Newsgroup sci.archaeology 52707

Directory

One more minor reply and then since I have a life...I'll get back to it.
> For the record, it is obvious that "Clastic Man" has not read, but
simply overlooked "The Pyramids: an enigma solved", otherwise he would
> have seen that the stones are looked from the side.
Book was read...carefully...but has been a complete waste of time, as it
it filled with careless statements, ludicrous errors, and what can only
generously be described as "hopeful" hypotheses (much nicer words than
"lies").
> In addition, Clastic Man's statement that all the stones are naturally
deposited in layers
> and conform to all normal rules of sediment accumulation, contredicts
> the description given by the renown  geologist Dr. R. Folk, 
I am a student of Bob Folk...and he and I are in perfect agreement about
the stones and their nature.
> Clastic Man claims having examined all the stones from base to top of
> the Kheops Pyramid. I did not find any references related to any study
> made by Clastic Man on that topic. Every body visiting the Giza site,
> which I have done, knows that since approximately 1980, it is prohibited
> to climb up the pyramids.
The pryamids can be climbed by any scholar who makes application and who
has a reasonable study proposal.  I climbed in full daylight with guides
from the pyramid complex
Now I wish to go back to useful work.  I do NOT expect these comments to
be treated with any more respect than my earlier ones, as F. Davidovits (a
relative of the Davidovits who actually wrote the infamous book?) is
working from a personal agenda that does not include telling or
recognizing the truth.
Final regards...........
         Clair R. Ossian (clastic@metronet.com)
-- 
regards...
        Clastic Man

"I shall never believe that God plays dice with the world."  A. Einstein
To which another physicist is said to have replied "One shouldn't tell God
what to do".
frankzappy@aol.com wrote in article
<19961227143700.JAA15530@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> (Dunkin' John) writes:
> 
> >  Are ye saying the LORD plays the lottery?
> 
> I refuse to believe that God play Lotto with the Universe.
> 
> FrankC
> 

Sent by e-mail and to the newsgroup
Robert Jordan  wrote:
>I have a friend who doesn't believe me when I say there was a "Copper
>age" prior to the Bronze Age.  Could someone please e-mail me a little
>description of the most accepted definition of the Copper Age (Like when
>it was supposed to have taken place) since I'm an electrical engineer
>with only a passing familiarity with ancient history.
Before a culture manages to smelt bronze they usually do a bit of
hammering of copper.  So there is a sort of "Copper Age" but it
usually is actually the tale end of the Neolithic.  Round about the
time that they have ceramics down pat, they also have enough
technology to deal with bronze too.  So, both of you are kind of right
as far as the Old World goes.  
As for when, let's say before the Pyramids, since they already had
bronze tools by then.
The New World is a bit different.  There was quite a bit of copper
work being done in North America, but no bronze at all.  I believe
that they never managed to locate any of the metals that one adds to
copper to make bronze because most of those metals are almost
impossible to find in the areas around the Great Lakes.  They had the
technology to take the next step, but not the raw materials.  So in
the New World there was a long Copper Age of sorts in North America.
As for when, that was the stage that they were found in when Columbus
and Company arrived.
>p.s.
>He's bet me an Itialian dinner that there is NO such thing as the Copper
>Age.  He's even convinced that the Bronze Age lasted up to the 11th
>century!
I suggest you go dutch.
Is he going for BC or AD?  
Stella Nemeth
s.nemeth@ix.netcom.com

In article <32C97935.5263@nwlink.com>, Robert Jordan 
writes
>I have a friend who doesn't believe me when I say there was a "Copper
>age" prior to the Bronze Age.  Could someone please e-mail me a little
>description of the most accepted definition of the Copper Age (Like when
>it was supposed to have taken place) since I'm an electrical engineer
>with only a passing familiarity with ancient history.
I'm not sure I have ever seen a 'Copper Age' officially delineated in an
archaeological text. The problem is, copper is very soft and maleable,
and on its own almost totally worthless for use either as a cutting tool
or a weapon. So people with easy access to copper continued, I believe,
to rely on stone for their working implements, restricting their use of
copper to beaten (and perhaps in Asia cast) bowls and the like. So they
continued to be classified as 'neolithic' until they discovered, or were
shown, that by mixing in some tin with the copper, they could create
(and this must surely have been seen as major magic) a much harder
metal, which retained much of copper's 'workability' when hot, but
cooled to an almost stone-like rigidity.
So one normally talks of the neolithic being succeeded directly by the
bronze age.
The timing of the switch from the bronze to the iron age varied, of
course, geographically, and most likely coincided usually with waves of
population movement. In the Aegean it is dated around the end of the
second millennium BC, and often attached to the arrival of the Dorians
and the collapse of the Mycenean civilisation. I'm not sure whether
there is any evidence for iron working or use in Britain prior to the
arrival of the Romans, more than 1000 years later.
-- 
Alan M. Dunsmuir
        Were diu werlt alle min von deme mere unze an den Rijn
        des wolt ih mih darben,
        daz diu chunigen von Engellant lege an minen armen!

Hi Phillip Assaad!
In newsgroup sci.archaeology you wrote about "Re: Are Egyptologists Interested In Ethnicity":
> We Egyptians don't think of our culture and society as an African
> society either.  All you Africans and Europeans must understand that
> Egyptians are set apart from all this ethnic junk. 
Am I understanding you right to say african people are ethnic junk?
I hope not. 
--
"This function never returns." autodocs/exec.doc ColdReboot()
 cya,           * FFNews, TCPaint, Argue,  YARP,  ShowPKT,
      Flavour   * QStars, Yep, MuiWB, IconWin, FetchIt,...

On Tue, 31 Dec 1996 23:38:04 -0500, James Mason
 wrote:
> Could there have been other stories/histories in the libraries of the
> ancient world that were destroyed -  Alexandria for one?
I suppose there could have been just about anything in the library of
Alexandria. Ptolemaios (I think) vacuumed the world for books, and if
he found one he copied it and returned the copy instead of the
original to the owner.
But saying what was or wasn't in that library would be mere
speculation. No one knows since it was destroyed.
Take Care Now,
Bjørn

In article , heinrich@intersurf.com says...
>In article <851656339.4924@dejanews.com>
>jmcarth1@gtn.net wrote:
>>In article ,
>>   ljz@asfast.com (Lloyd Zusman) wrote:
>>>On 20 Dec 1996 16:03:49 -0800, 
>>>David Carrara  wrote:

>> However sea level rose about 80 meters is less then 1000 years
>This is an incorreIct statement.  The 80 to 100 meter rise in sea
>level was not for the last 1,000 years, but rather for part of an
>glacial - interglacial cycle starting at the last sea level lowstand
>about 21,000 years ago (Bowen 1978).  Over the last 1,000
>years, the rise in overall sea level has been less then a meter
>or so, e.g. Shepard (1963).  In fact, a major controversy with
>sea level people is whether sea level was a meter or so *Above*
>present about 3,000 years ago and it has come down to present
>since then, e.g. Stapor et al. (1991).  I suggest that you need to
>read and look through Pirazzoli (1991) and learn something
>about Holocene and Late Pleistocene sea level chronologies.
Thank you for pointing out my errors. 
Yes I will read those that I can find so that I can learn something.
Unfortunately the Geology library here is closed until Jan 6.
>At no time did sea level rise 80 meters during a 1,000 year
>period during the last 21,000 years.  Again, see Pirazzoli
>(1991) for the overwhelming evidence against such a claim.
>For the Gulf of Mexico alone, there exist numerous studies
>that completely refute such a claim.
Are you sure about that? I was under the impression that the eustatic 
sea level was approximately 110m below present at the last glacial 
max which was about 15 to 14,000 BP. Most of the North American ice 
sheet was melted by about 8-7,000 BP. This would suggest to me that 
sea level increased by a substantial amount in an 8 to 7000 year 
period. I  was incorrect in the suggestion that it took 1000 years 
but I do not think I was that far off. However, I find it difficult 
to accept that relative eustatic sea level increased at a consistent 
rate of  say about 13 to 10 mm/y over this time period.  I also find 
it difficult to accept that the retreat of the ice sheet was a slow 
constant processes. That is that glacial retreat occurred for some 
periods of time as dramatic rapid steps be it by a increase in 
temperature in mid-level latitudes or by a strongly negative glacial 
mass balance. 
As for studies of sea level I can give you some areas where it did 
increase dramatically. For example how about the continental shelf 
around Queen Charlotte Sound and Vancouver Island on the west coast 
of British Columbia.
See:
Luternauer, J.L., Clague, J.J., Conway, K.W., Barrie. J.V., 
Blaise, B., and Mathewes, R.W. (1989) Late Pleistocene deposits 
on the continental shelf of western Canada: Evidence for rapid 
sea level change  at the end of the last glaciation. Geology, 17 , 
353-360.
Here a dramatic rise in sea level of more than a 100 m occurred for 
a relatively large area and it happened over a 500 to 1500 year 
period about 10,000 y ago. The best explanation that the authors 
suggest for this is the migration and collapse of a glacial induced 
forebulge in the asthenosphere such as that that you refer to below 
due to nearby isostatic rebound. 
Another example, which is not so dramatic but impressive just the 
same, is the coast of Maine. Here we see rates of sea level rise of 
22 mm/y between 11 and 9,000 BP.  That’s an increase in sea level 
of  about 40m in a 2000 years (after this it stabilizes at about 
2.2 mm/y).Also in Maine due to the rapid retreat of the ice sheet 
between 14 and 15,000 BP we see the formation of the DeGeer Sea 
which represented a rather extensive  flooding  event of about 
100 km inland in low-lying areas. The regression of this sea was 
also dramatic as well about 70m drop in sea level  in about 1500 
years. Again this is most likely the effect of isostatic rebound 
and the associated collapse of a forebulge.
See:
Kelley, J.T., Dickson, S.M., Belknap, D.F., and Stuckenrath, R. 
(1992) Sea-level change and the introduction of late Quaternary 
sediment to the southern Maine inner continental shelf, Wehmiller, 
J. and Fletcher, C., (eds.), Quaternary Coasts of the United States, 
Soc. Econ. Paleo. And Mineralogists, Spec. Pap. 48, p. 23-34.
Barnhardt, W.A., and Kelley, J.T. (1995) Carbonate accumulation on 
the inner continental shelf of Maine: a modern consequence of late 
Quaternary glaciation and sea-level change. Journal of Sedimentary 
Research v. A65, p. 195-207.
So large localized sea level changes can occur and they can do so 
very dramatically. Estimates of postglacial sea-level rise vary 
considerably worldwide.  Quoting eustatic estimates fail to 
consider local conditions such as isostatic rebound, subsidence, 
tectonic movement etc.  In doing so you are implying that sea level 
everywhere slowly increased and no rapid dramatic flooding occurred 
which is not correct and misleading.
>>and there were some superfloods during this time period much
>>larger than that observed in Iceland this year.
>This is true.  But you greatly exaggerate their significance and
>have their timing incorrect.  The superfloods that you talk
>are all mainly Late Pleistocene events either during the maximum
>of the last glacial epoch or the glacial retreat when sea level 
>was still much below present.  In North America, none of these
>floods are less than 9,000 B.P. and some are much older.
>Furthermore, all of these glacial floods, as catastrophic as they
>were, have well defined floodplains and high-water marks which
>people ignore in order to misrepresent their geologic significance.
>A good, well-documented example of such floods are the Lake
>Missoula Floods which are described in numerous studies.  Good
>studies of these floods are Wiatt (1994) and Baker (1973).  The
>interesting finding of recent research is that the channeled
>scablands (Washington) are the result of scores (100?) of massive
>floods from Lake Missoula.  Some of these floods are separated
>by several years and by hundreds of thousands of years for
>others as indicated by paleosols and other evidence (Wiatt
>1994).
Seems to me that O18 variations in the  sediments of the  Gulf of 
Mexico between 15 and 11 KYBP indicate a couple of large meltwater 
discharges from the  Laurentide ice sheet.
>>As well isostatic subsidence pushed much of the 
>>northern hemisphere into the mantle by a few hundred 
>>meters just like we see in Antarctica today.  So the 
>>flooding there was even worse since isostatic rebound 
>>has been occuring at a rate of a meters or so per 
>>century since the end of the ice age. 
>Your argument misrepresents the facts about isostatic rebound.
>It is only occuring in those areas that were glaciated and
>covered by thick ice caps. 
And how much of North America was covered by an ice caps?  Say at 
the end of the last glacial max 15,000 BP. Is it not about 
8 million km^2. Remember that isostatic responses are believed 
to occur load changes as small as 10 bars.  What this means is 
the ice sheet does not need to be all that thick to induce 
subsidence.
> In these areas, the weight of the
>ice depressed the crust by hundreds of meters.  However, only
>a small zone south of the ice front was depressed by the ice
>sheets.  The rest of North America was either unaffected or
>even *elevated* by mantle material displaced by the depressed
>crust.  Down in the southern United States, as in most of the
>western United States there was no isostatic depression
>and, hence, no isostatic rebound as you claim.  Your claim
>that *much* of North America was depressed is incorrect
>and clearly misstates the facts
Hmmm.. 
Isn’t Canada the largest country in North America? In fact I 
think it is almost as big as both the US and Mexico combined  
Most of it has experienced some degree of isostatic rebound and 
much of it still is. I can remember a number of years ago standing 
on a 10,000 y old beach and seeing Lake Superior 10 km away and a 
few hundred meters below my elevation.  And I have seen the same 
thing on the shores of Hudson’s Bay and a number of places 
in-between as well. Some of this is due to other factors but 
the majority of the uplift is due to rebound. Same goes for 
most of the other provinces and territories. Since most of 
Canada is experiencing or has experienced isostatic rebound 
then my claim that *much* of North America (about half) was 
subsided to some degree is correct and clearly states the 
facts. If you are  unaware of the extent of isostatic rebound 
in Canada here is a good reference:
The  Glacial Map of Canada: Map1253A The retreat of Wisconsin 
and recent ice in North America. Geologic Survey of Canada  
(1969)
>as clearly shown by Figure 3 of Stright (1995).  
Are you sure that figure is not for measurements of isostatic 
instability based on present day gravitational variations which 
reflects uplift to come or does it reflect uplift that already 
has already finished occurring and does it include the Cordillera 
regions that are complicated by orogenic uplift.  One must 
remember that much of the uplift occurred rapidly after the 
retreat of the ice and as a result it is no longer uplifting 
today What is the cut off for the lowest contour value in that 
figure 20m 50m 100m? The actual area of North America that has 
experienced some degree of isostatic uplift is very large.
>I would strongly suggest people to look
>at Straight (1995) and Bloom (1977) for the facts about
>these claims.  Also, the sea level curves illustrated by
>Pirazzoli (1991:187) illustrate much about this matter.
How is Pirazzoli separating eustatic changes from the other 
localized considerations that cause sea level change...  how 
is he compensating for geoidial alteration due to loading and 
unloading of crustal rocks during this time period?
>In Louisiana, in fact, there has been some depression of the
>crust of the Earth from its glacial position because of loading
>(hydrostatic depression) of the crust by rising sea level.  Thus,
>instead of isostatic rebound, the entire Gulf of Mexico coast
>has likely experienced minor isostatic depression as result
>of sea-level rise in addition to other causes of subsidence.
All that is needing is 10 bars of pressure which was  loaded quickly.
You also have the Mississippi delta there which is doing a better 
job of depressing the crust.
>The position of the maximum Pleistocene sea level in the
>Gulf of Mexico is well defined by a relict barrier island system,
>called the Ingleside Trend which lies at about 7 to 10 meters
>above modern sea level.  Above that level, there are no known
>marine deposits of Pleistocene age. The maximum lowstand
>is defined by reef trends at about 100 meters below sea level.
>They have been dated at about 21,000 B.P.
David Carrara 
"..every structure in a rock is significant,
                 none is unimportant, even if, at first sight
                             it may seem irrelevant."
                                                  -- Ernst Cloos , 1946
>References Cited
>
>Baker, V. R., 1973, Paleohydrology and sedimentology of
>Lake Missoula flooding in eastern Washington. Geological
>Society of America Special Paper no. 144, 79 pp.
>
>Bloom, A. L., 1977, Atlas of Sea Level Curves. International
>Geological Correlation Programme, Project 61, Cornell
>University, Ithica, New York, 116 pp.
>
>Bowen, D. Q., 1978, Quaternary Geology. Pergammon Press,
>New York, 221 pp.
>
>Pirazzoli, P. A., 1991, World Atlas of Holocene Sea-Level
>Changes. Oceanography Series, no. 58, Elsevier, New York,
>288 pp.
>
>Shepard, F. P., 1963, Thirty-five thousand years of sea-level.
>In Essays in Marine Geology in Honor of K.O. Emery, University
>of Southern California Press, Los Angeles, pp. 1-10.
>
>Stapor, F. W., Mathews, M. D., and Lindfors-Kearns, F. E.,
>1991, Barrier-Island Progradation and Holocene Sea-Level
>History in Southwest Florida. Journal of Coastal Research,
>vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 815-835.
>
>Stright, M. J., 1995, Archaic period sites on the continental
>shelf of North America: The effect of Relative Sea Level Changes
>on Archaeological Site Locations and Preservation. In E. A. Bettis
>III (ed.) Archaeological Geology of the Archaic Period in North
>America. Society of America Special Paper no. 297, pp. 131-147.
>
>Wiatt, R. B., 1994, Scores of gigantic, successively smaller Lake
>Missoula floods through channeled scabland and Columbia Valley.
>In D. A. Swanson and R. A. Haugerud (eds.) Geologic Field Trips
>in the Pacific Northwest, Volume 1, Department of Geological
>Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, pp. 1K-1
>-1 to 88.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Paul V. Heinrich           All comments are the
>heinrich@intersurf.com     personal opinion of the writer and
>Baton Rouge, LA            do not constitute policy and/or
>                           opinion of government or corporate
>                           entities.  This includes my employer.
>"Afterall, if the present is *not* the key to 
>the past, it is at least *a* key to the past."
>   -Flessa (1993) in Taphonomic Approaches to
>   Time Resolution in Fossil Assemblages (The
>   Paleontological Society)
>P.S. For the record, if all of the 33 million cubic kilometers
>of grounded ice in the world should melt, sea level would
>rise about 80 meters above present (Drewry 1983:Sheet 6)
>Louisiana would certainly have some flooding problems,
>but that would definitely fail to flood the world.
>Drewry, D. J. (ed.), 1983, Antartica: Glaciological and
>Geophysical Folio. Scott Polar Institute, University of
>Cambridge, Great Britian.

Bjorn Pedersen wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I'm writing a story which involves the Maya and I have been doing some
> research, and I am thoroughly confused. The local library hasn't such
> a great selection on this subject - but I've found on book on the
> subject by a Mr Eric Thompson. It's quite old. In it the Mayans are
> portrayed as almost Utopian.
> 
> But on the other hand I have some images: one of a figurine of a
> tortured man which even in picture form exudes the excruciating pain
> he's going through; one of what appears to be a King committing
> suicide (He's stabbing himself) and one of a mural or a painting which
> must be one of the most gruesom depictions of a battle I have ever
> seen.
> 
> Mr Thompson suggests the Mayans were just science buffs, not
> interested in much else than astronomy and mathematics - but these
> images speak of a much darker side.
> 
> Which is the true image? Is there any books I can order which
> describes the Mayas in good detail - but in layman's terms?
> 
> Thank you in advance.
> 
> Take Care Now,
> Bjørn
     I have found that the book entitled "Lost Kingdom of the Maya" by Gene and George Stuart to be a 
very informative in the concern of Mayan history.  It is very easy to read and does not try to 
confuse the reader with arrogance so often found by most people students of history.  This book by 
Published by the National Geographic Society, and the following information is supplied to help you 
find it.
ISBN: 0-87044-928-1.--
ISBN: 0-87044-929-x (delux ed.)
I hope this information helps you, also after doing a "few" years research if you have any specific 
questions.  Please feel free to email me.

On Sat, 21 Dec 1996 09:13:00 -0600, "David C. Clark"
 wrote:
>The Delaware tribe in North America also have written records showing a
>huge flood.
And...
_________________________________________________________________
Due to unreliable newsfeed, send me an 
e-mail of your follow-up to this post.
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
Life is as tedious as a twice told tale
Vexing the dull ear of a drowsy man.
                            the Bard of Avon
_________________________________________________________________

Hi Bjorn,
> You can't base your assumptions on rumours. :)
Yes. You are right. Perhaps it were not rumors. But then it wasn't of any  
origin which scientists would accept... So it makes no difference for  
anyoune else than me if it were roumors or not... :)
> I'm a material guy. I need things to look at.
I thought so. As you might have guessed - I am not.
> There has never been any artifacts anywhere from Atlantis - which there
> would have been had they existed because they would have traded, and
> they would have had contacts with other peoples.
Absolutely right. Now the thing is if we haven't found anything of  
evidence it doesn't mean that there is nothing there.
> I was at the excavation site once, and saw the archeologists crawl
> around in it - and I found it absolutely fascinating. Sure, it's
> probably a dreadful job digging there so carefully that you remove
> only millimeters at a time. But it fascinated me.
Yeah! For shure...
I'm living in Gauting which is very near to the city of Munich in Germany  
and seemes to be one of the oldest settlements in this area. Everytime  
they start a new building project anywhere around here they find something  
which is even older than the things found the last time.
The oldest things found a few weeks ago are dated 700 before Christ - and  
they continue digging... It's really very fascinating... It's a shame that  
there is too little money to spend on archaeology here...
> Take Care Now,
> Bjørn
Bye! Florian...
--
There has never been an objective being. Knowing this the rest is known.
Upanishads
## CrossPoint v3.11 ##

In <5absg8$nid@news.sdd.hp.com> geroldf@sdd.hp.com (Gerold Firl)
writes: 
>
>In article <5a6c1l$9sh@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
vivacuba@ix.netcom.com(Dr. Doug) writes:
>
>|> In <5a1bn1$kr0@news.sdd.hp.com> geroldf@sdd.hp.com (Gerold Firl)
>|> writes: 
>
>|> Interesting about the Moors in Spain.  Again, a non-capitalist
origin
>|> of racism.  Did that anti-Arab racism continue in Spain?  
>
>Throughout the 16th century the primary rivals of the spanish
>habsburgs in the mediteranean were the ottoman turks and their
>proxies, the barbary pirates. The american adventure, in comparison,
>was viewed as a sideshow compared to the big-money stakes in the med.
>
>I don't know how that translates into racism, actually. The enmity was
>certainly there, but I don't get much of a feeling that racism played
>a major ideological role. Religion was certainly played-up as the most
>important differentiator.
>
>And was it
>|> used to support the economic/political rule of the light-skinned
>|> Northerners over the dark-skinned Southerners?
>
>I'm not sure what you mean by this: in spain? In north africa? Was
>there in fact such a racial gradient?
>
>-- 
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>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
I was wondering about racism in Spain, and if it existed at the time of
the Conquista.  I know religion was used as a justification for war and
stealing.  But was race?  In other words, did the light-skinned
"winners" from the north write and talk about "dark-skinned subhuman
Moors," and was there concern about inherent inferiority and physical
identification of Jews?  Remember the Nazis and their "How to identify
the Jew" films and classes?  The Nazis and modern racists really aren't
concerned too much woth Jewish religion.  "Once a Jew, always a Jew."
But I seem to recall the successful "conversion" and full integration
of Jews and Moors into Spanish society.  In fact, conversion to
Christianist was a way of saving family fortunes in much of Europe
during periods of anti-Jewish pogrom hysteria.
Dr. Doug

	What I find most fascinating about Portugal is its early history,
particularly that phase which links ancient Portugal to the Celts.  "Celts"
is one of the names applied to a group of peoples who inhabited central,
western, eastern and southern Europe - in the Iberian Peninsula.  Celtic
groups inhabited Portugal from about 10.000 to 5.000 BC.  A Celtic
federation, the Lusitani, resisted the advance of the Romans until the
death of its leader - Viriatus.  The Romans named the conquered region
Lusitania.
	Is it all above correct?  Where can I find more information about Celtic
Portugal?  Where can I find (see), in today's Portugal, evidence of the
presence of Celtic peoples?  Is there anybody in here interested in this
"Celtic Portugal" stuff?  Please, help me out!  Thank you!
	Rosangela Bertelli

On 01 Jan 1997 15:28:00 +0100, floh@psd.m.isar.de (Florian Painke)
wrote:
> Yes. You are right. Perhaps it were not rumors. But then it wasn't of any  
> origin which scientists would accept... So it makes no difference for  
> anyoune else than me if it were roumors or not... :)
> I thought so. As you might have guessed - I am not.
I kind of figured that... :)
> Absolutely right. Now the thing is if we haven't found anything of  
> evidence it doesn't mean that there is nothing there.
You're absolutely right - but on the other hand, it is a strong
indication that there was never such a thing as Atlantis. Actually, I
*do* think there was an Atlantis - but I think it was just a remaining
memory of the culture on Santorini. This was before written history
and before the Minoan culture. Santorini probably gave rise to the
Minoan culture.
People tell what they have experienced, and they embellish the story
to be seen in a better light. One grandfather tells his grandson: You
should have been there when Santorini exploded. He in turn told his
grandchild: Wow, what an terrible fate befell my grandfater. And he in
his turn told his grandchild: let me tell you a story of a magical
kingdom of long ago that was destroyed by the Gods. And a thousand
years later Plato met his egyptian host and he told of this powerful
kingdom of yesteryear that so angered the Gods that the Gods destroyed
it.
> Yeah! For shure...
> I'm living in Gauting which is very near to the city of Munich in Germany  
> and seemes to be one of the oldest settlements in this area. Everytime  
> they start a new building project anywhere around here they find something  
> which is even older than the things found the last time.
Roots. That's what I guess fascinate me about it. The deep, thick
roots.
We had a wall in the town where I lived. Most of it had fallen down.
But a part of it still stood erect. It was these rough and rugged
blocks of stone.
It was from around 500 to 1500 years before Christ. When I stood on
that site I *felt* history. People had walked there since the dawn of
time. A wonderful continuum. It makes you feel the brevity of one
human life.
I guess that's what archaeology is all about, uncovering the
continuum. Peeling it off layer by layer, millimeter by millimeter,
millennia by millennia.
Take Care Now,
Bjørn

 I am talking about discrimination between
>socially defined groups, not confining myself to groups which are
>biologically defined distinct races.  The human problem of "racism"
>in
>the world today is the general problem as I am looking at it, the
>problem of competition at the ethnic level, of which the pure race
>vs.
>race opposition is but one, rather rare, instance.  The word
>'racism'
>derives from that one instance, but the problem it connotes is the
>very general one, and its meaning in ordinary usage has taken on
>some
>of that generality.
>
>Best wishes.   R. Snower    
>
>
>
>
Perhaps this is touting the obvious, but it seems historically clear that our contemporary problem with this sort of ethnic division stems from the persistence, universal, and perverse misreading of Darwin through most of the last 140-odd years since his major publications.  After all, it was via Haekel, who so fundamentally misunderstood Darwin's intention--either because he couldn't understand it or didn't want to--that led to the "scientism" of the Final Solution.  That, of course, is the most extreme example, but the whole codifi
cation of The White Man's Burden seems to have gained all its moral and philosophic force in the aftermath of the furor over natural selection.  As I see it, this is a result of binding the common desire to be "special" (as a person, as a group, as a nation) to the rigors of the Darwinian model which really undercuts all arguments about specialness on any but the most environmentally and biologically modelled bases.  The practice of might making right--and it's kindred aesthetic that technical primitivism necessarily equates to moral
 primitivism--blended with this line of misattributed science perfectly, giving us the modern problem we have today.
Just a thought.
Mark

In article 32C99ABC.1BDD@ix.netcom.com,
	August Matthusen  said:
>
>SumDumGuy wrote:
>> 
>> Herdsman wrote:
>
>> > There is absolutely NO evidence that humans and dinosaurs
>co-existed.
>> >
>> > On the other side of the coin, the Bible doesn't demand that
>they did
>> > co-exist.
>> >
>> > There are two stories about the man/dinosaur footprints in
>Texas.
>> >
>> > (1) They are forgeries.
>> > (2) They are in fact genuine; however they are separated by
>time (lots
>> > of time).
>> >
>> > Whichever is true, the conclusion is the same.
>> 
>> I thought that the footprints were both in fossilized mud that was
>> dated to the same time?
>
>See the talk.origins FAQ on the subject by Glen Kuban at
>
>http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/paluxy.html
>
>Regards,
>August Matthusen
>
>
The Paluxy footprints are all saurian.  The ones mistakenly identified as human are not human.  The trouble is, all the "popular" overviews show one print that seems to be human and the plastercast from it has even been "modified".  Even ICR has abandoned the site as a viable example.  If it is fraud it likely a case of unintentional fraud that became intentional when reputations were put as risk.
There are no fossil examples of human and dinosaurs co-existing.  Period.
Mark

In article <32BD6B00.7E3E@erols.com>, Rodney Small  wrote:
>Peter Metcalfe wrote:
>> 
>> On Sat, 21 Dec 1996, Bruce L Grubb wrote:
>> 
>> : In article <32BCBF51.64FD@erols.com>, Rodney Small 
>> : wrote:
>> :
>> : > Don Lindsay wrote:
>> : > >
>> : > > Well, one technique that was used was to interview the artist who
>> : > > painted the shroud.
>> : > >
>> : > > When the shroud first appeared, the Bishop of Turin did exactly
>> : > > that. He wrote a letter to the Vatican, saying he had done so. That
>> : > > letter still exists in the Vatican archives. Which is why the
>> : > > Catholic Church does _not_ hold the shroud to be a true relic.
>> : >
>> : > If you can produce ANY documentation of the "letter" that "still
>> : > exists," I would like to see it.  Frankly, your claim sounds either
like a
>> : > fourth hand legend or was made up out of whole cloth, so to speak.
>> 
>> The letter does exist.  Unfortunately it is Sunday and close to Xmas
>> so I can't provide any references for it.
>
>I am prepared to wait until after Christmas for such documentation.  
>However, I am not holding my breath that it will actually be forthcoming.
My understanding is that the Vatican issued an announcement in 1994
declaring the Shroud officially genuine. The 'evidence' is a Vatican
numismatist who identifies the coins on the image's eyes as consistent with
the Roman currency C. AD 32. Dispute was officially closed at this time.
-Graeme.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Graeme Kennedy

Was there indeed a copper age?
	Judging from the area of interest (Europe or "Old World
Archaeology") there probably was not a "Copper Age", although since bronze
is smelted copper and tin, each must have been found in their raw state to
provide the raw materials for their smelting.
	With that aside, I'd like to dispel the notion that copper was too
soft and therefore a "useless" metal.  You might not be aware that in
North America about three to five thousand years ago Native peoples such
as the Copper Eskimo and the "Laurentian Archaic" groups were using
natural copper and pounding it into spearheads and axes, which in some
cases they used for hunting or cutting wood.  When the Europeans came to
trade copper it was eagerly sought out by the Natives as both a ceremonial
object but also for use as tools.  
	I am currently conducting experiments on copper tools using
usewear analysis to determine if these pieces of copper scrap were indeed
tools.  I have already used thin copper sheet (0.5 mm thickness) in
scraping and cutting tests and it holds up surprisingly well.
	Of course, for armour or shields or swords you'd want bronze or
iron, but not all peoples had the same levels of warfare or tool use in
the world.
	Hope this clears things up a bit for the viewers out there.
		Have a Happy New Year everyone.
					Paul Thibaudeau

RAB WILKIE (rab.wilkie@westonia.com) wrote:
:  -=> Quoting Yuri Kuchinsky <=-
:  YK> The story of maize is becoming ever more curious to me, the more I
:  YK> investigate this matter. 
:  
:  Yuri;
:  Why is it so amazing that maize grew in Asia before Columbus as well 
:  as in the Americas? Are there not other plants that did so too?
:  Surely it's possible that the antecedents of cultivated maize grew
:  on both sides of the Pacific and the Bering Bridge,
I don't think so. The antecedent of maize was teocinte. This is pretty
well generally accepted now.
:  and that cultivation 
:  occurred independently in both areas?
I don't think teocinte is found in the Old World.
Happy New Year to you,
Yuri.
: (This need not rule out contacts,
:  but it's an option that should be considered more closely).
--
            =O=    Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto    =O=
  --- a webpage like any other...  http://www.io.org/~yuku ---
We should always be disposed to believe that that which 
appears white is really black, if the hierarchy of the 
Church so decides       ===      St. Ignatius of Loyola

Peter van Rossum (pmv100@psu.edu) wrote:
: In article <5abdsl$pdf@news1.io.org> yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
: >Domingo, I hasten to assure you that A LOT of progress has been made.
You, : >and most others in these groups, don't have a clue how much
progress has : >been made... Myself, only recently I've gone into trying
to find the : >newest research, after familiarizing myself with previous
research. Now, : >I've tracked down much of it (yes, I have plenty up my
sleeve yet, so, : >fear and tremble, you miserable Isolationists!), and
I'm constantly amazed : >how much is known now _already_ about
transoceanic contacts in earliest : >antiquity. I will just give you some
names of respected scholars. Their : >work certainly did not yet get the
publicity that it deserves. But I think : >it's only a matter of time
now... Stephen Jett, David H. Kelley, Paul : >Tolstoy, and Carl
Johannessen, of course. Only some of them... I think the : >day is coming
when the old paradigms will be overturned. : >Yuri. 
: Yuri, Jett's work on the blowgun dates back to the early '70s (that
about 25 : years old),
Peter,
It's nice of you to mention this, but do you really suppose that Jett was
just resting on his laurels all this time? Hint: he's published some
additional research recently.
: Kelley's work on the calendar dates to at least the
mid-'70s : (that's at least 20 years ago),
Ditto.
: Tolstoy's arguments on bark
cloth go all the : way back to 1963 (that 33 years ago). 
But, again, you're missing something. His not so old article in NATURE is
relevant...
: These works have
all been cited by : archaeologists in mainstream publications. They aren't
in any way obscure - 
A matter of interpretation, surely. The fact that _you_ haven't yet
learned about some quite recent _relevant_ publications is revealing...
And _you_, no doubt, consider yourself rather well-informed...
: just unconvincing to the majority of
archaeologists. 
: Johannessen's work is relatively new, but I had seen his letter in Nature the
: same year it came out - 1988. 
But did you see the photos?
: So again its not like no one was aware of it.
: You also forget that the old paradigm used to be that diffusion had
definitely : occurred and provided the major impetus for many New World
developments.  
It's nice of you to provide this historical footnote, but I don't know
about its relevance today.
Yuri.
p.s.
The currently ruling paradigm, wherever it is now, has obviously
contributed to a wave of hate-messages yours truly has received in
sci.archaeology.mesoamerican recently. I will not reply to obvious
hate-mail. But perhaps it's true that this discussion should not take over
s.a.m the way it's been happening of late. 
So I will try not to post to s.a.m as much as I have been doing recently. 
Accordingly, the follow-ups of this message omit s.a.m. This should make a
few people quite happy.  I will continue to post to sci.archaeology. 
There's no need to cross-post to two archaeology newsgroups at the same
time, anyway, as most people in s.a.m also read s.a. 
: That paradigm had started shifting by the '50s to where
now it is not the : current position of most archaeologists (although I
don't know of any who : would state they can prove for certain that
contacts didn't occur). 
--
            =O=    Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto    =O=
  --- a webpage like any other...  http://www.io.org/~yuku ---
We should always be disposed to believe that that which 
appears white is really black, if the hierarchy of the 
Church so decides       ===      St. Ignatius of Loyola

Thanks for your reply, August.
August Matthusen (matthuse@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
: > On the second thought, when I thought about these dates, can we really be
: > so sure where the earliest metalworking began?  I think that perhaps we
: > should be cautious about this whole thing? (OK, _I wasn't_ in my original
: > post...) The dates are pretty close, you know...
: Yeah, only 500 to 800 or so years older in the old world.
:  
: > a) How sure are we that both areas have been excavated and studied
: > adequately? 
: Frankly, I have no idea what you mean by that.
I meant if our sample is adequate to come to firm conclusions about dates. 
: > Old World sites probably were studied better than the
: > Wisconsin sites?
: Why?  (BTW, maybe you should read the articles: Rapp et al.
: list 540 sites regarding new world copper [not just Old 
: Copper Culture] and Vernon et al. note that the Old Copper 
: Culture is spread throughout several Great Lakes states and 
: Canada with the main source of the copper being the Keweenaw
: Peninisula in Upper Michigan.)
You're right. I will investigate these sources.
: > b) What about the carbon dating? 
: Who said anything about carbon dating?
Well, how do we have the dates then?
: > We all know about the limitations of it. Yes? 
: Some people do; I wouldn't go so far as to say "all" do. 
I do. 
: > Specifically, were any of those dates calibrated? This can change
: > the dates quite a bit!
: Are you suggesting that if radiocarbon dating is used, the calibration
: differs in the Old World versus the New world?
I mean that calibration can change the dates significantly. Often,
calibration, or a lack of it, is not mentioned when dates are given.
: Perhaps you should read the articles and the source literature. 
: Both Rapp et al. and Vernon et al. cite abundant sources (Rapp et al. 
: go so far as to provide supplemental references).  As for Butzer, 
: that was what I happened to have on hand.  Who knows, in the last 
: 25 years or so since Butzer, more recent work may have pushed the 
: age of the first signs of metalworking in the Old World back further 
: (of course, there is also 6 or so years since the articles by Rapp 
: et al. and Vernon et al. for more recent work to push back the age 
: in the new world).  
: As for your suggestion of transatlantic copper, Rapp et al. have
: also published some papers on trace element fingerprinting of copper
: to identify source areas.  If you should find some old world 
: copper artifacts which you suspect are new world it appears that
: discrimination is possible.
I would like to find out if it is at all possible that (some of?) the
copper in the Old World artifacts may have derived from the New World. I
will try to look it up. 
Happy New Year,
Yuri.
--
            =O=    Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto    =O=
  --- a webpage like any other...  http://www.io.org/~yuku ---
We should always be disposed to believe that that which 
appears white is really black, if the hierarchy of the 
Church so decides       ===      St. Ignatius of Loyola

Alan M. Dunsmuir (alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: I'm not sure whether
: there is any evidence for iron working or use in Britain prior to the
: arrival of the Romans, more than 1000 years later.
Plenty of evidence, certainly, Alan. The Celts were iron-workers. They
were quite sophisticated. They even minted some coins, apparently, before
the Romans came about. 
Yuri.
--
            =O=    Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto    =O=
  --- a webpage like any other...  http://www.io.org/~yuku ---
We should always be disposed to believe that that which 
appears white is really black, if the hierarchy of the 
Church so decides       ===      St. Ignatius of Loyola

In article <5aa3ag$one@fridge-nf0.shore.net>,
Steve Whittet  wrote:
>In article , petrich@netcom.com says...
>Elam doesn't come into existence until c 2000 BC. ...
	Huh?
	Are you referring to written records of the place? There would 
certainly have been people there *before* they learned how to read and write.
>So far as I can see Dravidian actually comes along later, but 
>Mallory has it in place c 2500 BC being engulfed by some Indo
>Aryan invasion at the very time the proto Elamite Dravidian
>proposed by McAlpin must have been in place.
	Again, they could have been around before that; I'm not sure 
when the farmers and (presumed) Dravidian speakers start arriving.
>Giving the impression that Indic is just another name for Indo Aryan...
	So what???
>"The earliest written evidence for Indo Aryan preserved in India
>only occurs about 300 BC" page 36
	So? They were certainly around long before then, but the big 
question is -- when???
>Then he gets into the Indic elements in Mittani c 1500 BC but attempts
>to show that Indo Aryan is not in the process of moving into India from 
>Syria through Iran by "excluding the improbable so as to be left with
>the merely possible".
>The choices are
>1.) The Indo Aryans divided south of an earlier staging area with
>some moving east and some west.
	If the Kikkuli horse-training manual reflects Indo-Aryan rather 
than Iranian vocabulary (it's certainly Indo-Iranian, but beyond that, 
there has been some debate), that would likely be the case.
>2.) The Indo Aryans emigrated in mass across western Asia to the Indus
>and were later divided by incursions of Iranian speaking people.
	Again, not impossible.
>3.) The mechanism of linguistic diffusion by sea trade up and down
>the Gulf by people who were IE, and people who were IA and people
>who were Indic.
	I find that extremely unconvincing, because if aquatic trade was 
enough to spread languages, then there are several places in the world 
that would be *much* more linguistically homogeneous than they are -- 
consider the Mediterranean over the millennia. The closest it *ever* got 
was when the Romans conquered all the area surrounding it -- and their 
language never succeeded in displacing Greek or Egyptian in the eastern 
part. At the present day, we may be approaching the Roman situation, 
though without the conquest, with English being the most common second 
language, even if seldom the first language, for those living on its shores.
	Mr. Whittet, you *really* have to realize that a small island is 
a rather atypical environment, no matter how much experience you've had 
living on one.
-- 
Loren Petrich				Happiness is a fast Macintosh
petrich@netcom.com			And a fast train
My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html

In article <5acosr$psa@fridge-nf0.shore.net>, whittet@shore.net (Steve
Whittet) writes:
>Subject:	Re: Nada  "Out of India"
>From:	whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
>Date:	1 Jan 1997 04:23:55 GMT
>
>Here are my questions focused as carefully as possible
>and placed adjacent to what I read to be your responses
>thus far so you can just fill in the remaining blanks.
>>
>1.) Are ...IE and IA equivalent at some point...
>or is this just Mallory's inexperience talking?
>
>2.) Are there *any* "Indic elements" in Syria c 1500 BC?
>
>3.)If so, how is that possible? 
>
>4.)If some elements are present, what is the significance that 
>they are only present in a few Mittani, Kassite and Hurrian 
>names and numbers?
>
>5.)If they were randomly present, as for example as a result of 
>people just passing through, which you seem to be implying, why 
>wouldn't they turn up in a wider range of groups?
>
>6.)What do *you* mean by "archaic remnants of contact between Hurrian 
>speakers and some IE group"?
>	[Piotr]	1.)>The major IE element...is the divine name Buryash.
>7.)What is the IE group?
>	[Piotr] 2.)>...even that is a matter of debate 
>8.)Are the Hurrians the earliest known IE group or not?
>	[Piotr] 3.)>...for Hurrian names the IE elements 
>	[Piotr] 4.)>are only found among royal names 
>	[Piotr] 5.)>(the throne names, as their second names, 
>	[Piotr] 6.)>as were the names of their family members were
Hurrian; 
>9.) By North of Syria do you mean 
>       A.) Anatolia? or the Trans Caucasus?
>       B.) Who are *you* proposing for this other group?
>       C.) What do *you* mean by "a living separate IE language" 
>       D.) What time does "spoken at the time" refer to?
>>
Here are some observations which may help to answer some of these
questions. I posted them onece before but they did not seem to "arrive" on
sci.archaeology:
Let us suppose that ancient mythology regarding the Great Flood is founded
in fact and that this great flood resulted from the "relatively swift"
rising of the seas due to the last glacial melt (I presume we are talking
here about decades or centuries).
The peak of the last glacial melt coincides in fact with the presumed
(perhaps large-scale in terms of populations existing "then") migration of
Indo-European speakers south somewhere in the period 6000-4000BC (see here
the Nostratic hypothesis as explained by Bomhard for the spread of the
proto-Indo-European language throughout Europe at this time). Hence, we
are talking about looking for the "main flood" in the North of Europe
(where the greatest mass of ice was located) and not in the ancient Near
East, as as has been done in the past - without much success.
In the North, there is no doubt that this glacial melt did occur, with
profound changes of TOPOGRAPHY - i.e. it "changed" the map of northern
Europe. Chief among these changes was the formation of the Baltic Sea
which initially was "much larger" at some point than present levels, I
presume due to the trapping of water in the north by land mass, the
remaining ice, etc. (geologists, please help me here). The Baltic Sea then
"receded" to its approximate present size - as the waters in the north 
were distributed to the oceans of the world -  raising all ocean levels by
a minimum of at least 100 meters. 
Now, the above scenario is "possible" - i.e. we are not speculating here
about some kind of a "mythological" flood about which there is no record,
but we are using what is actually known about a "great flood" which did
occur. 
In the last few days, I have just been examining my maps of northern
Europe and Asia from a topographical point of view (i.e. tundra, swampy
areas, marshes, etc., i.e. land which may have been under water then and
is now only barely on the surface because of the rising of land masses,
etc.)
And I am getting some very interesting results - especially when these
results are combined with the Indo-European migrations and some other
observations.
Let me start with something that startled me. My ancestors come from
Latvia, which together with Lithuania, show a VERY archaic Indo-European,
whereas the the third country of the so-called "Baltic" states, Estonia,
just to the north of Latvia, has a population which speaks Estonian, a
language very close to Finnish/Finnic. This is something which has always
puzzled me - how could the Latvians and Lithuanians have such a very old
Indo-European language - but only a few kilometers away from the
Finno-Ugric speaking Estonians, with the latter completely cut off from
Finland and bordered on their right by the Russians, who speak Slavic,
also an Indo-European language. Archaeologists too have been puzzled by
this whole area - since the Estonians seem to have been where they are for
quite some time.
LOOK at a map and presume that the "great flood" did occur, that this
flood was a glacial melt, and - that the Estonians were gradually cut off
from their brothers - the Finns - by the rising waters of the glacial
melt/flood (this is the Gulf of Finland, having only a maximum depth of
115 meters at its west end). You know what, that might be the explanation
for what you see on the map. It would also explain why the oldest Latvian
dialect is found in the "highland" regions of Latvia (Livland or Livonia,
what the Latvian call Vidzeme, middle of the land, and this is also true
for the highlands of Lithuania). Were there pockets of Estonians, Latvians
and Lithuanians  who "survived" the flood in the new topography which
resulted? It certainly looks like a possible explanation to me. 
Indeed, as Patrick C. Ryan has probably correctly analyzed, the word
"Baltic" may come from an original word for "marshland" and may thus be
related to Latvian 
PLUDI "flood" which gave rise to  > BALTI i.e.BALTS, "people of the
flood", since PLUDI means "flood". Patrick showed that BALT- may
originally have meant "water, marsh".
Simply using the Enc. Britannica Atlas (there are of course more detailed
maps in books and on the internet), I began to "mark off" areas which
might have been under water during the flood in this region. Try this
yourself if you do not agree with me.
Presuming that the water was bottle-necked to the West and the North by
the Ice Mass itself, the glacial melt must have spread east and south,
increasingly meeting higher ground. Hence nearly everything running from
Leningrad to the Urals east must have been under water - and - to the
right of that, nearly everything from the Urals to the Siberian mountain
ranges must have been under water - indeed perhaps far further south.
These in fact are the regions where we still have moors, swamps, marshes
and tundra today. Right at the Batlic, Finnland - land of the 55,000 lakes
- is the best example of this "flood" legacy. Most of these lakes are
quite shallow. Basically, a good portion of Finnland has remained
"flooded" since the glacial melt. 
The same thing holds true for the north of Russia, where 10 percent of the
land is still under water in the form of lakes which in part are fresh
water, or brackish or salty. An additional 10 percent is also still
marshland. This figure is 40 to 50 percent in Karelia and 80 percent in
parts of the Western Siberian Taiga. The further south one goes, the less
marshland there is, except for the Pripet Marshes in Byelorussia and the
Ukraine, called POLESYE (compare the Latvian terms PLUDI, PLUSHI
"flooded"). The Pripet Marshes are described by the Enc. Brit. as "vast,
waterlogged region of the Soviet Union, the largest swamp of the European
continent". 
When we look at all of this area even now, 8000-6000 years AFTER the
glacial melt, we can imagine that a good portion of this area was either
"flooded" or so "boggy" at the time of the glacial melt that people who
may originally have inhabited this land were forced to move - and this may
have been the forced migration which we find later reflected in southern
Europe and in the ancient Near East.
Indeed, if you take a look at your map again, then, on the basis of
topography, you can predict where such migrations must have gone, since
people took the easiest path, not crossing mountains if they did not have
to - and here the central point of migration can only be focused at the
Black Sea - north of which we find the Kurgan mounds (these mounds are
also found in Crimea, near the sea of Asov). The Caucasus is less likely
for this because it presents a formidable mountain barrier, although it
can not be excluded for sure.
These Kurgan mounds, however, are concentrated northward along the Dnieper
river, the source of which is also very close to the source of the Daugava
river (both in the larger area around Smolensk) which flows into Latvia
and then into the Baltic Sea. This is also an area generally elevated
enough to have survived any flooding (except for the river lowland areas).
At the Black Sea, "migrating" peoples could have turned West or East,
following the coastline (this holds true whether they were on foot or by
boat - since ancient vessels sailed as not to lose sight of the coast).
On the basis of the evidence of mound graves then found "south" of the
Black Sea, their "entry" southwards (either from the coast or over the
Caucusus) could have been in the area of the modern city Batumi
(*Ba(l)tumi?) - still the Slavic border town to Turkey - following the
river Coruh/Karasu to its headwaters and to the headwaters of the
Euphrates, which, if I read my map correctly, are both at the lake Keban
Golu in Turkey (near the modern city of Elazig). There may be other
topographical migrational possibilities. In terms of our discussion of
PLUDI/BALTI above (also Latvian PLUDU, PURVU, PURVIETU "of the flood, of
water, of marshy silted water"), note the following ancient names of the
Euphrates: Akkadian PURATTU, Biblical Perath, Arabic Furat, Turkish Firat
- and indeed, the Euphrates carries much silt.
Let us take a look at the modern cities located on or near this "river"
connection between the Black Sea and Mesopotamia. The city Erzurum near
the river Karasu has been an important commercial and military center
since antiquity, situated on an ancient caravan route from Anatolia to
Iran - indeed, even today it is a major stop on the rail route from Ankara
to Iran. It is an agricultural fertile plain at 1950 meters - growing
wheat, barley, millet, sugar beets and vegetables, including local
craftsmen excelling at metalwork and saddlery (all taken from the Enc.
Brit.).
Of greatest of interest for us is the city Malatya, which lies on a
fertile plain and is close to the ancient HITTITE city of Milid (close to
Eski Malataya - where Turkish ESKI means "old" to which compare Latvian
VECS-, VECI, VECAKI "old".)
Further along we find the city Urfa, in the area of which Piotr
Michalowski is currently making excavations, finding really ancient
artifacts. Now, Urfa truly substantiates the "possible" correctness of our
analysis, since Urfa is regarded to be "the strategic pass...on the
road...used since antiquity to travel between Anatolia and northern
Mesopotamia."  Enc. Brit. But this is not all...Urfa gets even more
spectacular.
The Enc. Brit. writes about Urfa (and please read this VERY closely):
"In the 2nd millenium BC it was probably the chief city of a Hurrian state
destroyed by the Hittites in the 14th century BC. Traditions of its
earliest foundation refer to the legendary king Nimrod. Muslim legend
associates the place with Abraham, whose birthplace is still shown there
in a cave under the citadel."
You will also recall my equation of Jesus with Antiochus I. Theos of
Commagene or perhaps his son. The Enc. Brit. writes about Urfa:
"Although the story of the conversion of Edessa (later name for Urfa,
originally the Aramaic Urhai) by Jesus himself is legendary, its ruling
prince was probably baptized toward the end of the 2nd century, thus
making it the earliest Christain state".
HOWALLAWHAT?! What is going on here? Look at Urfa on your map, dear
readers, and see if this is an area you associate with Jesus OR
Christianity? But perhaps the legends are right...consider that.
And consider this...in view of the older Aramaic name URhai for URfa and
the legend there that THIS is the place of Abraham's birth, I do not doubt
for a moment that THIS is the UR of the Chaldees of Biblical legend. And
hence I also wish Piotr Michalowski god speed and good luck in his digs in
this area - he MAY just be at the right place at the right time.
Are the pieces of the puzzle beginning to fall together?
Happy New Year to ALL ! And God Bless !
- Andis Kaulins (J.D. Stanford University, 1971)

On 1 Jan 1997 19:44:47 GMT, yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>
>The currently ruling paradigm, wherever it is now, has obviously
>contributed to a wave of hate-messages yours truly has received in
>sci.archaeology.mesoamerican recently. I will not reply to obvious
>hate-mail. But perhaps it's true that this discussion should not take over
>s.a.m the way it's been happening of late. 
>
Do you really think that your style of response, etc. has nothing to do with
the response you've received. Do you really think it's all to do with a
conspiracy against hyperdiffusionism?
--
Doug Weller  Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
Submissions to:sci-archaeology-moderated@medieval.org
Requests To: arch-moderators@ucl.ac.uk
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details

On Wed, 01 Jan 1997 11:11:24 -0800, graeme@seercom.com (Graeme Kennedy) wrote:
>
>My understanding is that the Vatican issued an announcement in 1994
>declaring the Shroud officially genuine. The 'evidence' is a Vatican
>numismatist who identifies the coins on the image's eyes as consistent with
>the Roman currency C. AD 32. Dispute was officially closed at this time.
>
Ok, go ahead, give us a citation we can look up.  Bet you can't find it.
--
Doug Weller  Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
Submissions to:sci-archaeology-moderated@medieval.org
Requests To: arch-moderators@ucl.ac.uk
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details

On 1 Jan 1997 20:11:46 GMT, yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>Alan M. Dunsmuir (alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
>: I'm not sure whether
>: there is any evidence for iron working or use in Britain prior to the
>: arrival of the Romans, more than 1000 years later.
>
>Plenty of evidence, certainly, Alan. The Celts were iron-workers. They
>were quite sophisticated. They even minted some coins, apparently, before
>the Romans came about. 
>
Yes -- I once held a Celtic gold quarter stater in my hand, dated to about the
2nd c. BC!
But coins are relatively recent. Metal objects wre manufactured in the British
Isles before 2000 BC.  Copper first but it didn't take long before arsenic and
tin were added to make bronze, and then lead.
Iron came in around 650 BC.
Here's something we can agree on, Yuri!
--
Doug Weller  Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
Submissions to:sci-archaeology-moderated@medieval.org
Requests To: arch-moderators@ucl.ac.uk
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details

In article ,
	graeme@seercom.com (Graeme Kennedy) writes:
>In article <32BD6B00.7E3E@erols.com>, Rodney Small  wrote:
>
>>Peter Metcalfe wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Sat, 21 Dec 1996, Bruce L Grubb wrote:
>>> 
>>> : In article <32BCBF51.64FD@erols.com>, Rodney Small 
>>> : wrote:
>>> :
>>> : > If you can produce ANY documentation of the "letter" that "still
>>> : > exists," I would like to see it.  Frankly, your claim sounds either
>like a
>>> : > fourth hand legend or was made up out of whole cloth, so to speak.
>>> 
>>> The letter does exist.  Unfortunately it is Sunday and close to Xmas
>>> so I can't provide any references for it.
>>
>>I am prepared to wait until after Christmas for such documentation.  
>>However, I am not holding my breath that it will actually be forthcoming.
The book 'Inquest on the Shroud of Turin' by Joe Nickell says that the 
artist was identified shortly after the shroud surfaced. No doubt he
provides references in that book, which should be available in most
libraries.
The book argues very convincingly (in my opinion) that the shroud is a 
fake, based on many lines of evidence, from the paint on the shroud, to
the lack of provenance, features of the image itself, etc.
My local library has at least half a dozen books on the shroud, but only
the one book doubting its authenticity. So much for living in a rational
age :)
Ivan

Milo Gardner wrote:
> 
> Yuri speaks of maize as the best leading indictor that he can
> imagine. Well, I can offer zero being given to India ,as the
> Vedic texts list Maya.
> 
> If the Maya reference in India is well known in other situations,
> I'd like to particularly cite a Historia Mathematica journal
> 'reviews of papers' submitted by Dr. Gupta, on or about Feb. 1994.
> In that article a Ph.D. candidate was researching the history of
> the symbol zero - not the concept that clearly goes back
> to 1800 BC (Egypt, the RMP and Babylon, Plimpton Tablet).
> 
> Without having the article at hand, all that I recall is that
> the Vedic section that cited Maya was read as Ptolemy - a
> gross mis-reading if I ever saw one.
> 
Let me guess here. The reference is possibly to "Surya Siddhanta"
the classic text for Indian astronomy, which is said to have been 
composed by an Asura named Maya. Some take Maya to be Ptolemy, since
in an inscription of Ashoka "Ptolemy" ruler of Egypt is called
"turamaya".
The symbol for zero in India goes back perhaps to 6th century,
when the positional decimal system came into use. 
Yashwant

Samuel Wilson wrote:
 I'm interested in artifacts which might have been children's toys.  I'm
 surprised that such things seem comparatively rare in the archaeological
 record.  It's certainly possible that we've misread toys as "religious
 objects" but I doubt if that entirely accounts for the scarcity.  From
 my own kids I know that toys  preserve rather poorly and are not very
 well curated.  Maybe that's the answer.
There are also some Mexican pull toys.... what is amazing is that it is 
the only sign of wheel use....strange they never thought to expand into 
full size.... may have been the lack of pulling animals.
Deborah Burnham

In article <01bbf679$852aa1e0$1d3ae9cd@wintermute>, gbowman@atlsci.com 
says...
>
>Please excuse me if this is a question that gets asked far too often, but 
I
>was unable to locate an FAQ for either sci.archaeology or 
sci.anthropology.
>
>Is there any truth to the claims of Col. James Churchward as to the
>continent of Mu in the Pacific which vanished 25,000 years ago and whose
>history dates back 200,000 years ago? 
The more I look at things the more I am convinced that there was some sort 
of "high" civilizations before the Egyptians, Babylonians, etc.  Something 
nasty happened to them.  Whether it was natural disaster or some self 
inflicted destruction I just don't know.  I think that what we are seeing 
in the tales of Atlantis, MU, Lemuria, etc.  are the faint echos of the 
those times.
However---Stories of ancient glory days tend to get better each time they 
get repeated over the centuries.  The stories of MU, Lemuria and Atlantis 
have had plenty of time to get real good.  So I do not put much stock in 
the works of folks like Churchward. I doubt what truth about these elder 
civilisations that might be found has anything to do with the gold-plated 
models publicized by all the New-Agers.  
However I do pay attention to efforts like studying the Sphinx to see if 
its exact date can be figured out.  The oldest artifacts of technical 
civiliztions need to be examined on their own to deter their age, not 
simply assigned to the first culture that we know about that happened to 
occupy the same spot on the Earth.  There may be much that can be found 
in folklore, but that takes a strange mixture of belief that this can be 
based upon real events, but the recognition that most of what we see today 
is tinsel and window-dressing added later.  Clearing away the underbrush 
to find the rose bush is very difficult.
Bart Torbert
Bart_Torbert@piics.com

Robert Jordan  wrote:
>I have a friend who doesn't believe me when I say there was a "Copper
>age" prior to the Bronze Age.  Could someone please e-mail me a little
>description of the most accepted definition of the Copper Age (Like when
>it was supposed to have taken place) since I'm an electrical engineer
>with only a passing familiarity with ancient history.
>
>Thanks,
>Robert
>
>p.s.
>He's bet me an Itialian dinner that there is NO such thing as the Copper
>Age.  He's even convinced that the Bronze Age lasted up to the 11th
>century!
>
>-- 
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>An EE guy who just lives and breaths off road motorcycles.
>-----------------------------------------------------------
You win,
The copper age was also called the chalcolithic(sp?) age. All my references are at 
home so I can't give you dates and if my memory is correct the chalcolithic age 
occured in Anatolia and the Levant.
Also, in some parts of the world the paleolithic lasted until the 18th century.
Ian Goldsworthy

Yuri -
Thank you for re-citing David Kelley, a non-mathematician. I am
aware of David Kelley's work and am very displeased with Mayanists
like him not looking into the basis for Mesoamericans NOT needing
fractions. 
Linguists like David Kelley have trouble grasping the fact that
Mayans used remainders, modular arithmetic, rather than fractions.
Michael Closs is the most noted of the Mayanist mathematicians
and even he does not sereiously look into the fractions issue. 
Closs cite the ethnomath aspects rather than the rich number theory 
that Mayans used to create calendars (and who knows what else was
burnt by Bishop Landa and Conquistadores).
On 30 Dec 1996, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> Milo Gardner (gardnerm@gaia.ecs.csus.edu) wrote:
> : Yuri speaks of maize as the best leading indictor that he can
> : imagine. Well, I can offer zero being given to India ,as the
> : Vedic texts list Maya. 
> 
> : If the Maya reference in India is well known in other situations,
> : I'd like to particularly cite a Historia Mathematica journal
> : 'reviews of papers' submitted by Dr. Gupta, on or about Feb. 1994.
> : In that article a Ph.D. candidate was researching the history of
> : the symbol zero - not the concept that clearly goes back
> : to 1800 BC (Egypt, the RMP and Babylon, Plimpton Tablet).
> 
> Milo,
> 
> It would be helpful if you provided the exact citation, and more details
> about this article.
> 
When I get back to the library, sometime next year, I can do that - but so
can anyone else on the USENET.
> I have already mentioned that the work of David H. Kelley (DECIPHERING THE
> MAYAN SCRIPT, 1976) was very important in establishing the connections
> between the Mayan and the Indian zodiacs/calendars/day names. Another big
> name is Paul Kirchhoff. 
>
Deciphering script is not deciphering ancient mathematics such as the
basis from which Mayans handled numbers less than one (1)!
That is to say, thank you for the citation; however, could you next time
cite a mathematician rather than a linguist when a mathematical thread
is raised?
Happy New Year,
Milo Gardner
Sacramento, Calif.

	I just looking for some advice...what are some renowned or good schools
for archaeology?  Thanks
Mateo

rs222@worldnet.att.net (Robert Snower) wrote:
> The only way to lick a culture of racism is to offer an alternative:
> a culture of individualism.  Individual merit as against group merit.
I would counter that "culture of individualism" is a contradiction 
in terms, because culture is acquired in a social group and is shared 
by the members of that group.  Also, becuase humans are social animals 
a "culture of individualism" is inherently anti-human.
The best way to cure a culture of racism is to raise a generation of 
people who have been exposed to factual knowledge about what differences 
in skin color, hair form, language, religion, etc. mean, and, perhaps 
more importantly, what they don't mean. One way to do this would be to 
make anthropology a part of everyone's general education.  I'm for it! 
Any seconds?
Ron Kephart
University of North Florida

On 1 Jan 1997 akaulins@aol.com wrote:
>Peter Metcalfe  writes:
> 
> >Why do you think Isaac Newton has special insights on Ancient Egyptian
> >Chronology?  
> 
> I do not write that Newton had "special insights". 
No but your post appears to indicate that you believe what what he
thought about ancient history is closest to the truth.  I am
wondering why you should think this is so.
> Newton challenged the
> established chronology of the ancient Near East and of Egypt on the basis
> of his massive knowledge of the ancient text sources then available -
> combined with his at that time unparalleled understanding of astronomy -
> and at a time when no one else even considered this issue. 
His 'massive knowlege'?  His 'unparalleled' understanding of Astronomy?  
Perhaps we could have less rhetoric and more facts.  Namely what was
wrong about the established chronology in Newton's time that he 
challenged and was subsequently verified?  What astronomical matters 
did he incorporate in his arguments?
> You would have
> to read Newton's book and ask if anyone alive today has such a command of
> the ancients - I doubt it.  I had the book copied at the British Museum 
> many years ago - you can not buy it anywhere, so you may find it hard to
> check what I am saying. Sorry for that, but I do not determine what old
> books the publishers, universities and institutes reprint.
If you could at least provide the _name_ of the book in question, the 
task would be so much easier.  Who knows, Cambridge might have seen 
fit to print it after you have had the book copied.  And you may find
it useful to talk to a professional egyptologist before wondering
whether anyone alive has 'such a command' of the ancients.  People
do work at these topics for a living, you know.
> Research subsequent to Newton's time, the "partial" decipherment of the
                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> hieroglyphs (much is still disputed) as well as modern chronological
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^             
> methods have proven Newton right IN PRINCIPLE (we do not want to argue
> here about the specific dates), so Newton must have a good "nose" for the
> truth where his colleagues failed. 
What is in dispute about the decipherments of the hieroglyphs?  And how
was Newton proven correct 'in principle' if his dates do not fit with
current theories?
> Recall, Newton was probably the
> greatest mind of the 17th century - and I thus regard his arguments with
> interest. 
But would you view his beliefs on alchemy to be relevant to today's
chemistry?  Or his belief that light is solely corpusular to modern
physics?  Do you subscribe to his beliefs in the literal truth of
Genesis? Or his views on Catholics?  If you answer is no to any of
these then why should his views on egyptology be relevant given
his ignorance of vast amount of the material that is known today? 
> I have used Newton's basic idea in my research in the last 25 years and
> find that much of what he wrote is true, especially as regards the
> Egyptian Dynasties.
I must say it makes a change from Velikovsky.
--Peter Metcalfe

On Wed, 1 Jan 1997, Douglas Weller wrote:
>graeme@seercom.com (Graeme Kennedy) wrote:
> 
> >
> >My understanding is that the Vatican issued an announcement in 1994
> >declaring the Shroud officially genuine. The 'evidence' is a Vatican
> >numismatist who identifies the coins on the image's eyes as consistent with
> >the Roman currency C. AD 32. Dispute was officially closed at this time.
> >
> Ok, go ahead, give us a citation we can look up.  Bet you can't find it.
If he does find the cite, the facts would be somehwat different 
than he claims above.  Going from memory of the newspaper articles 
at the time, there were two people who conducted computer-aided analysis
of the shroud to _find_ the image of the coin in the eyes (or so they
said).  Neither of them were numistatists and their findings was merely
reported in a vatican newspaper rather than the Vatican making an
official announcement.   
To me the case looks similar to the Martian Canals combined with an
almost criminal amount of sheer historical ignorance.  Since when 
were coins in the eyes a funerary practice of 1st Century Judea?  
There were no ferrymen of the dead in Jewish Lore...
--Peter Metcalfe