Subject: Re: Racism and ancient history
From: vidynath@math.ohio-state.edu (Vidhyanath K. Rao)
Date: 7 Jan 1997 14:19:07 GMT
In article <5arp6e$p8f@news.sdd.hp.com>
Gerold Firl (geroldf@sdd.hp.com) wrote:
>In article <5aj3c5$2r0$1@mathserv.mps.ohio-state.edu>,
>vidynath@math.ohio-state.edu (Vidhyanath K. Rao) writes:
|> in article <5abvut$nid@news.sdd.hp.com>,
|> Gerold Firl (geroldf@sdd.hp.com) wrote:
|> >Interesting. I must confess to having some doubts about the
|> >revisionism you mention; I have not researched indian prehistory to
|> >any depth, but the general picture of indra, "the destroyer of
|> >cities", as patron diety of the indo-european invaders still looks
|> >very persuasive to me. [...] I find the lack of archeological
|> >evidence for the post-conquest period to be a natural consequence of
|> >the pastoral lifestyle of the early indo-europeans, but I can
|> >understand why post-colonial indian scholars would prefer to interpret
|> >such negative evidence as an indication that it never existed.
|> You have not researched Indian prehistory in any depth, but assume
|> that ``revisionism'' is due to the nationality of the doubters.
>I'm not *assuming* that post-colonial nationalism is coloring the
>slant of indian scholarship, but I do understand where such tendancies
>come from. It's nothing like the excesses of afro-centrism, of course,
>but the repeated cycles of conquest provide a difficult problem for
>the indian national identity; at what point should assimilated foriegn
>ideas be considered indian? Particularly when they are utterly
>contradictory to longstanding aspects of indian culture? In the case
>of vedic culture, which is often considered to form the nominal basis
>of hinduism, and yet is totally antithetical to modern hindu thought
>and the dravidian base culture from which it developed, it's easier to
>declare that the aryan invasion never occured at all.
I suggest that you read Jan Gonda's ``Change and continuity in
Indian ... '' [I am not sure of the exact title, but the last word is
something like `Religion'] before throwing around such claims as you
make in your last sentence.
There are more studies of the same type which raise serious questions
concerning the conventional wisdom about sources of Hindu beliefs.
Ahimsa, for example, has Vedic antecedents. See `Origins of Ahimsa'
by Hans-Peter Schimdt in Festshrift Renou.
>I do not claim to know exactly when and how the indo-europeans arrived
>in india, but the general picture of a military conquest followed by
>gradual assimilation (retarded, but not prevented, by caste
>restrictions) looks very plausible to me. That is the standard model,
>as I understand it. What information do you have which contradicts it?
The simpel fact that philologists who defend that theory have been
unable to find hard archaeological evidence to support it; the
fact that realia present serious anomalies that philologists are
not even aware of; that many have given up the idea of military
conquest, and have retreated to a position of `gradual inflitration'
by Indo-Aryans.
The first has been discussed threadbare in the literature. I have neither
the time nor the inclination to rehash them. I will limit myself
to a few examples of the second.
There is no evidence that bits were used in India to control horses
before the time of Indo-Greeks and Sakas. Vedic texts do not have
any term that could be translated by `bit'. Sanskrit word for bit
is a loan from Greek. On the other hand, Sredny Stog Culture, the
proto-IE culture according to the `Standard Model', shows evidence
of bit use, way back in the fourth millennium BCE. If horses were
introduced into India by people derived from Pontic-Caspian area,
why were bits not used in India?
Another problem with philologists is that they ignore simple mechanics
and basic knowledge of horse harnessing and driving when discussing
chariots which supposedly where the secret weapon of Indo-Aryans.
The Vedic chariot, as resconstructed by philologists from Vedic texts,
is technologically backward compared with chariots from the Near East.
Vedic harness lacked yoke saddles (aka neck forks), crucial in adapting
to horses the neck yoke developed for bovids; Near East shows evidence
for them from 17th century BCE onwards. The Vedic harness would not
be usable except for horses at a walk on level groun or very gentle
slopes (less than 1% grade). And Indo-Aryans rode them from Central Asia
to Punjab, over the mountains of Afghanistan? [References to
get started on this: Sparreboom, `Chariots in the Veda';
Spruytte, `Ancient harness systems'; Littauer and Crouwel,
`Wheeled vehicles and riden animals in the Ancient Near East'.]
>|> Why don't you look at the possiblity of Westerners being misled by
>|> their racial prejudice?
>
>I do consider that possibility, but I don't see any evidence supporting
>the notion that it's played a major role in our understanding of
>indian history. If you have contrary evidence, I'd like to see it.
It is as plain as the nose in your face. Just think about the
way `anaas' has been translated and uncritically accepted by
Mallory or by you.
>|> All available evidence indicates of early IE were agricultural, a fact
>|> accepted by everyone except Indologists (which indicates, IMHO, the
>|> mendacity of Indologists).
>
>Depends on what you mean by "early" IE. The aryans of india certainly
>were not agriculturalists; they reckoned their wealth in terms of
>cattle. If you are referring to the androvno and srubnaya cultures of
>the eastern steppes (likely ancestors of the indian aryans) then a
>characterization of them as "agriculturalists" seems misplaced. Most
>of their territory was too arid for agriculture, though it's very well
>suited to pastoralism.
Andronovo cultures show evidence of >irrigation< agriculture. Grindstones
have been found in Andronovo sites. See Kohl, `Central Asia, from
Paleolithic beginnings to the Iron Age'. [Sorry, I don't have the
exact page numbers handy.]
>|> Archaeological evidence shows that
>|> steppe pastoralism developed out of agricultural lifestyle.
>
>This doesn't look right to me. Can you explain?
I suggest that you simply follow up the references found in Mallory's
`In search of Indo-Europeans'. That even such a staunch defender of the
`Standard Model' accepts this should tell you how strong the evidence is.
--
Vidhyanath Rao It is the man, not the method, that solves
nathrao+@osu.edu the problem. - Henri Poincare
(614)-366-9341 [as paraphrased by E. T. Bell]
Subject: Re: maize in Europe and India: a twisted tale
From: yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky)
Date: 7 Jan 1997 15:12:51 GMT
Dear Greg,
I have read carefully this long post of yours, and now will make some
comments about some of the issues you raise. Again, I compliment you on
the solid research that you did, especially in looking up some
specialized literature that is not easy to track down for
non-specialists.
GKeyes6988 (gkeyes6988@aol.com) wrote:
: YURI HAS NOT FOUND HIS "SMOKING GUN", BUT RESEARCHING HIS ARGUMENT HAS
: REVEALED WHAT SEEMS OT BE A LEGITMATE, ONGOING DEBATE ABOUT THE ANTIQUITY
: OF MAIZE IN ASIA.
...
You make three conclusions, and I will reply to them point by point. You
start with this,
: 1. The articles by Jeffreys and Johannessen are deeply flawed and have
: been well rebutted, even by those who still favor a pre-Columbian maize in
: Asia.
Further, you include these details:
: "Johannessen and Parker conclude, on the basis of several intricate
: details, including kernel-like carvings, that these structures
: morphologically represent the maize ear. their conclusions are, however,
: based on gross comparisons of MLS and maize ear, for qualitative traits
: such as the shape of MLS and kernels, curving at the tip of MLS, and
: arrangment of kernels. Most of the characters for which they made
: comparisons are subjective and not quantifiable, and hence not amenable to
: statistical analysis. Indeed, in the quantitative trait they recorded
: (width.thickness ratio for the bead-like structures or 'kernels' of MLS),
: MLS were significantly different from maize ears. Payak and Sachan
: examined 50 friezes in Somnathpur and concluded that the objects resemble
: some kind of beaded ornamentation characteristic of the Hoysala tradition
: and they did not represent maize ears. However, their conclusions also
: are not based on quantitative data. Hence the present study (Veena and
: Sigamani pg 196).
As I understand it, V & S have found problems both with Johannessen &
Parker, and with the work of P & S.
: In other words, both earlier studies basically "eyeballed" the icons in a
: subjective and highly interpretive fashion. J and P "saw" ears of corn
: while Payak and Sachan "saw" nothing of the kind.
: Veena and Sigamani then proceed to do a systematic morphological study
: with statistical analysis and conclude that these icons -- whatever they
: might have represented -- do not likely represent corn. This kind of
: analysis is crucial in the study of iconography -- and for that matter,
: unknown scripts. Otherwise, something can look like whatever you want it
: to.
Now, what can I say here? V & S claim to have found the right kind of
methodology to evaluate these carvings. But is their methodology really
infallible? I'm sure someone else can easily come along and devise
another methodology, and claim that IT is the most appropriate?
In particular, they say above: "Most of the characters for which they [J
& P] made comparisons are subjective and not quantifiable". Well, sure,
these _may be_ subjective characters. But, really, what do we have here?
We have a UNIQUE case of a large number of ancient carvings that _seem_
to many to represent maize. (And not only that, but also a very unusual
archaic variety of maize, that, although unusual, still looks like
maize.) How do you devise _an objective methodology_ for comparison in
such a case? And -- whatever methodology you devise -- is it possible
that nobody would come along to cast doubt on it and to suggest another
methodology? I don't think so.
I don't think the debate about methodologies is irrelevant here. But
let's not get sidetracked too far. This matter is not so complicated that
it would not allow for an individual judgement -- yes, subjective --
based on simple observation.
Get a few fair-minded people to look at the carvings and take a vote. If
they vote, Yes, this is maize -- so be it. If, No, then No. Now, how's
this for a methodology?
Does this seem flippant? Perhaps it is. But I say what I say in the firm
belief that this debate about Indian maize will not be settled by the
narrow debate about what the carvings represent. On the other hand, I
also firmly believe that this debate about Indian maise WILL BE SETTLED
eventually, and perhaps not too far away in the future -- but on a
different basis. On this, more later.
As this post is getting long already, I will continue in the next one.
Best regards,
Yuri.
REFERENCES:
(provided originally by Domingo Martinez Castilla
)
Johannessen, Carl, 1988 "Indian maize in the twelfth century B.C."
Nature 332:587 (note that the date was wrong: should have said A.D.)
Johannessen and Parker 1989 "Maize ears sculptured..." Economic Botany.
Payak and Sachan 1988 "Maize in Somnathpur, an Indian medieval temple",
Nature 335: 773-774
Payak, M.M., and Sachan, J.K.S. 1993 "Maize Ears Not Sculpted in 13th
Century Somnathpur Temple in India." Economic botany. APR 01 1993, vol.
47, no. 2, p. 202-
Veena and Sigamani 1991 "Do objects in friezes of Somanthpur temple (1268
AD) in South India represent maize ears?" Current Science 61:395-396
--
=O= Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto =O=
--- a webpage like any other... http://www.io.org/~yuku ---
Diffusionist studies are not, as they are sometimes said to be,
attempts to depreciate the creativity of peoples; rather they are
efforts to locate and specify this creativity. D. Frazer,
THEORETICAL ISSUES IN THE TRANS-PACIFIC CONTROVERSY, Social
Research, 32 (1965) p. 454, as quoted by J. Needham.
Subject: RE: Santorina [There] (Was Atlantis)
From: eyeguy@digmo.org (Steve Collins)
Date: 7 Jan 1997 14:46:47 GMT
In article <32d15a3d.2907990@nntp.sn.no>, NotPublic@Nowhere.net says...
>
>On Thu, 02 Jan 97 16:08:23 GMT, solos@enterprise.net (Adrian Gilbert)
>wrote:
>> It never ceases to amaze me that people carry on associating the
>>event of the explosion of Santorini with Plato's description of
>>Atlantis. It's like us saying that the American Civil War took place
>>Britain or vice versa. Plato states quite categorically that Atlantis
>>lay beyond the Pillars of Hercules in the Atlantic Ocean and that
>>beyond it lay another continent (America).
>
>The text which we're talking about here is two dialogues between
>Timaeos and Critias. The island was described...[snip] as being larger
>than Asia Minor and Libya put together...[snip]
>
>Some have forwarded that the myth is a remnant of a real event. Some
>people say it was Santorini, other say it was an island in the Aegean
>called Thira.
Thira (or Thera) was the original name of the island now known as
Sntorini.
>This is was [sic] the Encarta 95 says [about] Thira, which I suppose
>is as good a candidate for being Atlantis as anything: "Delos, Mílos,
>and Thíra contain numerous ancient remains, many of which have been
>excavated by archaeologists." Apparently Thira was buried by a volcano
>in 1500 BC.
>
>>he [Plato] would have known about Santorini, Crete and the other
>>islands in the neighbourhood. The Greeks were great sailors and their
>>civilization was maritime. Surely if he had wanted to talk about a
>>little local trouble with Santorini he would have said so and got his
>>geography correct?
>
>Off course he knew about Santorini. But Santorini is only what remains
>after a much bigger island was blown to bits by an underwater vulcano.
>I'm not sure when this happened, but I'm pretty sure it happened
>before the Mycaenean age and before the Minoan age.
The time period from c3000BCE to c1000BCE is known as the Aegean Age,
The Bronze Age civilization of Crete was known as the Minoan Age, and
flourished from c3000BCE to c1400BCE. The term Mycenaean is used as
the term for the Aegean civilization as a whole from c1400BCE onwards,
until the rise of Classical civilization.
>I saw the theory aired on the Discovery Channel once, and it seems
>much more likely than most other "theories", especially the ones that
>claim that America or Scandinavia would be Atlantis. But having looked
>into it now, it might as well be the Thira theory.
>In my opinion the Atlantis issue is still an open question. One day we
>will find the answer to this connumdrum, most likely in the West
>Indies.
Unlikely. I believe the legend of Atlantis is based on the Minoan
collapse due to earthquakes and tidal waves from the explosion on
Thera.
>I really don't think there has ever been an entity known as Atlantis.
>Why? Because there are no evidence what so ever of it: no jugs, no
>amphoras, no ships or armours, or ruins. If the egyptians knew about
>Atlantis for real, then they would have traded with them and would
>have items to display.
>
>But there is nothing, except Plato's tales.
The history of Cretan (minoan) civilization is gnerally one of
unprecedented and smooth rise to civilization. There island, while
large, was typically undefended. They had large palaces, but generally
no large forts. So far as we know, they kept no standing armies,
engaged in no wars with their neighbors, and traded extensively
throughout the Mediterranean. If there was a Utopian civilization in
the ancient world that filled the bill as a possible Atlantis, I
believe Crete was the one.
Archeological evidence tends to inddicae (NOT prove) that their
civilization fell suddenly and abruptly; there homes and palaces were
either knocked down, or consumed by fire. There is some indication of
coastal flooding.
At any rate, their civilization never recovered, and it is assumed by
some archeologists that some survivors managed to reach Greece, where
either through trade or slavery their culture and technology was
incorporated into what later became the Mycenaean civilization.
Just my $.02 worth (and a non-professional expert opinion)
Steve Collins (eyeguy@digmo.org)
Subject: Re: you bickerers about pyramids, your Bible theories disgusts God
From: Doug Bailey
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 1997 11:00:06 -0500
John the ForeRunner wrote:
>
> Scholastic atheists are too blind to see the truth in the Bible.
> And the replies from the religious or those UFO nuts who stain
> God's truth by using the Bible, fabricate the most contradictory crap
> twisting reality equally if not more than atheists do.
I agree that people are prone to do such things and after reading your
post I would have to say to fit snugly among the ranks of those you just
described. Please see below as I attempt to fix the hideous mess of
presumption and downright fallacy that you have presented.
> > > >> Jiri:
> > > >> Tomorrow, if I get time, I will explain in detail just HOW the
> > > >> pyramids were built.
>
> * they were built first by tunneling a shaft into Giza in 2170 BC
> 200 years after a global Flood, and 140 years before people were
> old enough to die since three generations lived 430 years and the
> next three lived only 240 years.
> (means no honorable deaths or honorable tombs were dug or built
> for those dying until death was viewed as not the result of ill behavior
> but rather a global inevitable occurrence starting in 2030 BC.)
> Noah at 940 saw the plunge in longevity from internal C-14
> and Gilgamesh ran to him whimpering about what to do to stop it.
> Here's Egypt's pyramid versus the Bible's.
> The Great Pyramid being the first started doesnt mean it was the first
> finished. Doser's could still be the first finished as currently claimed.
> (the upper culmination is a modern view, not of ancient Egyptians).
>
> http://www.execpc.com/~elijah/Pyrmid/LoCulmThuban.GIF
> http://www.execpc.com/~elijah/Pyrmid/UpCulmThuban.GIF
As usual with many zealots, they are high on (unfounded) arrogance and
low on actual facts. Scholarly consensus holds that the Great Pyramid
was built by the Fourth Dynasty Pharoah Khufu in the period of 2551 BC
to 2528 BC. It should be noted that carbon dating of organic material
within the mortar (from several areas of the Great Pyramid has yielded
dates 3809 BC and 2869 BC (there is a modest range with these
measurement methods but they illustrate that the mortar was laid into
position no later than the 26th millenium BC). As for the wild
statements you made at the end of that paragraph regarding men living
900 years and Gilgamesh, they are their own refutation.
> Ed Conrad wrote
> > > >Oooooooo, Ed's gonna tell us how the Pyramids were built. This ought to
> > > >be good. If this theory is anything like his theories on mans origin I'm
> > > >gonna be on the floor.....
>
> >Dunkin' John wrote:
> > > What's the mystery? It is all there at Genesis 6:4 if ye will only read.
> > > The mighty men of old who built the pyramids were the unclean progeny
> > > of illicit couplings between the daughters of the Earth and the Nephilim.
> > > That is why the building of the pyramids ceased so abruptly. All the
> > > Nephilim half-breeds perished in the Great Flood. That is also why it
> > > is so dangerous for man to be experimenting to find ways of extending
> > > life and strength by genetic research on people.
> > > If such research continues, there will be another reckoning!
> > > The voice of one sobbing in the Wilderness; Matthew 3:3
>
> * this is assinine. Scripture clearly proves the Nephilim are not the
> fathers but the sons born from the cross marriage. Further, the pyramids
> were all built AFTER the Flood to count til the next global destruction.
"Scripture" proves nothing, it says lots of things... be careful. Your
statement regarding the reason the Pyramids were built has to be the
clearest sign you are quick to throw out speculations that fit your
little picture of the world and dress them up as unquestionable fact.
In the real world, the fact is we do not know for sure why the Pyramids
were built. The most cogent explanation I have seen has been they were
part of a rather elaborate tradition dating back to ancient times (The
Message of the Sphinx, Bauval and Hancock).
> They were NOT built by giants, and even Moses grew angry with you
> wicked church goers he sent into Canaan to hear you liars come back
> claiming the Nephilim were still alive in Canaan.
> It is religious priests who fabricated the concept that Adam or Seth or
> Enoch or Noah built pyramids to tell them when the Flood would come.
> The pyramids were a post-Flood device to count to our own destruction
> NOT the last one, the Flood. Modern scholars are not the first to have placed
> the pyramid in a year before the Flood and thus conclude they were built before it.
Flood? I saw somewhere you claim this "Flood" happened sometime in the
early 3rd millenium. Any sediment deposits to evidence this? Or is your
sole support your own glazed-eyed zealot approach to this issue? The
last major flooding of the what is now Egypt, Arabia, and the
surrounding regions was between 11,000 BC and 9000 BC. This flooding
was caused by the melting of the Wisconsin and Wurm ice-caps and the
earlier recession of the Tazewell Advance. Modern scholars do not
recognize the possibility of the flood in the early 3rd millenium.
Again, there is no evidence for such a claim. So before taking your
grain of inaccuracy and using it to go on a wild speculation tantrum,
how about find a few facts and then start from there.
> Moslems used Africanus to claim the pyramid was started by Noah when
> he got off the ark in 3258 BC. But because Eusebius said the Flood was 2958 BC,
> the popular claim came to say the pyramid was built 300 years before the Flood.
> Fabricating such sensationalism only serves to destroy faith in the reality
> of Bible truth. So I find your own Bible claims as disgusting as the atheists.
Its funny that your claims against your 'opponents' seem always very
appropriate for yourself. You are definitely "fabricating
sensationalism" that definitely destroys any chances of having any
cogent discussion on the matters at hand.
> A voice crying out and going unheard,
> (40 years Oct 7) Nehemiah's (9:1) 50th JUBILEE of Tishri 24
> God's 1000 years has begun Sep 14 of 1996.
> The 144,000 will rule before this first year ENDS.
> http://www.execpc.com/~elijah/Ezra1991CE.gif
>
> Discover the world's true chronology thru the Bible at
> http://www.execpc.com/~elijah
If I have not adequately illustrated John the Forerunner's lack of
grounding in anything resembling reality, I believe his SIG seals the
case shut. Problem is that zealots are never wrong in their own mind so
you end up watching them portray themselves as perfect and the holder of
some divine knowledge, when they in fact are suffering from what
psychologists term as mild delusions (of grandeur in John's case).
Subject: mocking R.Digest as source / discuss Jewish calendar
From: John the ForeRunner
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 1997 10:40:03 +0000
>Readres Digest is a reliable source?
(Sorry if I'm sensitive. I explain why further down. But is that
your British spelling for reader? No need to answer, this is a dig
to show the emptiness of most posted questions and remarks I receive
in reply from EDU addresses.)
First, I am not the one who claimed my March 23 of 97
came from Reader's Digest, but rather one of your skeptic brothers who
do not mind lying to the world to destroy others reputations.
Every reply of his has been an invalid surface stereotyped opinion
of my words without really reading what they said or mean.
>At 04:41 PM 1/6/97 -0500, you wrote:
>>>John the ForeRunner wrote:
>>>> So too your own scholars who
>>>> say not to listen to my wolf-cries are yet telling you to listen to them
>>>> because someday an asteroid WILL strike. Dont be surprised when
>>>> it is March 24.
>>>So tell me where to hide? Will under my desk do? That is what they
>>>taught us to do in Los Angeles during school earthquake drills. Then
>>>came Pearl Harbor and we were taught the same drill for air raids. I
>>>believe a later cohort was taght this drill for H- and A-bobmb drill.
>>Goes to show we all truly know the system gives us stupid things to do
>>claiming it will save us, when even a child can see it won't.
>>Two feature movies coming in February, one on volcanoes...so watch it
>>because the other is on asteroid which triggers them.
>By what laws of physics do asteroids tigger volcanic erruptions?
Forgive me if I choose here to be a strivial as you
and ask if you dropped an R in trigger. (I say this to show all
readers that skeptics always pick at small things like they did with Jesus,
while Jesus says the skeptics have no proof and dont even lift a finger
for their own evidence. Example: Egyptian pyramid astronomy...no specific
dates or years for their claims and yet scoffing at specific Bible years
which match exact dates of astronomy.)
>Why should I believe the fiction in two feature films? Are they based on
>some solid facts? Which?
As I have publicly posted before, China Syndrome was for entertainment.
You paid to see a story whose message is not entertaining. Yet 3-mile
island went off that fisrt week of movie release.
>>>Have you been reading Usher lately?
>>>Martin Fox
>>Usser's Adam is 4004 BC presuming 600 years til 1996-1997 AD
>Did you drop a zero?
(no I was using base 100, hehe)
>>The real Adam was 4025 BC, his mate 4005 BC, and their sin in 3955 BC.
>>Prophecy
>What prophecy?
>> indicates the 6000 years from Eve is correct because
>>it was their procreative purpose which was uprooted,
>Huh? They had Cain and Able and many more. As I recall the total is
>unspecified; it is only stated that they had sons and daughters.
(did you mispell Abel)
BTW the Jews kept much history which is not in the Bible.
[1]
Abram kept a 25-year (Nisan) lunar calendar from Isan he brought to Egypt at 75.
The foundation of Isan in 2018 BC recorded the moon in Egyptian dates.
In the 175 years of Abram, Nisan drifted back 44 leap days from July back
to May. When Babylon was founded in 1894 BC and celebrated its anniversary in
1893 BC, Abram mourned man's error and offered Isaac as sacrifice at
the age of 25 (309 moons spanning 25 Nisans)
[2] Jerusalem was taken on Sabbath years
[3] Eve had 56 children, 33 sons, 23 daughters, 1 son murdered
23 sons married 23 sisters, and 9 sons married 9 nieces.
Shall I go on....
>> and because
>>the 6000 years which end in 1975 AD do end in 1914 AD when retaining
>>the 360-day calendar since the 2370 BC Flood.
>>This 1914 AD is the 50th jubilee from 537 BC
>>as 1996 AD the 50th jubilee from 455 BC
>>(82 years to restore Jerusalem...the real true city of gathered
>>believers who survive while the earth dies in a global disaster.)
>You seem to believe that the Jewish calendar is a 360 day calendar. It is a
>lunar calendar, but has leap years in which an extra month is added. So
>there really havn't been that many Jubilees.
>Martin Fox
Not what I beleive but rather what was so. The 360-day calendar was not
disolved until Babylon was founded in 1894 BC. When it was dissolved,
the lunar calendar then used was the one Abram brought to Egypt in the
1st year of the 12th dynasty (1943 BC) at 75.
(300 lunar months plus 9 intercalary of 30 days = 9125 days)
Prior to that the 365-day calendar had not been created until 2030 BC
so that the devient 360-day calendar was used for 340 years from the Flood
despite its gaining 5 more years than reality. Because of this Noah
reached Adam's 930 twice (in 2044 BC and again in 2040 BC). The seasonal
one was accepted because Nahor of Ur had determined the winter solstice
at the Osiris new moon of Jan 6 of Haran's birth 2078 BC as 3600 moons
from the Flood (hoSaros which means the 3600). Yet Marduk admitted the
devient calendar year of 360 days by reckoning 2009 BC as 365 Sumerian yrs =
to 360 Egyptian years from the new moon Oct 6 of 2369 BC to July 8 of 2009 BC.
Your 19-year Jewish Sothic calendar (which cannot hold to the seasons if
you knew any math) had its 7 intercalary months added by Moses. It would
appear that Moses' Jubilees were Egyptian years 618 moons, yet the barley
harvest of Nisan had to be fixed by observation, and I would think his
predicting 10 plagues makes him quite observant of the facts. Especially
when in 1554 BC he reckonized that the Koiak May moon had become the
Koiak January moon in 475 years (120 leap days)
and disputed with Jannes who gets the credit by having the month named after him.
Is there perhaps more detail on calendars that you could give me
to convince me that this is merely a BELIEF of mine and not fact.
I like showing the world's errors, so how about if you list the
lunar new moons every 19 years from 2018 BC to present. Its only
211 dates nicely showing the 19-year calendar of the Jews is Julian and
NOT seasonal as claimed. (In fact it doesnt even stay with the Julian).
I think we need to display what you know before we knock what I know.
I presume EDU is faculty not student.
If you are faculty, I show how stupid you are.
Stupid is NOT how little a person knows, but how big their mouth is
of how much they know when they dont at all.
But if you are a student,
then my apologies for my insulting reply,
and consider yourself educated by what I said.
>>************
>>A voice crying out and going unheard,
>>(40 years Oct 7) Nehemiah's (9:1) 50th JUBILEE of Tishri 24
>>God's 1000 years has begun Sep 14 of 1996.
>>The 144,000 will rule before this first year ENDS.
>>http://www.execpc.com/~elijah/Ezra1991CE.gif
>>
>>elijah@wi.net
>>http://www.execpc.com/~elijah/myPhoto.gif
>>Discover the world's true chronology thru the Bible at
>> http://www.execpc.com/~elijah
--
************
A voice crying out and going unheard,
(40 years Oct 7) Nehemiah's (9:1) 50th JUBILEE of Tishri 24
God's 1000 years has begun Sep 14 of 1996.
The 144,000 will rule before this first year ENDS.
http://www.execpc.com/~elijah/Ezra1991CE.gif
Discover the world's true chronology thru the Bible at
http://www.execpc.com/~elijah
Subject: Re: maize in Europe and India: a twisted tale
From: yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky)
Date: 7 Jan 1997 15:20:26 GMT
[part 2 of my reply to Greg]
Greg,
You wrote further,
GKeyes6988 (gkeyes6988@aol.com) wrote:
: 2. The maize races of Asia are still poorly researched understood and
: their lineages thus uncertain.
To me, this is a very important finding. Further, you wrote,
: I then did index searches on the most current books on maize genetics I
: could find, searching in particular for current findings on the origins of
: Asian maize, genetic distance from other types of maize, "waxy" maize,
: Sikkim maize, etc.
...
: Goodman and Brown, in CORN AND CORN IMPROVEMENT (Sprague and Dudley,
: eds. 1988) sum up what seems to be the consensus on Asian varieties in
: their chapter "Races of Corn":
: "This report contains no reference to corn found outside of the Western
: Hemisphere. There are many reasons for this, the foremost of which is the
: limited information available on the variability of corn of Europe,
: Africa, and Asia. In our opinion, much more information is needed before
: a complete and orderly classification of the corn of the Old World is
: possible (Goodman and Brown pg 39).
: In other words, while the maize races in the New World can be grouped
: into lineages based upon genetic evidence (the rest of their chapter) we
: cannot yet do this with Old World maize.
So, here we go. It turns out that this whole area of Old World maize is
not yet studied and surveyed adequately. Important information is
lacking. And, at the same time, it seems like this research is continuing
and, perhaps, not too far in the future we will have some important
answers based on genetic evidence.
This is the area that, I believe, will provide in due time the answers
that we seek. These answers will be pretty definitive -- one way or the
other -- because they will indicate strongly how long maize was in India,
and whether or not it was pre-Columbian.
And now, to your final conclusion,
: 3. Some races of maize in India are suggestive of pre-Columbian
: distribution.
And further you write,
: I combed through two sets of journals dedicated to the study of maize
: genetics. They were unindexed, as far as I could tell, so I went to the
: tables of contents. These journals were MAIYECAE (I may have mispelled
: this. I found nothing of note and forgot to write down the title) and
: the MAIZE GENETICS COOPERATION NEWSLETTER. The first I scanned back to
: 1980, the second (which was more voluminous) back to 1990.
...
: By the by, though Sachan (along with Kumar) also disputes Johennessen's
: assertions, he makes his own, more cogent argument for an old variety of
: maize in India.
Frankly, I find this quite remarkable. So, it seems like the major
critics of Johannessen THEMSELVES think that maize was pre-Columbian in
India?! How's this for a surprise? Say what you may, but don't S & K seem
here like they are painting themselves into a corner, in a manner of
speaking?
You know, if _I_ wanted to discredit J & P, I would be announcing to any
and all that those carvings are not maize -- that maize was nowhere to be
found in India before Columbus -- that the very idea is fantastic, etc...
I would _not_ be declaring to the world that these carvings are not maize
-- BUT maize was around in India around that time anyway...
At the very least we should be grateful to J & P for being objective
enough to admit, in effect, that their findings are ambivalent.
: 3. I found two articles by Sachan and Kumar in the "Maize Cooperation
: Genetics Newsletter. In the first, from 1992, they examine some genetic
: peculiarities of some maize in the Himalayan region, mostly to do with
: "knob" positions on chromosomes. They note:
: "The presence of some new and unusual knob positions in NEH maize,
: hitherto unknown in American maize races, have been identified in the
: present study (1992: pg 84)"
: What they suggest is that this maize has many "primititive"
: characteristics of Teosinte. In 1993, they go farther, arguing that this
: could be explained by a very early form of maize coming across in
: pre-Columbian times (I took notes on this article but seem to have
: misplaced the photocopy, so I cannot quote from it -- I'll get it again,
: if anyone is interested).
Well, I sure am interested...
: A study of Sikkim maize produced more
: equivocal results: they allow that it might be related to the Confite
: Morocho (Peruvian) Toluqueno or Nal-Tel_Chapalote complex of Mexico (1992
: pg 84). This latter point of view was held by Mangelsdorf.
: I am in no position to support or refute the claims of Sachan and Kumar --
: I do not frankely understand much of their data and analysis techniques --
: and in my brief research period I found no rebuttle to their postion on
: the Himalayan corn. In their 1993 paper, they admit that most corn
: researchers do not buy the early corn theory, but that in itself doesn't
: mean anything. These two seem to be of a small handful of expert
: researchers in the area of Indian corn genetics (going by the other papers
: in the six years of issues I looked at)
...
And you conclude,
: I can only conclude that the question of the antiquity of maize in Asia
: is unsettled.
Yes, this is the way it seems. Unsettled, but for how long? Perhaps not
for too long...
Also, what about those findings of ancient Indian maize pollen? This is
another very relevant direction of research that you haven't mentioned in
your post (as if it wasn't long enough already ). Perhaps very soon
we will have more evidence on this that will clarify things considerably?
I think this, too, is on its way...
So, to summarize, I think all our sometimes heated debates in these ngs
were certainly not in vain. Because we are not talking about Unicorns
here. We are talking about a major scientific and historical puzzle, this
much is true. But this puzzle certainly has a solution. Science is more
than capable of providing a solution here, and it seems like science is
very close to providing this solution. The answer will be loud and clear
-- either yes, or no.
If yes, i. e. maize indeed came to India before Columbus, this will be a
huge breakthrough that will shed much light on research in quite a large
number of disciplines: archaeology, anthropology, ethnobotany, and
ancient AND modern history, to name but a few. This will prove beyond any
reasonable doubt that ancient Americans possessed sailing craft capable
of crossing the Pacific, that they did cross the Pacific, and that they
perhaps even had regular links with Asia -- however incredible this may
sound.
Moreover, our whole understanding of Columbus and his "discovery" will
have to be reevaluated, as, also, our historical method, that, perhaps,
created/constructed and perpetuated a whole -- clearly Eurocentric --
false myth of "Columbus Bringing Maize to the World".
And if no? What if the evidence will point in the other direction: that
maize was indeed introduced to India post-Columbus, as is commonly
believed now? (I think genetic research is probably _capable_ of coming
to such a conclusion at this stage. Please correct me if I'm wrong.)
Well, in this case the carvings may indeed represent some mythical Fruit
of Paradise, and Johannessen is wrong. I will accept such evidence if
it's conclusive, and will admit that I was wrong.
Meanwhile, I would welcome a reduction in the emotionalism of our
debates. All of us, I think, can see the limits of what we can achieve at
this stage by merely arguing about how these pictures look. Let the
pictures speak for themselves while we look forward to seeing the results
of the research that is being done. And let's hope that this research is
being done and will be published soon.
Best regards,
Yuri.
REFERENCES:
(provided originally by Domingo Martinez Castilla
)
Johannessen, Carl, 1988 "Indian maize in the twelfth century B.C."
Nature 332:587 (note that the date was wrong: should have said A.D.)
Johannessen and Parker 1989 "Maize ears sculptured..." Economic Botany.
Payak and Sachan 1988 "Maize in Somnathpur, an Indian medieval temple",
Nature 335: 773-774
Payak, M.M., and Sachan, J.K.S. 1993 "Maize Ears Not Sculpted in 13th
Century Somnathpur Temple in India." Economic botany. APR 01 1993, vol.
47, no. 2, p. 202-
Veena and Sigamani 1991 "Do objects in friezes of Somanthpur temple (1268
AD) in South India represent maize ears?" Current Science 61:395-396
--
=O= Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto =O=
--- a webpage like any other... http://www.io.org/~yuku ---
Diffusionist studies are not, as they are sometimes said to be,
attempts to depreciate the creativity of peoples; rather they are
efforts to locate and specify this creativity. D. Frazer,
THEORETICAL ISSUES IN THE TRANS-PACIFIC CONTROVERSY, Social
Research, 32 (1965) p. 454, as quoted by J. Needham.
Subject: Re: Are Egyptologists Interested In Ethnicity (was "A Question For Marc Line)
From: pmanansala@csus.edu (Paul Kekai Manansala)
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 97 16:07:48 GMT
In article <5at2l5$d12@news.inforamp.net>,
The Hab wrote:
>pmanansala@csus.edu (Paul Kekai Manansala) wrote:
>[snip]
>>From your previous posts, you seem to have no problem classifing
>>Egyptians as Caucasians,
>
>Not Caucasians...Caucasoid. That is, most Egyptians are closer to people
>that are classified as "Caucasoid" than other groups. Not that they are
>but that they are closer to.
>
Well, Caucasoid is also a term used in "Western" literature, so why don't
you object to it. Why do you only object to Egyptians being called
"black," or "Africoid."
>>following the Eurocentric literature,
>
>Wrong. Eurocentric literrature, like Afrocentric litterature, believes
>that somehow, the present people are racial imposters, that they *became*
>more "Negroid" or "Caucasoid". I do not believe this. I believe that, for
>the most part, the peoples of the area are the same as they were in the
>past. In that sense, I am neither "Eurocentric" not "Afrocentric".
>
>> but
>>object to their classification as Africoid.
>
>I prefer "Negroid" because the "Caucasoid" peoples of North Africa are as
>African as their counterparts further south. In other words, all Africans
>are "Africoid".
>
>> However, Keita and
>>Angel have suggested that the ancient Egyptians were tropical
>>Africans.
>
>Keita suggest that Egyptians are the same as they were in the past.
>However, he says that the Badarians may have been tropical Africans.
>Brace compared the Badarians with their Lower Egyptian counterparst and
>showed that they are cloeset to each other than any other group. This is
>the flaw in Keita's work. He does not take into account the
>base similarity between all Egyptians.
>
So, basically you're saying you think Egyptians are Caucasoid. Well
others think they are Africoid. So you're contention that we are
biased because of these views is wrong. BTW, I think Keita's arguments
are much sounder than Brace's.
>> Again, what percentage of the Copts do you think are
>>black? Are any of them black?
>
>That's a subjective question. I will just say that all are ethnically and
>culturally Egyptian (like their Muslim brothers), but that some may be
>considered "black". I would put it at 1 in 10 or 1 in 9. But that is just
>my estimate. Most of these "black" (sic) Egyptians are Aswani.
>
I would say the majority of Egyptians in Upper Egypt and the southern
part of Lower Egypt are "black." At least 30 to 35 percent of those
in northern Egypt are "black" or "mulatto." BTW, I'm not black myself
(noting that this is a subjective question).
Regard,
Paul Kekai Manansala
Subject: Re: children's toys in the archaeological record?
From: Judith Stroud
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 1997 12:32:48 -0500
akaulins@aol.com wrote:
>
> In article <5anfiu$o2b@sun.sirius.com>, Greg Reeder
> writes:
>
> >He is called a king because not only is his name in a cartouche but
> >because he is called in numerous inscriptions "Lord of the Two Lands" and
>
> >"King of the North and the South" just like other kings of Egypt. It is
> >really quite clear. Which "sons" of King Tut did you have in mind?
>
> Greg,
>
> Hi, nice to hear from you again. Now you know, Greg - that I know - "why"
> the Egyptologists "think" he was a king. Strangely, everything is "clear"
> to the Egyptologists in every succeeding decade, even though the march of
> events indicates continuously that almost nothing is clear.
>
> There is no evidence in the hieroglyphs or anywhere else that the
> appearance of a name as "royal" inside a cartouche must mean that this
> person actually "ruled" anywhere. We have yet to find the remains, for
> example, of a single "king" of the Old Kingdom. Why not? Were these in
> fact all "kings" or mythical persons?
>
> The Egyptologists are just - perhaps understandably - following the
> initial idea of Young and Champollion and have apparently never even
> considered the possibility that the cartouche might have been used
> somewhat differently than they assume.
>
> As far as the Middle and Old Kingdom are concerned, a cartouched "royal"
> IMO could be the "son" of a king who was simply given a "contemporaneous"
> more or less honorary ruling standing, even as a young boy, whereas the
> father actually "ruled". This was my reference to "sons-in-waiting", not
> those of Tut of course - who had none, but the sons of any Pharaoh.
> Semenkhare, Tut's alleged brother, who surely never ruled, is another good
> example - since his name too is "cartouched".
>
> As for the inscriptions "Lord of the Two Lands", there is no direct
> evidence as far as I know (and as Gisela Gottschalk, Eduard Meyer, etc.
> have pointed out in their books on the Pharaohs and on Egypt) that this
> refers to two lands on Earth, i.e. upper and lower Egypt - on Earth. In
> fact, the demotic texts speak of "the Egypt above" and "the Egypt below"
> and I consider it possible that this so-called Nesubait name was a king's
> or royal's "star name" upon his death, applied both to the geographic
> "earthly" Egypt and in the second case to the Egypt "of heaven", as
> pointed out in the hermetica. What evidence is there that the Nesubait
> name applied to a king during his lifetime?
>
> You have further problems with Tut in that there is a relief with a
> Pharaoh (presumed to be Aha) conducting the opening-of-the-mouth ceremony
> on Tut, something usually done by the responsible priest (Letopolis). If
> Tut had been the "ruling" Pharaoh, then there could have been no "other"
> Pharaoh - yet - conducting this ceremony - all highly irregular - and all
> very "conveniently" and unconvincingly explained by the Egyptologists as a
> plot. It looks to me, quite the contrary, that the boy's father - already
> "the" Pharaoh beforehand - is conducting the ceremony himself.
The boys father wasn't the Pharaoh-his wife's father was (the heretic
king Akhtenaton/Amenophis IV) And he was most certainly dead and his
city at Amarna abandoned when Tutankhamun was given the pharaohship.
>
> Lastly, I have recently posted to the ACE list my suspicion that many of
> the cartouche names are "pre-ruling" royal names in the same manner that
> the royals at Buckingham Palace are first Princes, then Dukes and only
> later Kings.
>
> A "speculative" example here would be:
> Amenemhet III (*akmenu mal-donis "learner, warrior"),
> Thutmosis III (*tautu-macis "teacher of the people", i.e. priest), later
> called Amenophis III (*akmenu vadiba "leader of the people").
>
> I think this could be one and the same person -
>
> with the titles starting at youthful age where this "future" pharaoh is
> first an apprentice-warrior, so to speak, then a priest, and lastly
> pharaoh in the sense of ruler, i.e. increasing in rank with advancing age
> and responsibility. This also appears to be the case for the respective
> monuments, going from young to old.
>
I'm not familiar with the language you are translating these names into
(I'm worried that it may be New Egyptian, or rather a gross
mistranslation of it) but keep in mind these are the names which modern
scholars use to refer to these kings. They are usually not referred to
by their kingly names but by their own unique names. Rameses II is
referred to as User-maat-re, Thutmose III is Men-Kheper-re, Tutankhamon
is Neb-Kheperu-re; These are the names in the cartouches, with symbols
for the king (sw-plant, bee.t-wasp) scattered throughout. Each of your
examples contains the name of a god and a perfectly translatable New
Egyptian phrase...by your logic all kings would eventually be called
Amenophis, if I'm following your line of argument...
> Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the entire chronology of the
> Pharaohs is in great disarray here and that some persons are represented
> double and triple in the chronologies. I am also of the opinion that King
> Tut was the "son" of the pharaoh, but never "pharaoh" himself - and for
> this reason also does not appear on any of the known lists of kings,
> whether this be Abydos, Saqqara, Manetho or the Turin Canon. How did such
> an important "king?" as Tut managed to sneak them all by?
>
It does Tut an unfair justice to call him important. He most likely was
kept under a close watch by the priesthood and appears to have neither
led any trade or war campaigns to try to restore any of the empire that
Akhtenaten had dissipated to a mere shadow of Thutmose III's Egypt. The
strangeness of his burial, the disappearance of Smenkhare, and Tut's own
very short reign all can be explained by the chaotic legacy of
Akhtenaton, the heretic monotheist who certainly sealed his fate when he
cut off the temples from the religion. This event would have called
into question everything the Egyptians religion was founded upon. Was
Horus as the pharaoh insane? Or was Pharaoh not REALLY Horus? Certainly
the temple of Amon that had been so enriched by Thutmose III's
depredations of the near east had the power to remove such an
abomination of the natural order, possibly eliminating Smenkhare who
seems to have been Akhtenaten's choice as a successor, and bestowing the
pharaohship on Tutankaten. The change of his name to Tutankamun upon
ascendancy is critical evidence of such a forced change. Aktenaten's
city was abandoned and his legacy eliminated as thoroughly as the
priesthood could manage. Tut's short reign necessitated using some of
Smenkhare's funerary goods (which interestingly were not already in use
by the dead Smenkhare). The chaos of this turbulent period is preserved
by the archaeological record.
> If you look at a book like Clayton's Chronicle of the Pharaohs, the
> Egyptologists have started including kings in their chronologies simply
> because they find a cartouche somewhere with a name on it. At the same
> time, they are simply throwing kings out of the chronologies (which
> otherwise appear on all ancient sources) only because they are finding
> nothing in the archaeological record for a given name. Frankly, this all
> very irresponsible in terms of history and I am sure much of it is
> downright wrong.
>
> - Andis Kaulins (J.D. Stanford University, 1971)
I agree that modern Archaology in general is far too eager to throw out
old chronologies (let alone king lists) on very sketchy evidence.
However, there are some cases with lesser known kings that have led to
revisions based on the fact that more recently discovered inscriptions
use a different name for the same pharaoh.
Keep in mind that many of these cartouches (Pepi, for example, or Khufu,
etc) are contemporaneous with the king and show the king as a bull or
smashing people with a mallet. One never finds "a cartouche somewhere
with a name on it" by itself; the cartouche is associated with a stele,
a monument, a papyrus, a burial, and it is from such imagery and kingly
terms that the status of the bearer of the cartouche is determined. I
recall that Rekhmire's name is in a cartouche, and he is known as
Thutmose III's vizier and chief steward, not as a king himself...
Subject: Re: The Tiles of Ramses III: Another Answer
From: akaulins@aol.com
Date: 7 Jan 1997 21:42:57 GMT
In article <19970106170800.MAA00112@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
ariwyler@aol.com (AriWyler) writes:
>Absence (or presence) of human remains is not the criterion used by
>archaeologists to validate the existence of a personage in history nor
the
>validity of historical events. We do not have the remains of the Roman
>Emperors, either. Even though the mummies of the OK pharaohs are not in
>our possession, that is not a guarantee that none exist. Yet even if
they
>have all vanished into dust, there is other evidence that certain ones
>existed--statuary, death masks, texts, etc. If we have this much
evidence
>of the existence of some, there is no reason to doubt the existence of
the
>others whose names we know.
Ari,
Of course, I accept the logic of your argument, i.e. we have this business
about "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
I see no reason to argue with the gist of your point - but it still does
not resolve the issue, which remains debatable.
The problem as I see it is that the Egyptologists have not seriously
examined the alternative explanations - among which would be the idea that
the pyramids were NOT tombs - whence NO mummies (but rather built for
astronomical reasons in honor of legendary, "astronomical" personages,
concepts or "gods", if you will).
Let me take the cartouche of Cheops as an example.
At Jerf el-Ahmar on the Euphrates, they have recently found some small
stone tablets with symbols on them and which are being dated to 12000 BPE
(a date which I doubt). Lucien-Jean Bord sent me a scan of one side of one
of these tablets and you can take a look at it at
http://members.aol.com/akaulins/expak/euphrat.htm
Lucien-Jean Bord - biblio.abbayeliguge@interpc.fr (Abbaye Liguge) - tells
me that there will be an important congress of Assyriologists this summer
in Venice and that a communication about these tablets and inscriptions
may be done there.
Let us hope so.
This tablet was found together with another tablet having 34 "crescents"
on it, which I interpret to be similar to the 33-34 holed "kernos" of
Malia (Crete) and which I think may have to do with the 33-moon (32.5)
system of luni-solar calendration - i.e. the period required for the moon
and sun to come seasonally into phase again in a system using lunar
calendration (this is what the Muslims still use today).
I interpret the tablet pictured at the above web site to be summer /
winter (with the snake as Hydra), much as heliacal risings are used on
other Bablyonian tablets.
Now, for our purposes, it is of interest to compare the symbols used on
the Jerf el-Ahmar tablet with the Cheops hieroglyph - which - correctly -
is written vertically on the munuments, with the chick and the round lined
circle at the top and the snake and the other chick below.
I would suggest that the basic "picture" in both cases is the same and
represents the same "seasonal"/"astronomical" concept, and that the Cheops
hieroglyph is thus not a living "king" but a "calendric" notation -
suggesting that the Cheops pyramid indeed has to do with astronomical
calendration/observation.
This practice is known from the Mayas. The Enc. Brit writes: "Children
were often named after the day of their birth; and tribal gods, who were
legendary heroes of the past, also bore CALENDAR names" (my emphasis).
So, the alternative "astronomical" intepretation for the "kings" of the
Old Kingdom which I suggest is not without precedent. Indeed, I am quite
sure that this alternative explanation is the correct one.
- Andis Kaulins (J.D. Stanford University, 1971)
Subject: Re: STONEHENGE PRESS RELEASE
From: alford@dial.pipex.com (Alan Alford)
Date: 7 Jan 1997 19:40:05 GMT
Thanks for the invitation to repost. I assumed you had read it, as it
definitely appeared in the newsgroup before being lost in cyberspace.
In article <58mueu$g0s@bignews.shef.ac.uk> and an earlier article, Martin
Stower wrote an extremely personal attack on myself, and wrote a detailed
thesis on the Great Pyramid's star alignments c. 2450 BC.
It should be noted that the subject of the star alignments was introduced
by myself as a trap which Martin Stower walked right into. By citing the
dubious 2450 BC alignments in support of "Khufu's pyramid" and dismissing
any significance of the 10450 BC alignment, he revealed to us all the
biased approach which is the hallmark of his work. No wonder he's feeling
so sore.
Martin Stower has now treated us to what to be a very clever
argument on how the Great Pyramid's shafts could have been deliberately
lined up with the stars at the time of Khufu. However, his eloquent
thesis is purely an attempt to blind us with science. Common sense tells
us that any alignment of the Queen's Chamber shafts to the stars is likely
to be quite coincidental. Let us not be distracted by his theorising but
instead focus on the hard physical evidence inside the Pyramid, in
particular the following two facts:
1. The southern shaft of the QC is blocked by a doorway.
2. The northern shaft of the QC kinks back southward instead of heading
for the outside of the Pyramid (see photo in Keeper of Genesis, plate 16).
And yet, in spite of these embarrassing facts, Stower makes much of these
shafts' alleged alignments to the stars c. 2450 BC (the approx. time of
Khufu) and dismisses the 10450 BC alignment. Is this bias? You bet.
However, with hindsight I need not have resorted to such devious means to
reveal the extent of Martin Stower's questionable way of thinking. In the
above mentioned posting he says:
> Here's a surprise for you, Alan: there's an `emotional component' to
> my life in general. The same goes for most people - the overriding
> emotion in your own case being a deep and sincere desire to improve
> your bank balance.
!!! This, from someone who hasn't even met me, and who doesn't know anyone
who knows me. For the record, I happen to passionately believe in what I
have written and I have risked my entire career to come out and say it.
This passionate belief extends to many other writers in the field, but
Stower seems unable to differentiate one writer from another.
> Mr Alford, your _paradigm_ is _paranoid_.
>
This, from someone who hasn't even read my book. Having not read my book,
he cannot claim to understand paradigm, and yet he passes judgement
on it.
> Alan took the risk of publishing his book as a commercial venture, in the
> hope of a substantial return. To take that risk on the strength of
> ludicrous ideas could be seen as a bit silly.
So my Pyramid theory is ludicrous is it? Ludicrous from paradigm*
perhaps, but then your theory seems ludicrous to me. But at least I have
studied your paradigm. You haven't even read my book, which incidentally
goes well beyond the limited info on the web (for protection of copyright
reasons).
* (definition.. your model of human history)
> Well, it _seems_ you're overlooking a _rather more cogent_ example of
> systematised delusion. I'd hesitate to suggest it in your own case;
> that would be supposing that you take your theories seriously, and
> I don't regard that as a safe assumption.
Mr Stower, everything you write is laced with an overpowering "I know
better" attitude. It seems impossible for you to take any writer of
"alternative archaeology" seriously. They've all got to be in it for the
money, or else suffering from systematised delusion. If you had your way,
people like myself, Bauval and Gilbert would be burned at the stake.
Copernicus and Darwin would also have fallen victim to this kind of
arrogance.;-)
In summary, your posting says more about your own mental state than it
does about mine. Indeed it speaks volumes...
Now, to your favourite subject - the alleged mis-spelling of the Khufu
hieroglyph. Despite my promise to a posting in mid-week, you
have gone on and on laying down your increasingly tedious challenges.
Didn't anyone ever teach you patience? If you must know, my response had
been partially drafted when something more important cropped up. Some of
us do have a life outside the Internet.:-)
However, seeing as you are so impatient, I will abandon the long version
and give you the short response.
First, I congratulate you on your painstaking research. I am not going to
rubbish everything that you write, as that would be to sink to the same
depths as you and your comments about my book (which you haven't read). On
the contrary, I think that the very fact that Sitchin has not sued you
[yet] suggests that you be onto something...
Unfortunately, all your hard work has been so obsessed with "getting"
Sitchin, that it has rather missed the point that disproving the
mis-spelling does not disprove the forgery of the hieroglyph. You will
therefore be disappointed to hear that I have no intention of challenging
the content of your web-sites, for I am interested only in their implied
conclusion that the hieroglyph is contemporary with the construction of
the Pyramid. The simple fact is that Vyse could have found genuine
hieroglyphs the Pyramid and then copied them to its interior.
Since the "discovery" of the chambers and hieroglyphs above the King's
Chamber was made in such an uncontrolled manner, I'm afraid their
authenticity would not hold up in court. If the hieroglyphs had said "This
Pyramid was designed and built by god x for god y", Martin Stower would
have been the first in line to object at the circumstances in which they
were found. Our hypothetical jury would have been appraised of the full
suspicious activities of Colonel Howard Vyse at Giza (see Sitchin's
"Stairway to Heaven" Chapter XIII) and, as for Stower's claim that Vyse
would not have perpetrated such a fraud due to his fear of there being a
genuine discovery inside the Pyramid, well this is quite laughable,
because the Pyramid had already been as fully explored as was humanly
possible at that time (short of ripping the whole thing to pieces).
Also laughable are those pesky bats which are supposed to account for the
suspicious of hieroglyphs in the lowest (Davison's) chamber (which
Vyse did not open). Really Martin, is "bats" the best you can come up
with?
Finally, I would like to say that it really is about time that this
newsgroup moved beyond discussion of the Khufu hieroglyph to a more
constructive discussion of the other chronological evidence relating to
the Giza plateau. As I see it, the only force resisting such a positive
move is Martin Stower's obsession with bushwhacking authors that have
repeated Sitchin's mis-spelling allegation. For the record, I, for one,
will attempt to bring Martin Stower's views more fully into the public
domain, where they deserve to be, so that future authors do not continue
to present one side of this argument. I wonder whether Martin Stower will
now show us some equal maturity by focussing on science, rather than
conducting his own personal vendettas against authors whose views conflict
with his own?
Alan Alford
Author "Gods of the New Millennium"
http://www.eridu.co.uk
Subject: Re: Racism and ancient history
From: geroldf@sdd.hp.com (Gerold Firl)
Date: 7 Jan 1997 20:57:58 GMT
In article <5atm0r$3h7$1@mathserv.mps.ohio-state.edu>, vidynath@math.ohio-state.edu (Vidhyanath K. Rao) writes:
|> In article <5arp6e$p8f@news.sdd.hp.com>
|> Gerold Firl (geroldf@sdd.hp.com) wrote:
|>
|> >In article <5aj3c5$2r0$1@mathserv.mps.ohio-state.edu>,
|> >vidynath@math.ohio-state.edu (Vidhyanath K. Rao) writes:
|>
|> |> in article <5abvut$nid@news.sdd.hp.com>,
|> |> Gerold Firl (geroldf@sdd.hp.com) wrote:
|> >I'm not *assuming* that post-colonial nationalism is coloring the
|> >slant of indian scholarship, but I do understand where such tendancies
|> >come from. It's nothing like the excesses of afro-centrism, of course,
|> >but the repeated cycles of conquest provide a difficult problem for
|> >the indian national identity; at what point should assimilated foriegn
|> >ideas be considered indian? Particularly when they are utterly
|> >contradictory to longstanding aspects of indian culture? In the case
|> >of vedic culture, which is often considered to form the nominal basis
|> >of hinduism, and yet is totally antithetical to modern hindu thought
|> >and the dravidian base culture from which it developed, it's easier to
|> >declare that the aryan invasion never occured at all.
|> I suggest that you read Jan Gonda's ``Change and continuity in
|> Indian ... '' [I am not sure of the exact title, but the last word is
|> something like `Religion'] before throwing around such claims as you
|> make in your last sentence.
I base the statement that vedic culture and modern hindu culture are
fundamentally incompatible largely on the analysis of joseph campbell
in _the masks of god: oriental mythology_. Campbell looks at culture
from a global perspective, seeking the underlying assumptions about
how man fits into the world as revealed by myth and history. The
contrast he draws between the vedic view of man as a free agent
imposing his will on the world, versus the hindu model of the
individual as a sub-component within the social organism (brahmin as
head, shudra as foot, etc) is a basic division between two utterly
dissimilar means of social organization. These distinctions are so
basic that they have persisted for thousands of years, dispite all the
mixing and contact that has taken place. It's like javanese islam;
it's much more javanese than islamic. Just as javanese culture was too
resilient to be affected much by islam, indian culture absorbed the
aryans while remaining fundamentally indian.
|> >I do not claim to know exactly when and how the indo-europeans arrived
|> >in india, but the general picture of a military conquest followed by
|> >gradual assimilation (retarded, but not prevented, by caste
|> >restrictions) looks very plausible to me. That is the standard model,
|> >as I understand it. What information do you have which contradicts it?
|> The simpel fact that philologists who defend that theory have been
|> unable to find hard archaeological evidence to support it; the
|> fact that realia present serious anomalies that philologists are
|> not even aware of; that many have given up the idea of military
|> conquest, and have retreated to a position of `gradual inflitration'
|> by Indo-Aryans.
given the population levels of 2000 bc, and the geographical barriers
surrounding india, there isn't much difference between military
conquest and gradual assimilation. The volume of aryan invaders would
necessarily be less than the indigenous population. However, they
would require military superiority to assert control over someone
elses territory, and given their pastoral inclinations, they would
require relatively large amounts of space per person.
Finding archaeological evidence for pastoralists is more difficult
than agriculturalists. The rig veda asserts quite plainly that the
vedic people were interested in _movable_ assets: horses and cattle.
The negative evidence should come as no surprise.
|> There is no evidence that bits were used in India to control horses
|> before the time of Indo-Greeks and Sakas. Vedic texts do not have
|> any term that could be translated by `bit'. Sanskrit word for bit
|> is a loan from Greek. On the other hand, Sredny Stog Culture, the
|> proto-IE culture according to the `Standard Model', shows evidence
|> of bit use, way back in the fourth millennium BCE. If horses were
|> introduced into India by people derived from Pontic-Caspian area,
|> why were bits not used in India?
That is an excellent question. It seems like a very portable
technology. Can wooden bits be used on horses? How do you think this
anomoly can be explained?
|> Another problem with philologists is that they ignore simple mechanics
|> and basic knowledge of horse harnessing and driving when discussing
|> chariots which supposedly where the secret weapon of Indo-Aryans.
|> The Vedic chariot, as resconstructed by philologists from Vedic texts,
|> is technologically backward compared with chariots from the Near East.
|> Vedic harness lacked yoke saddles (aka neck forks), crucial in adapting
|> to horses the neck yoke developed for bovids; Near East shows evidence
|> for them from 17th century BCE onwards. The Vedic harness would not
|> be usable except for horses at a walk on level groun or very gentle
|> slopes (less than 1% grade). And Indo-Aryans rode them from Central Asia
|> to Punjab, over the mountains of Afghanistan?
Certainly not. The idea of the chariot would be brought over the
mountains, not the chariots themselves. A pastoral people on the move
would bring their herds and precious little else.
If vedic chariots lacked yoke saddles, which appeared in the 17th
century bc in the middle east, I would take that as an indication that
the indo-aryans split from their western brethren before that.
The geographical isolation of india allowed a technological lag
between the subcontinent and the eurasian mainstream. Vedic chariots
should not be expected to be as advanced as hittite chariots, despite
the other similarities and obvious kinship between them.
|> >|> Why don't you look at the possiblity of Westerners being misled by
|> >|> their racial prejudice?
|> >I do consider that possibility, but I don't see any evidence supporting
|> >the notion that it's played a major role in our understanding of
|> >indian history. If you have contrary evidence, I'd like to see it.
|> It is as plain as the nose in your face. Just think about the
|> way `anaas' has been translated and uncritically accepted by
|> Mallory or by you.
Sorry, I haven't heard about 'anaas' or its translation. If you have
the time or inclination, I'd like to hear about it though.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
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
