idea who she is--probably she is Queen Tiye--but I am waiting, like a
good armchair Egyptologist for the *real* DNA results to surface.
Katherine
--
Subject: Re: Dating of the Giza Pyramids
From: armata@vms.cis.pitt.edu
Date: 19 Dec 96 14:28:41 EDT
>...It's precisely because
>the belt stars are so close to one another in the sky that a
>small change in relative angles is readily discernible.
As you say, for stars close together, a small change (1 degree on a
great circle) in their positions can yield a big change in their tilt
relative to the meridian (45 degrees). Thus, the converse is true: small
changes in their tilt to the meridian (say a 3 degree turn) would only
require an infinitesimal change in their positions (1/15th of a degree on
a great circle); too small to detect "precisely" or "exactly." It's these
small changes that would allow Hancock to pinpoint 10,500 BC if they
could be detected, but they can't.
Anyway, this refers to the stars' own motions, and Hancock's main
argument is based on precession, in which the whole sky moves
together, and the stars' positions relative to one another don't change.
Look at it this way. The belt stars cover roughly 3 degrees (on a great
circle). Imagine holding out at arm's length a watch whose minute
hand is about an inch long and pointed between 1 and 2. The hand
represents the belt stars about 10,500 BC (at the extreme of the
precessional cycle). Al Nitak is at the center of the watch. Now move
the hand to 3. This represents the belt about 4,500 BC, a quarter way
through the precessional cycle.
The real time it takes to move the hand from 3 to between 1 and 2 is
6,500 years (1/4 of the precessional cycle). The change in position
around the watch dial is 7.5 watch-dial-minutes (not arcminutes).
7.5/6,500 years = .001154 watch-dial-minutes per year. This is the
annual apparent movement of the hand/belt angle.
Now, the watch hand at arm's length is small. Remove all markings
from the watch face, and try to figure what's the minimum movement
of the watch hand we could detect between 2 measurements. With no
markings, could we detect a change of one watch-dial-minute from one
night to another (let alone from one century to another)? I doubt it,
but let's say yes.
A change of 1 dial-minute would take about 866 years -- 866 years
before we'd barely detect a change in the belt angle. Add another
dial-minute as a margin of error (my choice, as Hancock never says
what his margin is), and this is now 1732 years, call it 1700. If 10,500
BC is the mathematically "perfect" match, the best he could say for the
claimed match would be it applies to about 12,200-8,800 BC (1700
years on either side of 10,500). If 10,500 BC is *not* the
mathematically perfect match (Hancock never provides figures), then
the time span could be anywhere from 13,900-10,500 BC, to 10,500-
7,100 BC.
Just based on the stars (not even bringing in the pyramid
measurements), there's no way to "exactly", "precisely", as Hancock
keeps claiming, tie the pyramid angles/belt angles match to a specific
year, or century, or even millenium. Hancock seized on 10,500 BC not
because of the "precise" sky/ground match he claims, but because
Orion's lowest culmination at that time gave him a handy peg to hang
his idea on.
Or am I just hung up on those words "precise" & "exact"? (There's
plenty of other problems in his books, like his confusion over
constellation/sign/house, astrological ages, constellation borders, etc)
Joe, who has to get ready for Christmas now!
armata@vms.cis.pitt.edu
Subject: Re: puzzle of the negrito: isolated archaic populations
From: geroldf@sdd.hp.com (Gerold Firl)
Date: 19 Dec 1996 21:00:51 GMT
In article , dbarnes@liv.ac.uk (Dan Barnes) writes:
|> In article <58s45k$con@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>, pdeitik@bcm.tmc.edu says...
|> >So unlike
|> >what has been discovered in europe, which can be summerized as
|> >evidence for interspecies cultural exchange (with a lack of any
|> >genetic exchange) in southeast asia there is simply no evidence for
|> >temporal territorial overlap. In addition there is no reason, based on
|> >genetic studies, to suggest that these ancient southeast asians are
|> >not out of africa.
|> Of course the new dates for H.e. (27 to 53 ka) in Java throws a different light on
|> this. There may have been a degree of temporal overlap. I have also heard
|> suggestions, although I have no ref for them, that H.e. had colonised at least one
|> island (c. 700 ka) that would have needed boats - even at low sea levels.
Not to keep harping on this, but I think there is an under-appreciation
of the effect of the glacial pump on population movements. Go to william
calvin's web site (http://weber.u.washington.edu/wcalvin/index.html) and
browse through some of his texts; I believe it's _the ascent of mind_
which discusses the effect of ice-age climatic change on geography and
population movements in a very lucid manner.
As the glaciers advance and retreat, ecological zones move hundreds of
miles north and south. Plants, animals, including hominids: all track
the movement of their resident eco-zone. Not only is there a north-south
translation, but other significant effects creat population movements
and concentrations: exposure and inundation of continental shelves being
one of the most important.
The fundamental period of the ice ages is 100,000 years, with smaller
fluctuations occuring within the larger cycle. Thus in SE asia, where
genus homo has been found for about a million years, roughly ten major
cycles of population advance/retreat has taken place. This is one of the
main reasons for the lack of regional speciation seen in man: large-scale
mixing caused by glacially-induced population movements. Austronesia is
precisely the place to see the ragged edge of such mixing, since it is
at the end of the line for migration, and inter-glacial inundation
isolates small populations for huge stretches of time. Pre-modern
colonization of australia, before the invention of blue-water
technology, created a huge reservoir of archaic h. sapiens who were
present when truely modern man arrived, roughly 40,000 BP. Hybridization
did take place there.
The apparent lack of hybridization between neandertals and h. s. sapiens
indicates that neandertal *should* be classified as a separate species.
In austronesia, on the other hand, it appears that genetic diffusion
rates were sufficient to prevent speciation from taking place.
|> However, you are right in concluding a lack of evidence for genetic continuity.
Alan Thorne of the australian national university in canberra, writing
in the _cambridge encyclopedia of archaeology_, concludes that there
*is* evidence of genetic continuity between australian aborigines and
pre-h. sapiens populations in java. To me, such a conclusion appears
quite unmistakable; the archaic features of certain modern day
australians is obvious. Couple that with a fossil record which shows
both fully modern skulls and contemporaneous archaic skulls, which fall
outside the current range of variation in australia, and the conclusion
of multi-regional contribution to current populations is clear.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Disclaimer claims dat de claims claimed in dis are de claims of meself,
me, and me alone, so sue us god. I won't tell Bill & Dave if you won't.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=---- Gerold Firl @ ..hplabs!hp-sdd!geroldf
Subject: Proposal for Kook of the Month: Re: WHO/WHAT is Ed Conrad?
From: Claudio De Diana
Date: 19 Dec 1996 18:49:43 GMT
Dear Everybody,
having read the FAQ of this group at the location
hereafter indicated:
http://www.wetware.com/mlegare/kotm/auk-faq.html
--------begin quote FAQ
3. Can you give me a few examples?
[...]
The people who post demented "scientific" theories and seem invulnerable
to criticism are moderate net.kooks.
The sort of person who constantly raves about the conspiracy against
her or him is an extreme net.kook, especially if he or she automatically
assumes that anyone who questions her or his world-view is an agent
of the conspirators.
--------end quote FAQ
I propose the following user, i.e. edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad)
as Kook of the month, it seems to me that he is not a previously winner:
(http://www.wetware.com/mlegare/kotm/winnersk95.html & 96.html)
and that there is at least another proposal for him as Kook of the Month
psoting the article about the Great Wall of China.
Please do notice that this brief post of
him has, in my opinion, all what it is need for his nomination:
(1) He presents - briefly - his theory.
(2) He speaks against the scientific establishment and
the "torrent of deceipt, dishonesty, corruption, etc.."
perpetrated against him.
More posts of him are currently available in all (and more)
the newsgroup cited in the header but I strongly suggests
to read this post because:
(a) it is short
(b) he describes himself
Best Regards,
Claudio De Diana
***********BEGIN OF ED CONRAD POST*************************
edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad) wrote:
>
>EJ wrote:
>
>>Greetings from Iceland
>
>> My name is Eiríkur Jónsson (EJ), I'm from Iceland. I am very new at
>>this newsgroup but I would like to know a few things
>> Who/What is Ed Conrad? I mean I'm new at this newsgroup thing (just
>>few days sins I came on the net, I'm figuring this out as I go along)
>>But I thought anthropology was something relaited to,,,, well how should
>>I put this.... ANTHROPOLOGY??????
>> I don't understand!
>>Would someone (not Ed Conrad) please contact me (not on the newsgroup)
>>and help my understand this Newsgroup buisness. My adress is
>>ej@vortex.is
>>
>>ps. This is my first message on the Internet :)
>>
>> Eiríkur Jónsson
>
>Eirikur:
>
>I'm Ed Conrad and I figured I'd sneak right in -- and fast! -- to let
>you know Who/What I am before your email gets jammed by an
>excess of incoming cow manure.
>
>Quite simply, I have discovered petrified human remains in
>Carboniferous strata between coal veins. This means man undoubtedly
>existed in almost our present form multi-multi-millions of years
>before the earliest date presented by the evolutionary theory of our
>emergence from a prehuman ancestor.
>
>Some of my evidence can be seen by calling up
>http://www.access.digex.net/~medved/conrad/conmain.htm
>which, of course, not only proves that man had existed back then
>but that other large land animals had existed as well.
>
>This is contrary to what all of the science books ever printed have
>had to say about life during the Carboniferous (a minimum opf 280
>million years ago).
>
>On the other hand, you must understand -- because it's as factual a
>fact as you'll ever run into -- that not one single shred of
>conclusive evidence is available to back up the scientific
>establishment's contention that man's most remote ancestor was a
>cat-size, monkey-like primate -- called an insectivore -- whose
>presence on earth reportedly (?) can be traced no farther back than
>60-65 million years ago.
>
>My evidence indicates that man existed on earth in our present form
>during a period of time that the lowly insectivore wasn't even yet a
>gleam in some prehistoric amoeba's eye.
>
>I'd like to note that the petrified human skeletal remains and
>petrified soft organs which I've discovered between coal veins seem to
>indicate that man was at least seven-eight feet tall, based on the
>size of many of the various human remains.
>
>The adverse hostile reaction to these coal-age petrified human fossils
>is due to the fact that they seriously threaten the very founation of
>the scientific establishment's totally erroneous theory of man's
>origin and ancestry.
>
>If we didn't evolve from a lowly inhuman primate, then WHERE did we
>come from? THAT is the question!
>
>Meanwhile, Eirukir, I'd like to mention that man who lived during the
>time period of the coal formations apparently was at least seven feet
>tall, since just about all of my human fossils seem to be larger that
>that of a large adult.
>
>I have been defending my position for some 15-16 years against a
>torrent of deceipt, dishonesty, corruption and collusion perpetrated
>by the highest-placed individuals and institutions in the scientific
>establishment.
>
>Prior to the arrival of the Internet, the scientific establishment
>always had the final say -- that I am dead wrong -- because of its
>awesome power and incredible influence.
>
>Fortunately, however, this computer age and its Instant Messages to
>Everywhere has heralded a return of the Free Press.
>
>And I've always believed that in a Free Press -- same as the message
>of Christmas -- it is much better to give than to receive.
>
>And this, I suppose, explains why my name is plastered all over this
>news group.
>
>
>
>
****************** END OF THE ED CONRAD POST ****************************
Subject: Re: Words and meanings - a basic primer.
From: Saida
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 17:20:25 -0600
Xina wrote:
>
> Saida wrote:
>
> > Marc Line Wrote:
> > (A bunch of self-indulgent garbage)
>
> The only one who self-indulgent in such nefandous (a. unspeakable,
> unutterable, usually associated with wickedness) ad hominem attacks on
> these newsgroups as of late. You turn on anyone whom you view is part
> of some imaginary (what was it?) "clique", of which none exists.
Yeah, right! That's why that vicious letter from Katherine Griffis to
me had a CC: to Marc Line!
> Nothing in your suspicions about any relationships between anyone here
> is any of yours or anyone else's business, AND YET, you make it your
> business to be as incredibly hurtful, acidic and nocious as you possibly > can.
I think you mean "nefarious", "inutterable" and "noxious". I think,
when you start calling people names you should at least know how to
spell them.
>
> > Here's one for you, Marc.
> >
> > Obfuscation:
> >
> > To darken, obscure, to confuse, to bewilder and otherwise cover up. AND> KATHERINE GRIFFIS IS STILL NOT AN EGYPTOLOGIST, Marc. Nothing you
or> any of her o
>
> She has NEVER represented herself as such to me or anyone else that I am > aware of. Like you she has a deep interest in the subject. Unlike
you > she has made it her business to find out as much about it as
possible > with the maximum of current sources, has never at any time
claimed to be > an acredited, Egyptologist. Tear that apart if like. It
does not change
Is that so? What's this then?
Email addresses of Egyptologists (Nigel Strudwick's Egypt Pages from
Cambridge University) 4 December 1996
This file contains ethereal addresses of Egyptologists (graduate
students and professionals) known to us, in a format that can be
sorted by last name. We do not know all the people personally, and some
may not really be Egyptologists. (many names snipped)
Allen, James P.; Metropolitan Museum, New York
73223.2243@compuserve.com
(will also accept mail for other members of the Egyptian dept)
Altenmueller, Hartwig; Hamburg University
z
Arrache, Gabriela; Sociedad Mexicana de Egiptologia
akunz@data.net.mx
Assmann, Jan; University of Heidelberg
ae3@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de
Aubourg, Eric; Paris
aubourg@hep.saclay.cea.fr
Bagnall, Roger S.; Columbia University bagnall@columbia.edu
Bagh, Tine; Carsten Niebuhr Inst., Copenhagen bagh@coco.ihi.ku.dk
Baines, John; University of Oxford
john.baines@orinst.ox.ac.uk
Baligh, Randa; Yale University
rabies@minerva.cis.yale.edu
Bard, Kathryn; Boston University kbard@acs.bu.edu
Barker, M. A. R.; University of Minnesota b
horst.beinlich@vax.rz.uni-wuerzburg.d400.de
Bell, Lanny; University of Chicago
lanny_bell@memphis-orinst.uchicago.edu
Bergman, Diane; The Brooklyn Museum
bklnmus3@metgate.metro.org
Bergman, Dag; New York 76761.322@compuserve.com
Bohleke, Briant; Yale University b.bohleke@yale.edu
Bolshakov, Andrey O.; Hermitage Mus. St.Petersburg
imhotep@bolshakov.spb.ru
Bovot, Jean-Luc; Louvre, Paris bovot@louvre.fr
Brand, Peter; Toronto University pbrand@chass.utoronto.ca
Brancaglion, Antonio Jr.; Universidade de Sao Paulo anubis@usp.br
British Museum, London
egypt@british-museum.ac.uk
Departmental address for Egyprian Antiquities
Egyptologists include Carol Andrews, Morris Bierbrier, Vivian
Davies,
Richard Parkinson, Stephen Quirke, Jeffrey Spencer, John Taylor,
Derek Welsby
Brooklyn Museum see note above
Dodson, Aidan; London
100761.3075@compuserve.com
Dorman, Peter; University of Chicago
peter_dorman@memphis-orinst.uchicago.edu
Griffith Institute, University of Oxford griffox@ashmus.ox.ac.uk
(see also McKay, Magee, Malek, Miles) or: griffox@vax.ox.ac.uk
Griffis (Greenberg), Katherine; Univ. Alabama grifcon@usa.pipeline.com
Guksch, Heike; Heidelberg University
b13@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de
There she is, right up there with some of the foremost Egyptologist in
the world, supposedly at the University of Alabama (except her e-mail
address, as you know, has nothing to do with any university). Then,
here she comes again--on the Centre for Computer Aided Egyptological
Research list of Egyptologist:
Hare, Tom; Stanford University
thare@leland.stanford.edu
Dr. Robert S. Bianchi, 1056 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10028-0112
Dr. Edward Bleiberg, c/o Memphis State University, Inst. of Egypt.
Art and Arch.,
Memphis, Tennessee 38152
Dr. Briant Bohleke, PO Box 202717, Yale Station, New Haven, CT
06520-2717,
[e-mail: b.bohleke@yale.edu]
Mr. Kim Bongiorno, P.O. Box 23783, Tempe, AZ 85285
Dr. Edward J. Brovarski, 1264 Beacon Street, Brookline, MA 02146
Dr. Betsy M. Bryan, 5410 Purlington Way, Baltimore, MD 21210
Dr. Karl W. Butzer, c/o University of Texas, Department of
Geography, Austin, TX
78712
Dr. Diane Lee Carroll, c/o Calif. Academie of Sciences, Golden Gate
Park, San
Francisco, CA 93118
Miss Suzanne Chapman, c/o M F A, Dept. of Egyptian Art, 475
Huntington Avenue,
Boston, MA 02115
Prof. Virginia Condon-Viscusi, Box H, Armonk, NY 10504
Prof.Dr. Lorelei Corcoran, Memphis State University, Memphis,
Tennessee 38152
Dr. Carol Crown, c/o Memphis State University, Institute of
Egyptian Art, Memphis,
Tenessee 38152
Dr. Eugene D. Cruz-Uribe, 3175 West Brenda Loop, Flagstaff, AZ
86001
Mr. Whitney M. Davis, c/o Dept. of Art History, 1859 Sheridan
Road,, Kresge Cent. Hall
254, Evanston, IL 60201
Mr. Leo Depuydt, c/o Dept. of Egyptology, P.O. Box 1899,
Providence, RI 02906
Dr. Peter Der Manuelian, 177 Marlborough St., Apt. 1, Boston, MA
02116
Prof. Dr. Peter F. Dorman, 5715 S. Kenwood Avenue, Apt. 3-N,
Chicago, IL 60637
(snip)
rof. Dr. Hans Goedicke, The J.Hopkins Univ., Dept. NE Studies,
Charles and 34th
Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21218
Prof. Dr. Ogden Goelet, 240 East 27th Street, Apt. 25F, New York,
NY 10016
Katherine Griffis (Greenberg) University of Alabama at Birmingham
P.O. Box 43159,
Birmingham, AL 35243-0159 [Voice: 205/995-2099; Fax: 205/995-2099
(Enter *77*,
press SEND) or 205/991-0304; e-mail: grifcon@usa.pipeline.com OR
grifcon@ix.netcom.com]
Mrs. Emma Swan Hall, 1080 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10028
Ms. Joyce Haynes, 86 Wilson Road, Nahant, MA 01098
Ms. Marsha Hill, c/o M M A, Dept. of Egyptian Art, 1000 Fifth
Avenue, New York, NY
>> Or that she has represented me as
> > something I am not, which is a racist! I, as a person who has suffered> from descrimination to various degrees all my life, take
particular> exception to that.
>
> Do you think you and your people were the only ones ever to have
> suffered discrimination of any kind? Your daddy survived the halocaust? > Great. Alot of people lost family in it, and Ausar's
ancestors were > brought over on slave ships, and my great-grandparents
lost family on > the Trail of Tears...and it goes on and on and on....
>
> Wolf pack behavior? Where do you get your delusions?
From messages like this from someone who is supposed not involved with
this--you.
>
> > I am always going > > to come back with the same reply: Katherine Griffis is NOT an > > Egyptologist and has no right to keep representing
herself as such.
>
> Saida/Marriane is not one either and she has no right to pass judgement > on other folks because they maintain respectful
correspondences with the > top people in the field.
Saida has never claimed to be an Egyptologist. And she, too,
corresponds with "top" people in the field.
>
> You> know, you are all a bunch of scary people--but not in the way you
> would> like to be.
>
> Have you ever ganderd a look in the mirror?
Learn to spell, Ditz!
>
> You're the one that went ballistic over some mild innuendo in a post 6
> months ago that Marc Line did in response to an unrelated troll. What
> was nothing more than a typical JOKE, one that you could have taken or
> left, and certainly NO more innappropriate than the 'Egyptian Sex'
> thread that went on for several months.
>
> Here is a clue for you, Saida. There is no 'clique', just mutual
> respect between friends. You can read whatever the bloody hell you want > into whatever you want but it doesnt change the Ma'at of the
situation, > and to be completely frank with you, Saida, it isn't any of
your damned > business nor anyone else's anyway.
>
> Xina
The "Ma'at" of the situation!!! Here's a tip: Before you start
spouting Egytpian, learn to spell English. I know it's the Yuletide
season, but I have already had enough fruitcake. From now on, you, Marc
Line and the Hab go right into my kill-file. Your names will not appear
on my screen again. And stay out of my mailbox, all of you, or I'll
start reporting you to your servers as a nuisance. However, Katherine
Griffis, the one who started all this, who began to insinuate that I am
a racist just because I am interested in the ethnicity of the ancient
Egyptians (the only people whose ethnicity I care anything about), she
will NOT go into my kill-file. In fact, her posts will undergo a much
more careful scrutiny by me than ever before. This "Egyptologist" had
better start dotting her i's and crossing her t's and make sure she gets
all her info right because I am going to bother her more than the worst
boil that ever festered on her "Egyptological" butt.
