Caral's Irrigation system
Doug Weller
Figure 6. The gate of Caral's irrigation system, the earliest known use of
irrigation for agriculture in the New World. The gate channeled water from
the Supe River onto terraces above the river's valley.
And note -- terraces!
Long before the Olmec. An argument of course for diffusion between
continents. :-)
Doug
--
Doug Weller -- exorcise the demon to reply
Doug & Helen's Dogs http://www.dougandhelen.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk
Philip Deitiker
<dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk> did some sarious thank'n and
scribbled:
>http://www.turtletrack.org/Issues01/Co05052001/CO_05052001_Peru.htm
>Figure 6. The gate of Caral's irrigation system, the earliest known use of
>irrigation for agriculture in the New World. The gate channeled water from
>the Supe River onto terraces above the river's valley.
>
>And note -- terraces!
>
>Long before the Olmec. An argument of course for diffusion between
>continents. :-)
So I ask the basic question. Pottery first appears in
ecuador, Iron smelting proximal to the Andes and of course
the first domestications in the Andes, what is the prospects
of Mesoamerican (pre-Olmec) moving in as waves of
opportunistic settlers on the west coast and then diffusing
in over 100s of years to the east coast.
It was my opinion for a long time the like Afroasiatic
culture, the biggest advances were made first close to the
equator and moved north with more favorable climate and with
diffusion from these areas. I think the nubia and the red
sea culture are the tip of the ice berg. There is potential
for the motion of soluterian culture into europe and there
appears to have been followup waves of culture. Likewise the
nubians appear to have recently settled as far north as
gresce and diffused from there outward. In a recent paper on
HLA it had the european cluster intermediate and
intersecting a line of diffuse origin from asia and then
branching into the new world. This offers up the prospect
for protocivilization technologies driving people from
middle eastern region into the far east as a
pre-civilization wave of technology.
If one looks at the 'newest' archaeology of New world, it
appears the same way. The civilizations in the pre-olmec
americas were not as 'fantastic' as mesoamerica, but most of
the technology in meso-america is preceded by equivilent
techology in equatorial america. One of the key prospects of
potatoe farming on lake titicacau is that the climate was
completely stable all year round and water of course was
availalbe in the lake. This means that agriculture may have
been facilitated by an early version that did not require
complex calenders, reinforcing the idea that argiculture was
doable with more modifications elsewhere.
Eric Stevens
>http://www.turtletrack.org/Issues01/Co05052001/CO_05052001_Peru.htm
>Figure 6. The gate of Caral's irrigation system, the earliest known use of
>irrigation for agriculture in the New World. The gate channeled water from
>the Supe River onto terraces above the river's valley.
>
>And note -- terraces!
>
>Long before the Olmec. An argument of course for diffusion between
>continents. :-)
Don't be daft. Kids playing is streams invent terraces.
I know you had your tongue in your cheek but some people may have
taken you more seriously, even if it was only to rise to your bait.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<Nopd...@att.net.spam > wrote:
>On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 22:53:18 +0100, Doug Weller
><dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk> did some sarious thank'n and
>scribbled:
>
>>http://www.turtletrack.org/Issues01/Co05052001/CO_05052001_Peru.htm
>>Figure 6. The gate of Caral's irrigation system, the earliest known use of
>>irrigation for agriculture in the New World. The gate channeled water from
>>the Supe River onto terraces above the river's valley.
>>
>>And note -- terraces!
>>
>>Long before the Olmec. An argument of course for diffusion between
>>continents. :-)
>
>So I ask the basic question. Pottery first appears in
>ecuador, Iron smelting proximal to the Andes and of course
>the first domestications in the Andes, what is the prospects
>of Mesoamerican (pre-Olmec) moving in as waves of
>opportunistic settlers on the west coast and then diffusing
>in over 100s of years to the east coast.
I suppose its a choice of arriving via tropical jungle or the high
mountain passes. If you are going to take your family along I think I
would go for the low route where you can at least travel by water.
Eric Stevens
Larry Athy
when he wrote: ~~
http://www.turtletrack.org/Issues01/Co05052001/CO_05052001_Peru.htm
Figure 6. The gate of Caral's irrigation system, the earliest known use
of irrigation for agriculture in the New World. The gate channeled water
from the Supe River onto terraces above the river's valley.
And note -- terraces!
Long before the Olmec. An argument of course for diffusion between
----------------------------
+++ This has nothing to do with the man made irrigation systems and man
made terraces that the Egyptians introduced to the Olmecs. Plants were
irrigated at Caral by the diversion of river water onto natural river
terraces. Is it possible that a cave dweller does not see the
difference??? +++
Regards, Larry Athy, P.E.
Philip Deitiker
news:14330-3F7...@storefull-2233.public.lawson.webtv.net
> +++ This has nothing to do with the man made irrigation
> systems and man made terraces that the Egyptians introduced
> to the Olmecs. Plants were irrigated at Caral by the
> diversion of river water onto natural river terraces. Is
> it possible that a cave dweller does not see the
> difference??? +++
> Regards, Larry Athy, P.E.
Actually it goes a long way in showing a pattern of
developement in western south america followed
by a couple thousand years developement in meso america.
I think with the material I post and this Doug has
pretty much trivialized your hypothesis.
Philip
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Molecular Anthropology Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DNAanthro/
Molecular Evolution of Hominids
http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/
Latest Study on 10 xlinked loci
http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/xlinked.htm
Other good sites
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleoanthro/
Larry Athy
fiction here.
==============
I had previously written: ++ This has nothing to do with the man made
irrigation systems and man made terraces that the Egyptians introduced
to the Olmecs. Plants were irrigated at Caral by the diversion of river
water onto natural river terraces. Is it possible that a cave dweller
does not see the difference??? ++
He, now: ~~ Actually it goes a long way in showing a pattern of
developement in western south america followed by a couple thousand
years developement in meso america. I think with the material I post and
------------------------
+++ All of which has nothing to do with the Olmec culture. As of this
date, nobody posting here has posted one bit of relative evidence that
contradicts my premises regarding the rapid development of the Olmec
technical culture. +++
Regards, Larry Athy, P.E.
Doug Weller
wrote:
True. The terraces was a joke. As you are suggesting, they will have
been invented independently many, many times. Irrigation also. As a kid
playing in the creek outside our cabin in North Carolina I'd often cut
canals in the little island that was there (until it was washed away) and
move the water around. And I didn't know any Egyptians. :-)
Doug Weller
wrote:
To quote Eric, ""Don't be daft. Kids playing is streams invent terraces."
The Olmecs didn't need Egyptians to develop terraces. Even if they didn't
pick up the idea from other Native American cultures, all they needed was
to see natural river terraces -- and for irrigation systems to watch kids
playing in a stream.
Larry Athy
continued to ignore the considerable Egyptian/Olmec evidence that I have
been posting here.
====================
I had written:++ This has nothing to do with the man made irrigation
systems and man made terraces that the Egyptians introduced to the
Olmecs. Plants were irrigated at Caral by the diversion of river water
onto natural river terraces. Is it possible that a cave dweller does not
see the difference??? ++
He, now: ~~To quote Eric, ""Don't be daft. Kids playing is streams
invent terraces."
The Olmecs didn't need Egyptians to develop terraces. Even if they
didn't pick up the idea from other Native American cultures, all they
needed was to see natural river terraces -- and for irrigation systems
------------------------------
+++ Our elementary school teacher neglects the fact that terraces and
irrigation canals were only a small part of the total technical
knowledge brought to the Olmecs by the Egyptians. He also avoids the
fact that there are Egyptian stone carvings and at least one glyph at
the sites, as well as the Egyptian historical records. The introduction
of beards and new facial features support all the other evidence. +++
Regards, Larry Athy, P.E.
Doug Weller
wrote:
>On Sat, Oct 4, 2003, 7:03am (CDT+6), the cave dweller posted here and
In other words, you have no knowledge of any details of Olmec irrigation
and terracing, let alone of any details that make them Egyptian. There
are no Egyptian historical records about a visit to North America. I
presume that claim is based on this statement of yours "I am told that
there is a record in Egyptian history describing their coming from the
center of the earth at birth and returning to the same place at death.
There are various stone carvings in the Olmec area representing a person
bringing a baby out of a cave (the womb)."
Are your stone carvings this claim:
"- I have also been told that Ramses (II?) sent a ship westward past
Gibraltar with the mission of finding a volcano suitable for a royal
burial. I seems that they found the volcano near San Martin Pajapan,
carved a stone figure of an Egyptian, and left it in the volcano. A
pair of very similar carved stone figures of twin Egyptians have been
found adjacent to San Lorenzo at Azuzul. I happened to be at the site
only a few days after they had been excavated. They are surely
Egyptian."
What is the evidence for any of the above? Obviously you think that the
pair of figures are Egyptian, but your opinion is just that, your opinion.
And a Pharaoh sending an expedition to find a volcano for a burial? What's
the evidence for that?
And the glyph? Where can we read proof that an Egyptian glyph exists?
Larry Athy
demonstrated again that he knows little about the Egyptian/Olmec
culture.
=================
I had written: ++ Our elementary school teacher neglects the fact that
terraces and irrigation canals were only a small part of the total
technical knowledge brought to the Olmecs by the Egyptians. He also
avoids the fact that there are Egyptian stone carvings and at least one
glyph at the sites, as well as the Egyptian historical records. The
introduction of beards and new facial features support all the other
evidence. ++
He replied (and my comments are in [ -- ] marks: ~~ In other words, you
have no knowledge of any details of Olmec irrigation and terracing, let
immaterial, since that knowledge arrived at the same time as all the
other evidence.] There are no Egyptian historical records about a visit
to North America. I presume that claim is based on this statement of
yours "I am told that there is a record in Egyptian history describing
their coming from the center of the earth at birth and returning to the
book "Ancient Egyptians in Middle and South America". It has very
extensive source references.] There are various stone carvings in the
Olmec area representing a person bringing a baby out of a cave (the
womb)."
Are your stone carvings this claim:
"- I have also been told that Ramses (II?) sent a ship westward past
Gibraltar with the mission of finding a volcano suitable for a royal
burial. I seems that they found the volcano near San Martin Pajapan,
carved a stone figure of an Egyptian, and left it in the volcano. A pair
of very similar carved stone figures of twin Egyptians have been found
adjacent to San Lorenzo at Azuzul. I happened to be at the site only a
few days after they had been excavated. They are surely Egyptian."
Obviously you think that the pair of figures are Egyptian, but your
minds of anyone who has even seen a picture that the life sized stone
figures are Egyptian. The headdress is typical Egyptian and is not
known to exist anywhere else.]
Where can we read proof that an Egyptian glyph exists? [See the book
cited above. The facial features and beards also support the Egyptian
theory.] ~~
-----------------------
+++ Cave dwellers do not seem to be able to understand that there is no
other reasonable theory as to the source of all that I have listed. In
the absence of any other supported claim, the Egyptian contact is the
best explanation available today. I would be happy to consider any
other theory that is as well supported. +++ Regards, Larry
Athy, P.E.
Tedd
"Larry Athy" <marth...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:13794-3F...@storefull-2235.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> -----------------------
> +++ Cave dwellers do not seem to be able to understand that there is no
> other reasonable theory as to the source of all that I have listed. In
> the absence of any other supported claim, the Egyptian contact is the
> best explanation available today. I would be happy to consider any
> other theory that is as well supported. +++ Regards, Larry
> Athy, P.E.
>
oh good grief... i love the logic on this.... "if i think there is no theory or
supported claim, it's okay to just make something up and assume its true."...
does that mean that i can assume rain comes from outer space since i see it fall
from the sky? (assuming of course no one else has a better theory that i would
agree with.)
Seppo Renfors
Philip Deitiker wrote:
>
> On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 22:53:18 +0100, Doug Weller
> <dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk> did some sarious thank'n and
> scribbled:
>
> >http://www.turtletrack.org/Issues01/Co05052001/CO_05052001_Peru.htm
> >Figure 6. The gate of Caral's irrigation system, the earliest known use of
> >irrigation for agriculture in the New World. The gate channeled water from
> >the Supe River onto terraces above the river's valley.
> >
> >And note -- terraces!
> >
> >Long before the Olmec. An argument of course for diffusion between
> >continents. :-)
>
> So I ask the basic question. Pottery first appears in
> ecuador, Iron smelting proximal to the Andes and of course
> the first domestications in the Andes, what is the prospects
> of Mesoamerican (pre-Olmec) moving in as waves of
> opportunistic settlers on the west coast and then diffusing
> in over 100s of years to the east coast.
Where the people of Caral came from isn't know. It is though (by some)
that they moved from the coast up-river. Only problem is that known
settlements on the coast are YOUNGER than Caral. However, there are
finds in southern Argentina that do predate Caral by a very long way.
They also exist in Chile, in the high country, dating from about
13,000 year ago but was abandoned some 4,500 years ago. Grosjean and
Chilean archaeologist Lautaro Nuqez reported the discovery of 39 lake
shore campsites in the Atacama high plains area (now desert) on old
lake shores, dating from 13,000 to 9000 years ago. Even so it is a
later site, by some 1500 years than others further South. Back then it
appears they were moving from South to North from Southern Argentina.
Where they originated from nobody knows.
Caral is an interesting place as it predates the knowledge of pottery
making, but then they didn't need it. They used gourds instead. It was
also before maize was domesticated. But their agriculture shows that
they grew crops for trade. Cotton - used for fishing nets, traded for
fish from the coast. Their construction capabilities were remarkable
indeed, considering they only had stone tools at the time - not
metals.
The Caral buildings (including pyramids) also predate the Egyptian
Pyramids.... so it is not likely that Egyptians taught those people
how to build such. Perhaps it was the other way around.....
http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=492
[..]
>
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Weller
wrote:
>On Sun, Oct 5, 2003, 8:55am (CDT+6), the cave dweller posted here and
>demonstrated again that he knows little about the Egyptian/Olmec
>culture.
>=================
>I had written: ++ Our elementary school teacher neglects the fact that
>terraces and irrigation canals were only a small part of the total
>technical knowledge brought to the Olmecs by the Egyptians. He also
>avoids the fact that there are Egyptian stone carvings and at least one
>glyph at the sites, as well as the Egyptian historical records. The
>introduction of beards and new facial features support all the other
>evidence. ++
>----------------------------
>He replied (and my comments are in [ -- ] marks: ~~ In other words, you
>have no knowledge of any details of Olmec irrigation and terracing, let
>alone of any details that make them Egyptian. [Such details are
>immaterial, since that knowledge arrived at the same time as all the
>other evidence.] There are no Egyptian historical records about a visit
>to North America. I presume that claim is based on this statement of
>yours "I am told that there is a record in Egyptian history describing
>their coming from the center of the earth at birth and returning to the
>same place at death. [This information comes from R. A. Jairazbhoy's
>book "Ancient Egyptians in Middle and South America".
Useless as a reference. How do we know he didn't make it up (I am not
saying he did, I am asking how we can check it).
It has very
>extensive source references.] There are various stone carvings in the
>Olmec area representing a person bringing a baby out of a cave (the
>womb)."
>Are your stone carvings this claim:
>"- I have also been told that Ramses (II?) sent a ship westward past
>Gibraltar with the mission of finding a volcano suitable for a royal
>burial. I seems that they found the volcano near San Martin Pajapan,
>carved a stone figure of an Egyptian, and left it in the volcano. A pair
>of very similar carved stone figures of twin Egyptians have been found
>adjacent to San Lorenzo at Azuzul. I happened to be at the site only a
>few days after they had been excavated. They are surely Egyptian."
>What is the evidence for any of the above? [The book just cited above.]
Come on, Larry, that isn't evidence. How can we check it? You have
provided us for no reason to believe your claim about a voyage to a
volcano.
>Obviously you think that the pair of figures are Egyptian, but your
>opinion is just that, your opinion. [There is little question an the
>minds of anyone who has even seen a picture that the life sized stone
>figures are Egyptian. The headdress is typical Egyptian and is not
>known to exist anywhere else.]
So why not give us some way to check it?
>And a Pharaoh sending an expedition to find a volcano for a burial?
>What's the evidence for that? [See the book cited above.] And the glyph?
>Where can we read proof that an Egyptian glyph exists? [See the book
>cited above. The facial features and beards also support the Egyptian
>theory.] ~~
>-----------------------
In other words, you are relying completely upon a book whose sources for
the information you don't know or are refusing to give. There is no
reason for anyone to believe this without citations to something that can
be checked.
>+++ Cave dwellers do not seem to be able to understand that there is no
>other reasonable theory as to the source of all that I have listed. In
>the absence of any other supported claim, the Egyptian contact is the
>best explanation available today. I would be happy to consider any
>other theory that is as well supported. +++ Regards, Larry
>Athy, P.E.
R.A. Jairazbhoy's unsupported claims are not adequate. Where is the
glyph? Where can we read about the voyage to find a volcano? Where can we
find a site report for the supposedly Egyptian figurines?
Doug
Larry Athy
====================
I had written: ++ Cave dwellers do not seem to be able to understand
that there is no other reasonable theory as to the source of all that I
have listed. In the absence of any other supported claim, the Egyptian
contact is the best explanation available today. I would be happy to
consider any other theory that is as well supported. ++
Tedd replies: ~~ oh good grief... i love the logic on this.... "if i
think there is no theory or supported claim, it's okay to just make
something up and assume its true."... does that mean that i can assume
rain comes from outer space since i see it fall from the sky? (assuming
-------------------------------
+++ You can assume anything you wish; however, if you publish your
"rain" premise, you will receive alternate premises with supporting
evidence.
- As far as my Egyptian/Olmec premise is concerned, nobody has ever
come up with even one alternate premise with supporting evidence.
- Thus my premise stands as the most probable, until such time that a
better supported premise is brought forth. +++
Regards, Larry Athy, P.E.
Tedd
> +++ You can assume anything you wish; however, if you publish your
> "rain" premise, you will receive alternate premises with supporting
> evidence.
> - As far as my Egyptian/Olmec premise is concerned, nobody has ever
> come up with even one alternate premise with supporting evidence.
> - Thus my premise stands as the most probable, until such time that a
> better supported premise is brought forth. +++
> Regards, Larry Athy, P.E.
wrong. i will receive numerous reviews of why my 'rain premise' is wrong. (i.e.
someone went up in an airplane and discovered they could get above the rain and
still be below outer-space. they would not have to come up with a new premise
for where the rain came from to know that it didnt come from above them
(outer-space).)
you do not have to subscribe to an alternative theory to know another one is
wrong. thats just asinine ignorance being perpetuated on your part.
Thomas McDonald
news:Pc8gb.126$Hz3....@news.uswest.net...
Bingo.
--
Tom McDonald
remove 'nohormel' to reply
Doug Weller
wrote:
>On Mon, Oct 6, 2003, 12:51am (CDT-1), someone named Tedd posted here.
We are waiting for the evidence still. You haven't produced anything of
any scientific value. Most is 'they couldn't have invented that stuff so
quickly so someone must have taught them'.
By the way, folks, I can't find any evidence for irrigation systems at San
Lorenzo. Or any real need.
Larry Athy
his unscholarly nonsense when he wrote: ~~
R.A. Jairazbhoy's unsupported claims are not adequate. Where is the
glyph? Where can we read about the voyage to find a volcano? Where can
-----------------------
+++ Jairazbhoy's claims are well supported by the very many references
to other publications that are cited in his book that I have cited
previously.
- The Egyptian stone carving of a man, found in the volcano, is shown
in most books on the Olmecs.
- The Egyptian stone carvings of the twins can be found in most such
books published within the past ten years.
- I have written several published papers on Ogam-like inscriptions on
a number of large Olmec carved stones.
- I can not do research for cave dwellers. +++
Regards, Larry Athy, P.E.
Larry Athy
here.
===============
I had written: ++ You can assume anything you wish; however, if you
publish your "rain" premise, you will receive alternate premises with
supporting evidence.
- As far as my Egyptian/Olmec premise is concerned, nobody has ever come
up with even one alternate premise with supporting evidence.
- Thus my premise stands as the most probable, until such time that a
better supported premise is brought forth. ++
~~ wrong. i will receive numerous reviews of why my 'rain premise' is
wrong. (i.e. someone went up in an airplane and discovered they could
get above the rain and still be below outer-space. they would not have
to come up with a new premise for where the rain came from to know that
it didnt come from above them (outer-space).)
you do not have to subscribe to an alternative theory to know another
one is wrong. thats just asinine ignorance being perpetuated on your
------------------------
+++ Tedd has posted unscholarly fiction that does not relate to my
paper. My premise stands by itself, and the evidence supporting it has
not been logically contested. +++
Regards, Larry Athy, P.E.
Tedd
how's the wife and kids larry? :-)
JMB
> On Mon, Oct 6, 2003, 5:35pm (CDT+6)j, the cave dweller continues to post
> his unscholarly nonsense when he wrote: ~~
> R.A. Jairazbhoy's unsupported claims are not adequate. Where is the
> glyph? Where can we read about the voyage to find a volcano? Where can
> we find a site report for the supposedly Egyptian figurines? ~~
> -----------------------
> +++ Jairazbhoy's claims are well supported by the very many references
> to other publications that are cited in his book that I have cited
> previously.
> - The Egyptian stone carving of a man, found in the volcano, is shown
> in most books on the Olmecs.
You'd think that it would be very easy to reference one in that case.
> - The Egyptian stone carvings of the twins can be found in most such
> books published within the past ten years.
Again, that should make it very easy to provide a reference.
> - I have written several published papers on Ogam-like inscriptions on
> a number of large Olmec carved stones.
> - I can not do research for cave dwellers. +++
One would assume that if you are making the claims, then you have already
done the research, so its just a matter of telling everyone what research
you actually did, and where you got your information from, no further
research should be necessary on your part.
> Regards, Larry Athy, P.E.
>
>
>
>
--
John Byrne
www.iol.ie/~archaeology
To email me use the feedback form on the website.
The address attached to this post is just a spam trap.
Doug Weller
wrote:
[SNIP]
>------------------------
>+++ Tedd has posted unscholarly fiction that does not relate to my
>paper. My premise stands by itself, and the evidence supporting it has
>not been logically contested. +++
It isn't a matter of logic, it's a matter of evidence. Your evidence
consists of generalities and assertions, and statements that someone told
you or you read it in a book. No verifiable details. Just 'they couldn't
have invented these things themselves'.
Yes, you wrote
+++ Jairazbhoy's claims are well supported by the very many references
to other publications that are cited in his book that I have cited
previously.
But you won't give us any direct citations from Jairazbhoy.
- The Egyptian stone carving of a man, found in the volcano, is shown
in most books on the Olmecs.
But you won't give us a reference -- to the carving (which you can't prove
is Egyptian) or to the supposed Egyptian legend.
- The Egyptian stone carvings of the twins can be found in most such
books published within the past ten years.
Again, no reference.
- I have written several published papers on Ogam-like inscriptions on
a number of large Olmec carved stones.
Who cares? You have no credibility.
Larry Athy
dwelling scholar posted here.
==================
I had written: ++ You can assume anything you wish; however, if you
publish your "rain" premise, you will receive alternate premises with
supporting evidence.
- As far as my Egyptian/Olmec premise is concerned, nobody has ever come
up with even one alternate premise with supporting evidence.
- Thus my premise stands as the most probable, until such time that a
better supported premise is brought forth. ++
Totally ignoring what I had written, he now writes: ~~ We are waiting
for the evidence still. You haven't produced anything of any scientific
value. Most is 'they couldn't have invented that stuff so quickly so
someone must have taught them'. By the way, folks, I can't find any
-----------------------
+++ I have posted and referenced here large amounts of published
scholarly evidence of the Egyptian/Olmec relationship. The fact that
dweller does not want to believe the facts of the matter is of no
importance whatsoever. As of this date, nobody has offered any
alternate explanation for the sudden technical rise of the Olmec
culture, the Egyptian physical evidence at the sites, and the confirming
Egyptian historical evidence. And then, of course, there is the sudden
introduction of beards and different facial features. dweller, the
world's greatest scientist, should understand all of this, but clearly
doesn't. +++
Regards, Larry Athy, P.E.
Larry Athy
the wife and kids larry? :-) ~~
---------------
+++ Who wants to know!!! +++
L. A., P.E.
Larry Athy
that he doesn't understand anything that has been posted here. He
wrote: ~~ One would assume that if you are making the claims, then you
have already done the research, so its just a matter of telling everyone
what research you actually did, and where you got your information from,
--------------------
+++ I have posted the information and references here several times in
the recent past. Anyone who knows anything about the Olmecs should have
the books or have easy access to them. +++
Regards, Larry Athy, P.E.
Larry Athy
here. I have supported most of what I have written on the
Egyptian/Olmec subject with references to published materials. Only a
demon would reject all without reading them himself. Why should anyone
else do his research for him when he refuses to accept the word of
others??
L. A., P. E.
Thomas McDonald
Why should anyone accept the word of Larry Athy, when he's been shown to
be mendacious, illogical, unreasonably dismissive, forgetful (or
inconsistent) and abusive?
Tedd
"Thomas McDonald" <tmcdon...@Charter.net> wrote in message
news:vochomf...@corp.supernews.com...
> Why should anyone accept the word of Larry Athy, when he's been shown to
> be mendacious, illogical, unreasonably dismissive, forgetful (or
> inconsistent) and abusive?
i think i can answer that question for you, in theory anyway;
i purpose that Larry is actually Martha. i base this upon repeatedly exhibited
stereotyped gender
related characteristics.
yes, i know its a personal attack (and i do apologize to you for that right now
larry), but i'd be willing to bet every argument you can come up with to
disprove the idea can be countered by quoting one of your own previous
statements about the validity of "proof", "logic", or "in absence of any other
reasonable theory...". (especially considering how well some of the guys around
here remember them.)
prove me wrong. ;-)
Eric Stevens
Maybe that's why he referred to published materials?
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Send me an email
Eric Stevens
Tedd
my comment relating to gender with the inclusion of the name his deciesed wife
was in very poor taste on my part. the comment was uncalled for in any context
and displayed an incredible ammount of unwarented disrespect towards him and his
family. secondarily, i appologize for the insinuation created by asking the
state of his family in a previous post.
thanks to those who chafted me and pointed out my ignorence on the subject.
ignorence is no excuse, i should not have made the comments in the first place.
Larry, i'm sorry, please forgive me, i ment no harm to the memory of your wife,
to you, or your family.
sincerely,
tedd jacobs
Doug Weller
wrote:
>On Thu, Oct 9, 2003, 4:58pm (CDT+6), a ramtops demon posted pure fiction
>here. I have supported most of what I have written on the
>Egyptian/Olmec subject with references to published materials.
But you have not been able to give specifics, only vague references to
books, mainly by authors who are not exactly at the forefront of
Mesoamerican or Egyptian archaeology.
>Only a
>demon would reject all without reading them himself. Why should anyone
>else do his research for him when he refuses to accept the word of
>others??
You rely very heavily on the book "Ramses III, Father of Ancient
America", by R. A. Jairazbhoy, 1992,
Those interested in Mesoamerican civilizations may be surprised to find
out that according to the blurb on the back of this book he "is the
foremost scholar alive today on Mesoamerican civilizations."
I was wondering about your comment +++ Only one Egyptian hieroglyph has
been found at the Olmec sites so
far. Very few Egyptians were able to use them; and it is clear that the
mariners who arrived in the Olmec country were not able to do so."
Jairazbhoy clearly thinks that there was more than one hieroglyph found,
as he mentions four in that book, and also believes that Egyptian scribes
came to Mesoamerica and even brought their patron god Thoth with them.
You apparently disagree. Why is that?
I don't see why I should accept Jairazbhoy's word about anything.
This is the statue that he claims is a statue of Ramses III found in the
volcano at San Martin:
http://edj.net/mc2012/waters.htm (diagram 178, Monument 1).
He claims it is a picture of Ramses in his boat painted in his temple at
Thebes, claiming that "This is proved by seven particulars that they share
in common. Both wear wrist and arm bands, and more importantly, a head
cloth whose lappets fall over the ears onto the shoulders. It is called
the nemes crown in Egypt, and is worn only by the Pharaoh. Again, only the
Pharaoh could wear a uraeus on the brow, which is a firespitting serpent..
The Mexican figure has serpents beside the brow and they are actually
flamelike. Finally, in addition to the posture, the oars, the items of
apparel, and the snake diadem, both have three crosses above the head. In
Egypt they are hieroglyphic signs for 'city' and imply here the heavenly
city in the underworld. And similarly, in Mexico the cross-in-disk
signifies the sun in the Underworld."
Doug Weller
Weller wrote:
>This is the statue that he claims is a statue of Ramses III found in the
>volcano at San Martin:
>http://edj.net/mc2012/waters.htm (diagram 178, Monument 1).
>
>He claims it is a picture of Ramses in his boat painted in his temple at
>Thebes, claiming that "This is proved by seven particulars that they share
>in common. Both wear wrist and arm bands, and more importantly, a head
>cloth whose lappets fall over the ears onto the shoulders. It is called
>the nemes crown in Egypt, and is worn only by the Pharaoh. Again, only the
>Pharaoh could wear a uraeus on the brow, which is a firespitting serpent..
>The Mexican figure has serpents beside the brow and they are actually
>flamelike. Finally, in addition to the posture, the oars, the items of
>apparel, and the snake diadem, both have three crosses above the head. In
>Egypt they are hieroglyphic signs for 'city' and imply here the heavenly
>city in the underworld. And similarly, in Mexico the cross-in-disk
>signifies the sun in the Underworld."
I have had a couple of replies to this elsewhere.
First, one points out that Nigel Davies in his excellent book Voyagers to
the New World comments on Jairazbhoy. Davies treats him with respect
while disagreeing with him. Partially this is because Jairazbhoy treats
archaeologists with respect, partially because Davies finds some of the
religious parallels he draws interesting. He does point out that there
are some chronological problems with Jairazbhoy's research.
Professor Bernard Ortiz de Montellano also responded briefly - he had to
go prepare for his son's wedding today so didn't have much time.
He wrote:
" 1) the statue referred to was in a shrine atop the San martin Pajapan
volcano but it was moved from its original context in the 19th century.
Although volcanoes were very important to the Olmec (more later) and to
Mesoamerica. I'm not aware that volcanoes were important to Egyptians
2) The drawing of the sculpture found is not accurate in this book. There
already have been published interpretations describing the costume and
posture of the statue that are congruent with Mesoamerican beliefs and
iconography. For example he is wearing earspools-- not a great Egyptian
custom. He is holding a pole symbolizing the earth tree-- not an oar.
3) Quoting from my CA paper--
Jairazbhoy (1992:10-14) [the book here in question] maintains that Rameses
III was in Mexico and that images of him can be found there. [Actually
this statue is supposed to be Ramesses III himself]. El Mahdy (1989:
87-89) points out that members of the Rameside dynasty had very strongly
hooked noses - certainly not found in the colossal Olmec heads. {or in
this Pajapan statue itself)."
He also points out that there are chronology problems. Both Davies and
Bernard remind us that Jairazbhoy admitted that he would have problems
with the C14 dates if they held up, and Bernard says that they have -- but
that Jairazbhoy is still telling the same story.
EL MAHDY, C. 1989. Mummies, myth, and magic in ancient Egypt, New York:
Thames and Hudson."
Philip Deitiker
news:nlogovcllis39387i...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 00:17:30 -0500 (CDT), in
> sci.archaeology, Larry Athy wrote:
>
>>On Thu, Oct 9, 2003, 4:58pm (CDT+6), a ramtops demon posted
>>pure fiction here.
What is a ramtops demon?
>>Only a
>>demon would reject all without reading them himself. Why
>>should anyone else do his research for him when he refuses
>>to accept the word of others??
You don't have to read tea leaves to know that reading them is a
waste of time.
Philip
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Molecular Anthropology Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DNAanthro/
Molecular Evolution of Hominids
http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/
Latest Study on 10 xlinked loci
http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/xlinked.htm
Other good sites
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleoanthro/
t(nospam)kavanagh
>
> Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk> says in
> news:nlogovcllis39387i...@4ax.com:
>
> > On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 00:17:30 -0500 (CDT), in
> > sci.archaeology, Larry Athy wrote:
> >
> >>On Thu, Oct 9, 2003, 4:58pm (CDT+6), a ramtops demon posted
> >>pure fiction here.
>
> What is a ramtops demon?
Look at Doug's email address.
tk
Larry Athy
greatest archaeologist in the world posted here.
=====================
I had previously written: ++ On Thu, Oct 9, 2003, 4:58pm (CDT+6), a
ramtops demon posted pure fiction here. I have supported most of what I
have written on the Egyptian/Olmec subject with references to published
----------------------------------
He, now: ~~ But you have not been able to give specifics, only vague
references to books, mainly by authors who are not exactly at the
----------------------------------
+++ Not true at all. I have given many excellent references. The demon
has not given any references to the contrary, only his claims. +++
---------------------------------
++ Only a demon would reject all without reading them himself. Why
should anyone else do his research for him when he refuses to accept the
----------------------------------
~~ You rely very heavily on the book "Ramses III, Father of Ancient
America", by R. A. Jairazbhoy, 1992,
Those interested in Mesoamerican civilizations may be surprised to find
out that according to the blurb on the back of this book he "is the
foremost scholar alive today on Mesoamerican civilizations."
I was wondering about your comment +++ Only one Egyptian
hieroglyph has
been found at the Olmec sites so
far. Very few Egyptians were able to use them; and it is clear that the
mariners who arrived in the Olmec country were not able to do so."
Jairazbhoy clearly thinks that there was more than one hieroglyph found,
as he mentions four in that book, and also believes that Egyptian
scribes came to Mesoamerica and even brought their patron god Thoth with
---------------------
+++ I disagree because I think that he may well be wrong on the other
three, but right on one. One is all that it takes to make the point.
It seems that the demon will agree with Jairazbhoy, if only to disagree
with me. +++
-----------------------
~~ I don't see why I should accept Jairazbhoy's word about anything. ~~
-----------------------
+++ Note that he just accepted J.'s word as to the number of glyphs
!!!!! J. has written several books on this subject; but the demon has
never written a book. Why would anyone assume that d. knows more about
the subject than does J. ?? +++
-----------------------
(I have cut the balance that the demon has quoted from a source far
beyond his comprehension.)
Regards, Larry Athy, P.E.
Larry Athy
intelligent archy, posted here.
======================
With regards to one of his previous postings he wrote: ~~ I have had a
couple of replies to this elsewhere.
First, one points out that Nigel Davies in his excellent book Voyagers
to the New World comments on Jairazbhoy. Davies treats him with respect
while disagreeing with him. Partially this is because Jairazbhoy treats
archaeologists with respect, partially because Davies finds some of the
religious parallels he draws interesting. He does point out that there
------------------------
+++ Nigel Davis wrote his book prior to R. A. Jairazbhoy's book "Rameses
III, Father of Ancient America"; however, R.A.J. had published several
other books on the subject previously. Although Davis had some
disagreement with details in those earlier books, he was very
complimentary regarding them. The cave man is trying to mislead you
again. +++
-------------------------
~~ Professor Bernard Ortiz de Montellano also responded briefly - he had
to go prepare for his son's wedding today so didn't have much time.
He wrote:
" 1) the statue referred to was in a shrine atop the San martin Pajapan
volcano but it was moved from its original context in the 19th century.
Although volcanoes were very important to the Olmec (more later) and to
---- ~~
------------------------
+++ B.O. has just unconsciously confessed that his is not familiar with
Egyptian history or Jairazbhoy's books. Thus the balance of what he
wrote has been cut.
- Cave dweller simply continues to make unsupported claims. He
misquotes what he claims to have been said about the wrong R.A.J. books.
Doug Weller
And please recall my real address does not have demon in it.
Doug
Doug Weller
wrote:
>
>+++ B.O. has just unconsciously confessed that his is not familiar with
>Egyptian history or Jairazbhoy's books. Thus the balance of what he
>wrote has been cut.
Typical Athy. Makes fun of someone's name and then lies about what he
said. Bernard is not an expert on Egyptology and makes that clear, but
neither is Athy. Jairazbhoy gave no evidenve for the importance of
volcanoes to the ancient Egyptians, and that is almost certainly because
he could find none.
>- Cave dweller simply continues to make unsupported claims. He
>misquotes what he claims to have been said about the wrong R.A.J. books.
>+++
Exactly what have I misquoted? Another assertion with no evidence.
Doug Weller
E. P. Benson and B. de la Fuente, eds.1996. Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico
Washington, DC: National Gallery of Art.
p. 162. Catalog entry #5 . San Martin Pajapan Monument 1--Crouching Figure
with Headdress and Ceremonial Bar..
Early Formative period
Basalt
142 x93 x 94 (55 7/8 x 36 5/8 x 37); 1.2 tons
San Martin Pajapan, Veracruz
Museo de Antropologia de Xalapa, Universidad Veracruzana
When this monument was found in a rocky shelter at the top of the San
Martin volcano, Veracruz, part of the arms, the legs, and the bar it
carried between its hands had been broken. Some of the fragments were
returned to their original place; others were reconstructed. Although it
was found well preserved, the face was surprisingly damaged, probably by
intention. It remained in the cave of the San Martin volcano for
centuries, receiving uninterrupted offerings.
Its face, massive eyes, plump features, and thick lips with downturned
mouth indicate the Olmec facial prototype; also notable is its thick and
rounded body. There is no attempt to represent individuality. The role is
indicated by the bar the figure carries between its hands-- a convention
in Mesoamerican art-- and its headdress, a sign of authority. Distinction
is manifested in the sculptural treatment of the figure and headdress.
This plastic treatment is resolved by organic forms, but it is restricted
to geometric designs. Thus, the face of the “supernatural image” is
circumscribed to a cube-like head, accented by a combination of features
that would never occur in reality: elliptical eyes slanted inward, flat
nose, enormous upper lip with eyeteeth, and the cleft forehead. At the
back is a spectacular headdress divided into four areas by the
intersection of two grooves, one vertical and the other horizontal; it may
record the four reference points of the universe and indicate the cosmic
guardian character of the figure.
Elsewhere, I have considered this sculpture as part of an iconographic
group similar to the “lords under supernatural protection” (de la Fuente,
B. 1977. “Pequena Obra Maestra de la Escultura Olmeca,” Anales del
Instituto de Investigaciones Esteticas 47: 5-10.)
A couple of notes -- RAJ does have a photo, almost side on, of the statue.
He thinks it shows short oars -- I can't see anything that looks like an
oar. He also mentiones 3 crosses over the head, but I can see those
neither in the photo or his drawing -- perhaps this is a confusion with
the two grooves mentioned above.
But this is clearly not an Egyptian Pharaoh.
Larry Athy
evidence that he misrepresents things.
=============
I had written: ++ On Thu, Oct 9, 2003, 4:58pm (CDT+6), a ramtops demon
posted pure fiction here. ++
-----------
Someone asked: ^^ What is a ramtops demon? ^^
-----------
Someone else replied: << Look at Doug's email address. <<
-----------
dweller: ~~ And please recall my real address does not have demon in it.
~~
-----------
+++ The cave dweller seems to misrepresent everything in his postings,
including his address !!!!! +++
Regards, Larry Athy, P.E.
Larry Athy
and continued to demonstrate that he either does not know how to read
English or that he is trying to deceive you.
=============
I had previously written: ++ B.O. has just unconsciously confessed that
his is not familiar with Egyptian history or Jairazbhoy's books. Thus
--------------------
Caveman comments: ~~ Typical Athy. Makes fun of someone's name and then
lies about what he said. Bernard is not an expert on Egyptology and
makes that clear, but neither is Athy. Jairazbhoy gave no evidenve for
the importance of volcanoes to the ancient Egyptians, and that is almost
---------------------
+++ I simply used Bernard's initials; but dweller considers those
initials to be funny. R.A.J. referred to the importance of volcanoes to
the ancient Egyptians on pages 12, 27, and 66 of his book "Rameses III,
Father of Ancient America". He had explained in detail how all this is
part of Egyptian history in his previous books. +++
-------------
++ --- Cave dweller simply continues to make unsupported claims. He
misquotes what he claims to have been said about the wrong R.A.J. books.
++
~~ Exactly what have I misquoted? Another assertion with no evidence. ~~
---------------
+++ See what I just wrote above. I think that dweller only remembers
the portions of what he reads that he wishes to remember. Yes,
indeed!!! +++
Regards, Larry Athy, P.E.
Eric Stevens
Athy) wrote:
>+++ The cave dweller seems to misrepresent everything in his postings,
>including his address !!!!! +++
> Regards, Larry Athy, P.E.
>
>
After the experiences of recent weeks, so too do most people. I seem
to be getting by with Mailwasher.
Eric Stevens
Doug Weller
wrote:
>On Sun, Oct 12, 2003, 7:12am (CDT+6), a cave dweller posted here again
>and continued to demonstrate that he either does not know how to read
>English or that he is trying to deceive you.
>=============
>I had previously written: ++ B.O. has just unconsciously confessed that
>his is not familiar with Egyptian history or Jairazbhoy's books. Thus
>the balance of what he wrote has been cut. ---- ++
>--------------------
>Caveman comments: ~~ Typical Athy. Makes fun of someone's name and then
>lies about what he said. Bernard is not an expert on Egyptology and
>makes that clear, but neither is Athy. Jairazbhoy gave no evidenve for
>the importance of volcanoes to the ancient Egyptians, and that is almost
>certainly because he could find none. ~~
>---------------------
>+++ I simply used Bernard's initials; but dweller considers those
>initials to be funny.
No, you chose 2 of his initials to be insulting. We've gone over this in
the past. And you've distorted my comments. I didn't say they were funny.
Or maybe you really are stupid enough not to understand what I wrote.
>R.A.J. referred to the importance of volcanoes to
>the ancient Egyptians on pages 12, 27, and 66 of his book "Rameses III,
>Father of Ancient America". He had explained in detail how all this is
>part of Egyptian history in his previous books. +++
My copy doesn't have the word volcano (or its plural form) on any of those
pages.
>-------------
>++ --- Cave dweller simply continues to make unsupported claims. He
>misquotes what he claims to have been said about the wrong R.A.J. books.
>++
>---------------
>~~ Exactly what have I misquoted? Another assertion with no evidence. ~~
>---------------
>+++ See what I just wrote above. I think that dweller only remembers
>the portions of what he reads that he wishes to remember. Yes,
>indeed!!! +++
I see what you wrote above. None of it refers to any comments about his
books other than mine. And you are not telling the truth about pages 12,
27 and 66.
Larry Athy
his continuing effort to deceive you. I have cut the excellent
quotation since it compliments what R.A.J. wrote, but does not
contradict it.
==============
He wrote: ~~ A couple of notes -- RAJ does have a photo, almost side on,
of the statue. He thinks it shows short oars -- I can't see anything
that looks like an oar. He also mentiones 3 crosses over the head, but I
can see those neither in the photo or his drawing -- perhaps this is a
confusion with the two grooves mentioned above. But this is clearly not
--------------------
+++ That photo is poor in my book. From the several photos that I have,
it is clear that the Egyptian is leaning forward with both hands
grasping a pole. That pole could well have been an oar, but it would be
difficult to carve all of a long oar in stone. If one were able to do
so, if would have been broken off in about 3000 years. The twins from
San Lorenzo are in the same pose and have a short pole in their hands
also.
- The crossed grooves are certainly on the headdress; however, I feel
that they are of no significance.
- The face is extensively damaged and is hard to identify. Most of the
nose is gone, but it seems to have been longer than wide. It is
difficult to tell whether the top lip is protruding or whether we see
the remains of a mustache.
- The San Lorenzo twins are in excellent shape and are clearly
Egyptian. The volcano statue may or may not be a pharaoh, but seems to
be Egyptian and in the context of Egyptian history.
- If we were to disregard the volcano statue, there is still extensive
evidence of Egyptian presence at the Olmec sites. +++
Regards, Larry Athy, P.E.
Larry Athy
here and demonstrated conclusively that he is trying to deceive you.
==============
I had written: ++ R.A.J. referred to the importance of volcanoes to the
ancient Egyptians on pages 12, 27, and 66 of his book "Rameses III,
Father of Ancient America". He had explained in detail how all this is
part of Egyptian history in his previous books. ++
He replies: ~~ My copy doesn't have the word volcano (or its plural
form) on any of those pages. ~~
-------------
+++ What absolute dweller stupidity!!!!! Volcano is my word, not
R.A.J.'s.
- From page 12: "Why should Rameses have wanted a statue of himself
sitting in a crater in the far west of the world?" -- "Rameses writes in
his inscriptions that he has actually reached this mountain in the far
west of the world". -- "There are several reasons why I identify St.
Martin on the Mexican Gulf with Manu --". It seems that cavemen do not
realize that cratered mountains are volcanoes or that St. Martin is a
volcano. +++
-----------------
portions of what he reads that he wishes to remember. Yes, indeed!!! ++
~~ I see what you wrote above. None of it refers to any comments about
his books other than mine. And you are not telling the truth about pages
----------------
+++ As is normally the case, the cave dweller goes off on a meaningless
tangent to fabricate some fiction, with which to disagree. He clearly
is no longer qualified to teach in an elementary school !!! +++
Regards, Larry Athy, P.E.
Doug Weller
wrote:
>On Sun, Oct 12, 2003, 8:10am (CDT+6), the cave dweller posted here in
The statute fits in well with what we know about the Olmec, and does not
fit into the context of Egyptian history.
Here is what Bernard has also written about the statue:
In fact, this sculpture has been known and studied for years. It is
also unfair to pick a couple of items, misinterpret or distort their
appearance in order to claim a foreign origin, and then ignore the
totality of all the symbols in the sculpture. Many of the
characteristics of the sculpture appear in many other Olmec pieces--
either Ramesses was pictured everywhere in the Olmec realm for
centuries BEFORE and after his supposed trip or maybe, just maybe,
Jaraizbhoy is full of it, and this is just an Olmec sculpture with
Olmec symbolism.
1) The headdress worn by the figure has all the characteristics of God
IV, as described by the first in-depth analysis of Olmec symbolism:
Peter David Joralemon. 1971. “A Study of Olmec Iconography” Studies in
Pre Columbian Art and Iconography Number 7. Washington D.C.: Dumbarton
Oaks.
p. 7. “Typical Olmec face. Almond-shaped eyes, wide-flattened nose and
mouth with flaring upper lip and drooping corners.”
p. 7 “Cleft or cloven head. Extremely common characteristic of Olmec
deities. Cannot be considered definitive for any one god.”
p. 71. “God IV is generally represented as an anthropomorphic dwarf or
infant with type c eyes [almond shaped] and toothless mouth. A forehead
band and wavy ear coverings are almost always worn by the deity.”
************ 2) The iconography of this sculpture is found in a number
of other Olmec objects that negate the claim of its being a portrait of
Ramesses III.
Elizabeth P. Benson. 1971. “An Olmec Figure at Dumbarton Oaks.” “A
Study of Olmec Iconography” Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Iconography
Number 8. Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.
[A diopside figurine, part of a large cache found at Arroyo Pesquero]
p.5 “The Dumbarton Oaks figure is seated in a pose common in Olmec
carvings, cross-legged, with the right leg in front of the left.... He
wears an elaborate headdress-- a helmet with a plaquelike extension at
the top. There is a cleft at the back (fig.2), at a right angle to the
face, that appears to be part of the headdress rather than part of the
head. At the rear, this cleft is deeply grooved on the transverse and
vertical axes, so that four bars are formed (Fig. 3). The headdress
extension, which has approximately parallel side (Fig. 2) and is a
centimeter or a little more in depth, rises toward the back of the head
and is almost as wide as the helmet.”
p. 17. Relationships with other Olmec sculpture.
.... “The helmet with ear protectors has some similarity with those on
colossal heads, as well as on figurines, but the whole headdress
compares most strikingly with that of the Idolo de San Martín Pajapan
(Fig. 24). Both have a headdress extension and a horizontal cleft as
part of the headdress, forming four bars at the rear. On the Idolo de
San Martín , the four- bar motif is repeated at the sides of the
headdress extension. The San Martín monument has a cleft head on the
front of the headdress that might be compared to the cleft mask on the
Dumbarton Oaks extension. The cleft head on the San martin piece is
larger than the dead of the figure itself, whereas that on the
Dumbarton Oaks figure is smaller. A similar concept is shown on the
Maundslay jade (Bushnell 1964; Joralemon 1970; Fig. 189) where a
diminutive figure has a large head with a slightly larger cleft head
above it. In the case of the Maundslay jade, these are both jaguar
faces, whereas the Dumbarton Oaks and the San Martín sculpture have a
were-jaguar above a human face, suggesting the idea of a deity
protector hovering over a human being. The San Martín monument does not
have a helmet with four cleft faces on it, but instead has four “masks”
attached at the ears, two on each side. As well as can be discerned
from the present condition of the San Martín sculpture , the four mask
faces are not differentiated as are the four masks on the Dumbarton
Oaks figure, although two of the masks are cleft and two are not.
Whereas the Dumbarton Oaks figure has two cleft elements on the ear
protectors, the San Martín figure has two cleft elements horizontally
placed at the side of the headdress. The San Martín headdress is broken
off at the top, but it may have had a three-pronged projection,
(Clewlow(1968: 40) has suggested that the lines on the side of the
cleft part of the San Martín headdress may represent feathers. Although
this motif does not appear on the dumbarton Oaks piece, there are
motifs on the latter piece that appear to be other ways of representing
feathers.” *******
The question arises -- Why should one accept Jaraizbhoy’s
interpretation when clearly he has very little knowledge of Mesoamerican
archaeology and is not familiar with the other Olmec representations
that have similar iconography? Why not accept interpretations from
experts on Mesoamerica, who have spent years studying not only this
particular piece but also related materials both in Olmec and in other
Mesoamerican cultures?
Finally, for now, would the diffusionists please explain to me how no
records of this expedition were made in Egypt since Ramesses III
obviously made a round trip-- being buried in Egypt. What exactly was
the sea route used in this round trip and in what boat did he do this?
Did anybody in Egypt notice he was gone for at least few years?
Inquiring minds want to know. "
Also:
"The following are interpretations of the San Martin Pajapan Monument 1.
First, I have to give you my caveats. The reason why the Olmecs are a
favorite target of the pseudos and diffusionists is because all the
information available is archaeological and because they are the
earliest source of many Mesoamerican traits. Once upon a time
diffusionists used the Aztecs as targets but we know so much about the
Aztecs from written historical sources that it much harder to make
pseudo claims with impunity (although the written Egyptian records have
not stopped Hancock et al from claiming weird things). Myth, ritual,
and meaning cannot be obtained directly through archaeology, or in the
kind of rich detail available, for example, in Aztec historical sources.
Much can be derived from context, from analogy with subsequent
cultures, etc. Etc.
My personal hang-up. Art historians have a tendency to go way beyond
what I think the evidence usually warrants. Archaeologists and
ethnohistorians are usually more circumspect. I go to sessions at the
annual meetings by art historians on Mesoamerica and come out shaking
my head in wonder. :-). HOWEVER, these interpretations by Mesoamerican
art historians are THOUSANDS OF TIMES SUPERIOR IN EVIDENCE AND RIGOR TO
ANYTHING PUT FORTH BY THE LIKES OF VAN SERTIMA OR JAIRAZBHOY. I do
agree with my friend Alfredo Lopez Austin that there was a common
Mesoamerican world-view that lasted some 3000 years and ranged from El
Salvador to the north of Mexico. However, there was a lot of variation
and particular claims need to be supported by a lot of evidence. For a
masterful exposition you should really read-- Alfredo Lopez Austin.
Myths of the Opossum. Pathways in Mesoamerican Mythology.
In the passages below, I’m more in accord with Diehl and Coe
(archaeologists) than with Schele and Reilly (art historians). Schele
had brilliant insights as well as huge errors-- the problem is to sort
out which is which in specific cases. Their interpretation may be
proved correct in the future. There is no doubt of the importance of the
world tree in fundamental Mesoamerican mythology-- but whether it was
present in the Early formative-- ????. However, Reilly’s interpretation
reached after years of studying Olmec iconography and archaeology is
supported by infinitely more evidence than Jairazbhoy’s Egyptian “looks-
like.” ******** R.A. Diehl and M.D. Coe. 1996. “Olmec Archaeology,” In
The Olmec World: Ritual and Rulership 11-25. Princeton: Princeton Art
Museum. p. 1920. San Mártin Pajapan. Mountains were also sacred places
for ancient Mesoamericans. Rain deities resided in their cloud covered
peaks, while ancestors and earth deities occupied the underworld within.
Caves, common in the mountainous country , were believed to be portals
to the underworld, transition zones between the “real” world of the
flesh and the world of the mind and spirit. The Olmecs were the first
Mesoamericans to express these beliefs in art and ritual forms that
have survived the ravages of time. La Venta’s Great Pyramid, if indeed
it functioned as a surrogate mountain, may be such an expression. The
shrine site at the summit of San Martín Pajapan is another. Here the
Olmec placed a large, carved stone sculpture of a kneeling man, who
leans forward grasping a bar or staff of office with both hands (fig.
15). His elaborate headdress bears a striking resemblance to both La
Venta’s Monument 44 and a small diopside figurine possibly from Rio
Pesquero. Why did the Olmec place this sculpture on such a isolated
mountain top? Did it function as part of a shrine? What herculean
efforts were needed to move the stone uphill over treacherous terrain?
We may never know the answers to these question, since the monument was
moved in the nineteenth century, before archaeologists could record its
setting and context. However, Alfonso Medellin Zenil, who transported
the sculpture to Xalapa, reported evidence for later pre-Columbian and
even modern offerings around it.” *******
Linda Schele. 1996. “: The Olmec Mountain and the Tree of Creation in
Mesoamerican Cosmology,” In The Olmec World: Ritual and Rulership 105
117. Princeton: Princeton Art Museum.
p. 107. His [Kent Reilly] identification indicates that the Olmec
defined their ruler as the embodiment of the world tree.
p. 108. The raising of this [world] tree played a crucial role in Olmec
symbolism. The life-size figure which once sat in a cleft leading into
the crater atop San Martín Pajapan, has human features, anthropomorphic
earflares, and a cleft anthropomorphic headdress with its rear surface
cut into quadrants by deep notches (gig. 9a). He squats with one leg up
and the other under him as he leans forward to grip a pole. Reilly
pointed out that one of his hands is below the post and the other above
it in exactly the position needed to raise it into vertical position.
This being sat on top of the most sacred mountain of the Olmec sacred
landscape-- a volcano that was probably the source of creation--
raising the pole at the center of the cosmos. The people of La Venta
built a replica of a volcano, probably San Martín itself, with their
main pyramid (fig. 10), as Robert Heizer first argued. Lake Catemaco,
the great crater lake at the base of San Martín, must have been seen by
the Olmec as a fragment of the primordial sea, and it, too, has its
analogue at La Venta in the sunken court with its greater serpentine
mosaic offerings. A fragment of another probable tree-raising sculpture
was also found at La Venta.
******* Catalog of the exhibition The Olmec World: Ritual and Rulership
130 339. Princeton: Princeton Art Museum.
Pp. 246-247 . # 146 Standing Figure, Right Hand Over Left. 900-600 B.C.
Guerrero
# 147. Standing figure, Holding Ceremonial Staff 900- 600 B.C. Veracruz
“ Another figure in jade, differing in detail but replete with similar
paraphernalia, including the staff held in the same position [right
hand over left] is a small sculpture from Veracruz in a private
collection (fig. 2). The staffs held by the rulers on the La Venta
stela 2 and the San Martín Pajapan Monument 1 appear identical to the
staffs in these portable sculptures. F. Kent Reilly III, has suggested
that the kneeling figure on the San Martín Pajapan Monument 1 is in the
process of raising the world tree to help create the current universe.
The standing figures holding staffs in the same position may be related
to a ritual of “centering the world itself.” ***** Bernard
-----------------------------------
So I think you are wise to back away from the statue.
Next, your twins -- in a following post.
Doug Weller
wrote:
>On Mon, Oct 13, 2003, 5:46am (CDT+6), the racist cave dweller posted
>here and demonstrated conclusively that he is trying to deceive you.
>==============
>I had written: ++ R.A.J. referred to the importance of volcanoes to the
>ancient Egyptians on pages 12, 27, and 66 of his book "Rameses III,
>Father of Ancient America". He had explained in detail how all this is
>part of Egyptian history in his previous books. ++
>--------------------
>He replies: ~~ My copy doesn't have the word volcano (or its plural
>form) on any of those pages. ~~
>-------------
>+++ What absolute dweller stupidity!!!!! Volcano is my word, not
>R.A.J.'s.
The only stupid one is the one who wrote " R.A.J. referred to the
importance of volcanoes to the ancient Egyptians on pages 12, 27, and 66"
>- From page 12: "Why should Rameses have wanted a statue of himself
>sitting in a crater in the far west of the world?" -- "Rameses writes in
>his inscriptions that he has actually reached this mountain in the far
>west of the world". -- "There are several reasons why I identify St.
>Martin on the Mexican Gulf with Manu --". It seems that cavemen do not
>realize that cratered mountains are volcanoes or that St. Martin is a
>volcano. +++
He says nothing about volcanoes or craters being mentioned by Egyptians.
If I didn't have the book I might have believed you when you said he
referred to the importance of volcanoes. Fortunately I have the book so I
know he doesn't.
There is nothing on those pages that suggests he found any Egyptian
references to volcanoes or craters -- his argument is really pretty lame.
>-----------------
>++ See what I just wrote above. I think that dweller only remembers the
>portions of what he reads that he wishes to remember. Yes, indeed!!! ++
>----------------
>~~ I see what you wrote above. None of it refers to any comments about
>his books other than mine. And you are not telling the truth about pages
>12, 27 and 66. ~~
>----------------
>+++ As is normally the case, the cave dweller goes off on a meaningless
>tangent to fabricate some fiction, with which to disagree. He clearly
>is no longer qualified to teach in an elementary school !!! +++
You're resulting to insults because you can't answer my question.
Doug Weller
wrote:
[SNIP]
>- The San Lorenzo twins are in excellent shape and are clearly
>Egyptian.
Actually they appear to be clearly Olmec.
Bernard again:
"The sculptures referred to are the Azuzul twins. Two of a group of four
sculptures found in the Loma de Zapote. They are commonly called the
Azuzul, not the San Lorenzo, twins. The two of them are posed opposing two
jaguars-- not really an Egyptian scene :-).
They are defintely NOT Egyptian. They have the characteristic Olmec face
with clear epicanthic folds on the eyelids. they are not "carrying" poles.
They are kneeling and holding them in the "right hand over left hand" pose
that we have been talking about with respect to the San Martin Pajapan
sculpture. Does this mean that these are twin images of Ramesses III (he
cloned himself?). Actually , most interpretations refer to possible "hero
Twin" myths found in the Popol Vuh. A lot more plausible."
http://www.rose-hulman.edu/~delacova/xalapa-museum-7.htm
Larry Athy
from things immaterial, said to have been written by B.O. de M..
Caveman said:
~~ Here is what Bernard has also written about the statue: (Some cut.)
----- Many of the characteristics of the sculpture appear in many other
Olmec pieces-- either Ramesses was pictured everywhere in the Olmec
realm for centuries BEFORE and after his supposed trip or maybe, just
maybe, Jaraizbhoy is full of it, and this is just an Olmec sculpture
-------------------------
+++ What I copied above is no more than more B.O. racist fiction. There
were no Olmec stone carvings BEFORE the Egyptian trip, during which the
"volcano" Egyptian statue was carved. There was no stone carving in the
tribal Olmec culture prior to San Lorenzo.
- B.O. does not necessarily write what he knows to be the truth. He
has demonstrated repeatedly that he is an intimidated anti-diffusionist,
as was necessary for his university jobs.
- The various authors quoted by B.O. simply agree what many of the
stone Olmec statues show similar characteristics to one another. True
indeed. Many of those characteristics are Egyptian, and many are not.
Under any circumstances, they are all Olmec carvings, as B.O. wrote,
even though they were influenced by the Egyptians.
- None of this is evidence against Egyptian presence at the Olmec
sites. +++
Regards, Larry Athy, P.E.
Larry Athy
the racist cave dweller posted here and demonstrated conclusively that
he is trying to deceive you.
==============
ancient Egyptians on pages 12, 27, and 66 of his book "Rameses III,
Father of Ancient America". He had explained in detail how all this is
part of Egyptian history in his previous books. +
He replied: ~ My copy doesn't have the word volcano (or its plural form)
on any of those pages. ~
R.A.J.'s.
sitting in a crater in the far west of the world?" -- "Rameses writes in
his inscriptions that he has actually reached this mountain in the far
west of the world". -- "There are several reasons why I identify St.
Martin on the Mexican Gulf with Manu --". It seems that cavemen do not
realize that cratered mountains are volcanoes or that St. Martin is a
volcano. ++
The caveman neglected what I had written and replied: ~~ He says nothing
about volcanoes or craters being mentioned by Egyptians. If I didn't
have the book I might have believed you when you said he referred to the
importance of volcanoes. Fortunately I have the book so I know he
doesn't. There is nothing on those pages that suggests he found any
Egyptian references to volcanoes or craters -- his argument is really
-----------------
+++ Typical caveman deception. The Egyptians did not use the English
words volcanoes or craters. Egyptian religion relative to being born
from the "underworld" and returning to the "underworld" at death are
well known. The Egyptian expedition sailed west in search of a cratered
mountain (volcano, that is) that would be a fitting place for burial of
a pharaoh, such as Rameses. They found
St. Martin (cratered mountain) and left a stone statue there. R.A.J.
referred to all of this in his earlier books. He makes reference to St.
Martin and a cratered mountain in his subject book.
- Cave dweller has no apparent propose in all of this except to be
disagreeable with everything that J.A.R. or I have written. Absolute
childish foolishness!!! +++
Regards, Larry Athy, P.E.
Larry Athy
nonsense here.
==============
I had written: ++ [SNIP by caveman to be out of context.]
----------------------
He now: ~~ Actually they appear to be clearly Olmec. ~~
---------------------
+++ They are indeed Olmec. Nobody has suggested otherwise; however,
they show obvious Egyptian influence. +++
----------------------
~~ Bernard again (My comments in [ -- ] marks): "The sculptures referred
to are the Azuzul twins. Two of a group of four sculptures found in the
Loma de Zapote. They are commonly called the Azuzul, not the San
Lorenzo, twins. The two of them are posed opposing two jaguars-- not
after they were excavated.] They are defintely NOT Egyptian. [Correct!
They are Olmec, but show Egyptian influence.] They have the
characteristic Olmec face with clear epicanthic folds on the eyelids.
and holding them in the "right hand over left hand" pose that we have
been talking about with respect to the San Martin Pajapan sculpture.
Does this mean that these are twin images of Ramesses III (he cloned
Martin statue.] Actually , most interpretations refer to possible "hero
Twin" myths found in the Popol Vuh. A lot more plausible." [Possible,
and not inconsistent with the Egyptian influence on the carving.] ~~
----------------
+++ All of this is just dweller rambling that totally ignores the
Egyptian influence on the carving of these "twins" , the San Martin
statue, and many other Olmec statues and monuments. +++
Regards, Larry Athy, P.E.
Doug Weller
wrote:
>On Mon, Oct 13, 2003, 6:00pm (CDT+6), a cave dweller quoted extensively
>from things immaterial, said to have been written by B.O. de M..
>Caveman said:
>~~ Here is what Bernard has also written about the statue: (Some cut.)
>----- Many of the characteristics of the sculpture appear in many other
>Olmec pieces-- either Ramesses was pictured everywhere in the Olmec
>realm for centuries BEFORE and after his supposed trip or maybe, just
>maybe, Jaraizbhoy is full of it, and this is just an Olmec sculpture
>with Olmec symbolism. ----- (Balance cut.) ~~
>-------------------------
>+++ What I copied above is no more than more B.O. racist fiction. There
>were no Olmec stone carvings BEFORE the Egyptian trip, during which the
>"volcano" Egyptian statue was carved. There was no stone carving in the
>tribal Olmec culture prior to San Lorenzo.
There were no stone carvings before the first stone carvings, whenever
they were. You're begging the question.
>- B.O. does not necessarily write what he knows to be the truth. He
>has demonstrated repeatedly that he is an intimidated anti-diffusionist,
>as was necessary for his university jobs.
>- The various authors quoted by B.O. simply agree what many of the
>stone Olmec statues show similar characteristics to one another. True
>indeed. Many of those characteristics are Egyptian, and many are not.
>Under any circumstances, they are all Olmec carvings, as B.O. wrote,
>even though they were influenced by the Egyptians.
>- None of this is
None of this is evidence for Egyptian influence. And RAJ appears to think
that the Egyptians did some carving.
Doug Weller
wrote:
>On Mon, Oct 13, 2003, 6:19pm (CDT+6), a cave dweller posted more
>nonsense here.
>==============
>I had written: ++ [SNIP by caveman to be out of context.]
>- The San Lorenzo twins are in excellent shape and are clearly Egyptian.
>--- ++
>----------------------
>He now: ~~ Actually they appear to be clearly Olmec. ~~
>---------------------
>+++ They are indeed Olmec. Nobody has suggested otherwise; however,
>they show obvious Egyptian influence. +++
>----------------------
>~~ Bernard again (My comments in [ -- ] marks): "The sculptures referred
>to are the Azuzul twins. Two of a group of four sculptures found in the
>Loma de Zapote. They are commonly called the Azuzul, not the San
>Lorenzo, twins. The two of them are posed opposing two jaguars-- not
>really an Egyptian scene :-). [Not true as discovered!! I was there soon
>after they were excavated.]
What is not true?
>They are defintely NOT Egyptian. [Correct!
>They are Olmec, but show Egyptian influence.] They have the
>characteristic Olmec face with clear epicanthic folds on the eyelids.
>[True, but immaterial] they are not "carrying" poles. They are kneeling
>and holding them in the "right hand over left hand" pose that we have
>been talking about with respect to the San Martin Pajapan sculpture.
>Does this mean that these are twin images of Ramesses III (he cloned
>himself?). [No! They are twins that are in the same pose as the San
>Martin statue.] Actually , most interpretations refer to possible "hero
>Twin" myths found in the Popol Vuh. A lot more plausible." [Possible,
>and not inconsistent with the Egyptian influence on the carving.] ~~
>----------------
>+++ All of this is just dweller rambling that totally ignores the
>Egyptian influence on the carving of these "twins" , the San Martin
>statue, and many other Olmec statues and monuments. +++
Once again you fail to give any evidence for Egyptian influence.
Larry Athy
message that is totally irrational.
=================
I had written: ++ The various authors quoted by B.O. simply agree what
many of the stone Olmec statues show similar characteristics to one
another. True indeed. Many of those characteristics are Egyptian, and
many are not. Under any circumstances, they are all Olmec carvings, as
----------------------
He, now: ~~ None of this is evidence for Egyptian influence. And RAJ
appears to think that the Egyptians did some carving. ~~
----------------------
+++ All is clearly evidence of Egyptian influence. Nobody has been
able to suggest any other place from which the multitude of Egyptian
innovations might have come.
- The carvers were Egyptian/Olmecs and Olmecs, but could be called many
things such as mariners, Egyptians, foreigners, mixed breeds, Indians,
etc. Caveman simply plays with words and makes no meaningful points.
Larry Athy
On Wed, Oct 15, 2003, 5:33am (CDT+6), a cave dweller posted here more of
his absolute nonsense.
===============
I had written: ++ All of this is just dweller rambling that totally
ignores the Egyptian influence on the carving of these "twins" , the San
Martin statue, and many other Olmec statues and monuments. ++
~~ Once again you fail to give any evidence for Egyptian influence. ~~
----------------------
+++ The evidence of Egyptian influence is in many things at the Olmec
sites, including the Olmec statues, monuments, etc.. It is all
recognized by anyone who looks at it with an open mind. Such
recognitions have been published by many authors. Nobody has been able
to come up with any other logical explanations for all these rapid
innovations in what had previously always been a pure Olmec tribal
culture.
Thus there is much supporting evidence and none to the contrary. Caveman
statements to the contrary do not change those facts. +++
Regards, Larry Athy, P.E.
Doug Weller
wrote:
>On Wed, Oct 15, 2003, 5:32am (CDT+6), a cave dweller posted here a
>message that is totally irrational.
>=================
>I had written: ++ The various authors quoted by B.O. simply agree what
>many of the stone Olmec statues show similar characteristics to one
>another. True indeed. Many of those characteristics are Egyptian, and
>many are not. Under any circumstances, they are all Olmec carvings, as
>B.O. wrote, even though they were influenced by the Egyptians. ++
>----------------------
>He, now: ~~ None of this is evidence for Egyptian influence. And RAJ
>appears to think that the Egyptians did some carving. ~~
>----------------------
>+++ All is clearly evidence of Egyptian influence. Nobody has been
>able to suggest any other place from which the multitude of Egyptian
>innovations might have come.
There is no multitude. You've named a small number. (And one of them,
irrigation, doesn't seem to have any evidence for even being there). Your
argument is not that Egyptian techniques were used, but that you can't
believe that the Olmecs could have invented the techniques themselves or
that they diffused from other native cultures.
>- The carvers were Egyptian/Olmecs and Olmecs, but could be called many
>things such as mariners, Egyptians, foreigners, mixed breeds, Indians,
>etc. Caveman simply plays with words and makes no meaningful points.
ROTFL.
Eric Stevens
<dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 21:03:08 -0500 (CDT), in sci.archaeology, Larry Athy
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, Oct 15, 2003, 5:32am (CDT+6), a cave dweller posted here a
>>message that is totally irrational.
>>=================
>>I had written: ++ The various authors quoted by B.O. simply agree what
>>many of the stone Olmec statues show similar characteristics to one
>>another. True indeed. Many of those characteristics are Egyptian, and
>>many are not. Under any circumstances, they are all Olmec carvings, as
>>B.O. wrote, even though they were influenced by the Egyptians. ++
>>----------------------
>>He, now: ~~ None of this is evidence for Egyptian influence. And RAJ
>>appears to think that the Egyptians did some carving. ~~
>>----------------------
>>+++ All is clearly evidence of Egyptian influence. Nobody has been
>>able to suggest any other place from which the multitude of Egyptian
>>innovations might have come.
>
>There is no multitude. You've named a small number. (And one of them,
>irrigation, doesn't seem to have any evidence for even being there). Your
>argument is not that Egyptian techniques were used, but that you can't
>believe that the Olmecs could have invented the techniques themselves or
>that they diffused from other native cultures.
I think his argument might be that they all arrived more or less at
once and that this is more than coincidence.
>
>>- The carvers were Egyptian/Olmecs and Olmecs, but could be called many
>>things such as mariners, Egyptians, foreigners, mixed breeds, Indians,
>>etc. Caveman simply plays with words and makes no meaningful points.
>
>ROTFL.
>
>Doug
Eric Stevens
Doug Weller
wrote:
A form of argument by incredulity, especially when he refuses to give any
details.
His paper on beards makes it explicit that herejects the argument that
the early Olmecs had irrigation and would have required this to develop an
agricultural surplus. Now I wouldn't mind that as an option were it not
that it doesn't appear that the early Olmecs actually had irrigation, and
they diidn't need it to produce an agricultural surplus. You have already
pointed out that terracing doesn't require anything more than observation
(and probably the use of natural river terraces as well). Moving large
stones and carving them again doesn't require generations to develop the
skills.
[SNIP]
Doug Weller
wrote:
>On Mon, Oct 13, 2003, 6:00pm (CDT+6), a cave dweller quoted extensively
>from things immaterial, said to have been written by B.O. de M..
>Caveman said:
>~~ Here is what Bernard has also written about the statue: (Some cut.)
>----- Many of the characteristics of the sculpture appear in many other
>Olmec pieces-- either Ramesses was pictured everywhere in the Olmec
>realm for centuries BEFORE and after his supposed trip or maybe, just
>maybe, Jaraizbhoy is full of it, and this is just an Olmec sculpture
>with Olmec symbolism. ----- (Balance cut.) ~~
>-------------------------
>+++ What I copied above is no more than more B.O. racist fiction. There
>were no Olmec stone carvings BEFORE the Egyptian trip, during which the
>"volcano" Egyptian statue was carved. There was no stone carving in the
>tribal Olmec culture prior to San Lorenzo.
>- B.O. does not necessarily write what he knows to be the truth. He
>has demonstrated repeatedly that he is an intimidated anti-diffusionist,
>as was necessary for his university jobs.
Nope. He's an anthropologist, and you've made it clear the decree only
affects archaeologists.
And the trip is nonsense.
[SNIP]
Larry Athy
irrationally.
==================
I had written: ++ All is clearly evidence of Egyptian influence. Nobody
has been able to suggest any other place from which the multitude of
---------------------------
Caveman: ~~ There is no multitude. You've named a small number.
(And one of them, irrigation, doesn't seem to have any evidence for even
being there). Your argument is not that Egyptian techniques were used,
but that you can't believe that the Olmecs could have invented the
techniques themselves or that they diffused from other native cultures.
----------------------------
+++ There are many innovations that suddenly appeared at the Olmec sites
and were not known anywhere else in America at that time. All were well
known in Egypt.
- In addition, there are many examples of Egyptian art at the Olmec
sites. These are also unique in America.
- It is absolute foolishness to even suggest that the Olmecs originated
duplicates of Egyptian art or the they were the only people in the world
to develop many technical skills in a very short time.
- Caveman presents no evidence to support his ridiculous claims. +++
Regards, Larry Athy, P.E.
Larry Athy
replied foolishly to Eric's comments. My comments are in [ -- ] marks.
===============
Eric had written: ^^ I think his argument might be that they all arrived
more or less at once and that this is more than coincidence. ^^
---------------------
Ignoring this, dweller replied: ~~ A form of argument by incredulity,
especially when he refuses to give any details. [I have given many
details over the last several months. Caveman has never supported any
of his claims.] His paper on beards makes it explicit that he rejects
the argument that the early Olmecs had irrigation and would have
hogwash!!! I have never written a paper on beards. I have only posted
(not published) my beard count results and their significance.] Now I
wouldn't mind that as an option were it not that it doesn't appear that
produce an agricultural surplus. You have already pointed out that
terracing doesn't require anything more than observation (and probably
irrigation in this sense. The tribal Olmecs irrigated in a general
sense, but not with terraced irrigation systems, as were used later.]
Moving large stones and carving them again doesn't require generations
culture that did so in such a short time without influence from other
cultures.] ~~
------------------
+++ Thus we simply have more unsupported claims. +++
Regards, Larry Athy, P.E.
Doug Weller
wrote:
>On Thu, Oct 16, 2003, 5:46am (CDT+6), a cave dweller posted here
>irrationally.
>==================
>I had written: ++ All is clearly evidence of Egyptian influence. Nobody
>has been able to suggest any other place from which the multitude of
>Egyptian innovations might have come. ----- ++
>---------------------------
>Caveman: ~~ There is no multitude. You've named a small number.
>(And one of them, irrigation, doesn't seem to have any evidence for even
>being there). Your argument is not that Egyptian techniques were used,
>but that you can't believe that the Olmecs could have invented the
>techniques themselves or that they diffused from other native cultures.
>~~
>----------------------------
>+++ There are many innovations that suddenly appeared at the Olmec sites
>and were not known anywhere else in America at that time. All were well
>known in Egypt.
Another general statement with no specifics. And note 'in America', in
other words he is rejecting the possibility of diffusion from South
America -- or using 'America' in an unusual way.
>- In addition, there are many examples of Egyptian art at the Olmec
>sites. These are also unique in America.
These claims are due to a combination of lack of knowledge of Olmec and
Egyptian culture and art and cherry picking.
>- It is absolute foolishness to even suggest that the Olmecs originated
>duplicates of Egyptian art or the they were the only people in the world
>to develop many technical skills in a very short time.
Ironically, people (incorrectly again) say the same thing of the Egyptians
(that they couldn't have developed so many technical skills in so short a
time and that therefore those skills were introduced by others).
>- Caveman presents no evidence to support his ridiculous claims. +++
Except all the evidence I've cited in this thread and others. But as Athy
disagrees with it, it doesn't exist for him.
I've mentioned that there seems to be no evidence of Olmec irrigation.
They didn't need it, but they did like to move water around with drains
for what appears to be religious purposes.
However, if the Egyptians had introduced all these techniques, I submit
that one very simple one that they would have introduced would be the
shaduf. Of course there is no evidence for that.
Larry Athy
that he does not understand how the racist decree works.
================
I had written: ++ What I copied above is no more than more B.O. racist
fiction. There were no Olmec stone carvings BEFORE the Egyptian trip,
during which the "volcano" Egyptian statue was carved. There was no
stone carving in the tribal Olmec culture prior to San Lorenzo.
- B.O. does not necessarily write what he knows to be the truth. He has
demonstrated repeatedly that he is an intimidated anti-diffusionist, as
--------------------------
Caveman, now: ~~ Nope. He's an anthropologist, and you've made it clear
the decree only affects archaeologists. ~~ ---------------------------
+++ Cavemen seem to understand very little. If a university wishes to
have archys with permits to work in Mexico, it can not allow any of its
employees to support diffusion at all. That was the case with B.O.. +++
Regards, Larry Athy, P.E.
Doug Weller
wrote:
>On Thu, Oct 16, 2003, 5:55pm (CDT+6), dweller came out of his cave and
>replied foolishly to Eric's comments. My comments are in [ -- ] marks.
>===============
>Eric had written: ^^ I think his argument might be that they all arrived
>more or less at once and that this is more than coincidence. ^^
>---------------------
>Ignoring this, dweller replied: ~~ A form of argument by incredulity,
>especially when he refuses to give any details. [I have given many
>details over the last several months. Caveman has never supported any
>of his claims.] His paper on beards makes it explicit that he rejects
>the argument that the early Olmecs had irrigation and would have
>required this to develop an agricultural surplus. [Absolute
>hogwash!!! I have never written a paper on beards. I have only posted
>(not published) my beard count results and their significance.]
Larry is clearly losing it. I have a copy of a paper titled Beards in
North America before Columbus. It has his name on it and is dated 1990,
and was published in Volume 19 of the Epigraphy Society Occasional
Papers. It starts on page 169. Either Larry is lying or he is having
serious memory problems.
>Now I
>wouldn't mind that as an option were it not that it doesn't appear that
>the early Olmecs actually had irrigation, and they didn't need it to
>produce an agricultural surplus. You have already pointed out that
>terracing doesn't require anything more than observation (and probably
>the use of natural river terraces as well). [Cavemen simply misapply
>irrigation in this sense. The tribal Olmecs irrigated in a general
>sense, but not with terraced irrigation systems, as were used later.]
Evidence for Olmec terraced irrigation systems please, not just an
assertion. Something I can check.
>Moving large stones and carving them again doesn't require generations
>to develop the skills. [Note that he does not give an example of a
>culture that did so in such a short time without influence from other
>cultures.] ~~
Egypt?
Doug Weller
wrote:
>On Thu, Oct 16, 2003, 6:04pm (CDT+6), a caveman posted here and proves
Then this should apply to any anthropology magazine that has editors who
are archaeologists at Universities that wish to excavate in Mexico. But
you've claimed it doesn't in the case of Ancient Mesoamerica (which is an
archaeological magazine but you claim it isn't, but never mind, if it is
an anthropology magazine the decree should still hold).
Larry Athy
his nonsense here in his efforts to deceive you. All are foolish.
==================
I had written: ++ There are many innovations that suddenly appeared at
the Olmec sites and were not known anywhere else in America at that
---------------------------
He, now: ~~ Another general statement with no specifics. And note 'in
America', in other words he is rejecting the possibility of diffusion
--------------------------
+++ I have given many specifics to support the Egyptian/Olmec
relationship. No meaningful specifics have been offered to the
contrary. There is no other logical conclusion. +++
---------------------------
++ In addition, there are many examples of Egyptian art at the Olmec
sites. These are also unique in America. ++
---------------------------
~~ These claims are due to a combination of lack of knowledge of Olmec
and Egyptian culture and art and cherry picking. ~~
----------------------------
+++ Rather than reply to what I wrote, dweller just demonstrates his
lack of knowledge in the matter and cherry picks.+++
-----------------------
++ It is absolute foolishness to even suggest that the Olmecs originated
duplicates of Egyptian art or the they were the only people in the world
------------------------
~~ Ironically, people (incorrectly again) say the same thing of the
Egyptians (that they couldn't have developed so many technical skills in
so short a time and that therefore those skills were introduced by
------------------------
+++ He again avoids the issue. The Egyptian skills were certainly
influenced much by others. +++
-------------------------
++ Caveman presents no evidence to support his ridiculous claims. ++
------------------------
~~ Except all the evidence I've cited in this thread and others. But as
Athy disagrees with it, it doesn't exist for him.
I've mentioned that there seems to be no evidence of Olmec irrigation.
They didn't need it, but they did like to move water around with drains
for what appears to be religious purposes.
However, if the Egyptians had introduced all these techniques, I submit
that one very simple one that they would have introduced would be the
-------------------------
+++ Big caveman smokescreen. He has not offered any evidence that the
Olmec culture was introduced from anywhere other than Egypt. +++
Regards, Larry Athy, P.E.
Larry Athy
change the subject in an effort to deceive you.
======================
dweller replied to Eric and my replies were in [ -- ] marks: ~ A form of
argument by incredulity, especially when he refuses to give any details.
[I have given many details over the last several months. Caveman has
never supported any of his claims.] His paper on beards makes it
explicit that he rejects the argument that the early Olmecs had
irrigation and would have required this to develop an agricultural
surplus. [Absolute hogwash!!! I have never written a paper on beards.
I have only posted (not published) my beard count results and their
-----------------------
He now: ~~ Larry is clearly losing it. I have a copy of a paper titled
Beards in North America before Columbus. It has his name on it and is
dated 1990, and was published in Volume 19 of the Epigraphy Society
Occasional Papers. It starts on page 169. Either Larry is lying or he is
------------------------
+++ We have been discussing my recent beard counts that have been posted
here and my conclusions as to their significance. My 1990 paper on
beards in America has nothing to do with the current beard count and is
simply mentioned my dweller as an attempt to change the subject and
deceive you, as is his way. +++
Regards, Larry Athy, P.E.
Larry Athy
evidence that he does not understand the racist anti-diffusion decree.
==================
I had written: ++ Cavemen seem to understand very little. If a
university wishes to have archys with permits to work in Mexico, it can
not allow any of its employees to support diffusion at all. That was the
---------------------------
He, now: ~~ Then this should apply to any anthropology magazine that has
editors who are archaeologists at Universities that wish to excavate in
Mexico. But you've claimed it doesn't in the case of Ancient Mesoamerica
(which is an archaeological magazine but you claim it isn't, but never
mind, if it is an anthropology magazine the decree should still hold).
----------------------------
+++ He has changed the subject. A magazine is not a university. The
effect of the decree on magazines is different than it is on
universities. +++
Regards, Larry Athy, P.E.
Doug Weller
wrote:
>On Fri, Oct 17, 2003, 6:45am (CDT+6), a cave dweller continued to try to
>change the subject in an effort to deceive you.
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>dweller replied to Eric and my replies were in [ -- ] marks: ~ A form of
>argument by incredulity, especially when he refuses to give any details.
>[I have given many details over the last several months. Caveman has
>never supported any of his claims.] =A0 His paper on beards makes it
>explicit that he rejects the argument that the early Olmecs had
>irrigation and would have required this to develop an agricultural
>surplus. =A0[Absolute hogwash!!! I have never written a paper on beards.
>I have only posted (not published) my beard count results and their
>significance.] ~
>-----------------------
>He now: ~~ Larry is clearly losing it. I have a copy of a paper titled
>Beards in North America before Columbus. It has his name on it and is
>dated 1990, and was published in Volume 19 of the Epigraphy Society
>Occasional Papers. It starts on page 169. Either Larry is lying or he is
>having serious memory problems. ~~
>------------------------
>+++ We have been discussing my recent beard counts that have been posted
>here and my conclusions as to their significance. My 1990 paper on
>beards in America has nothing to do with the current beard count and is
>simply mentioned my dweller as an attempt to change the subject and
>deceive you, as is his way. +++
Larry, you wrote 'I have never written a paper on beards." It would be
hard to misunderstand that sentence, and it is clearly false. Either you
were lying or have very serious memory problems.
Not only that, the subject of this thread is Egyptian influences on the
Olmec, and not about your beard count. My bringing it up is definitely not
an attempt to change the subject. I mentioned it because although that
paper is clearly about beards and an earlier beard count, most of it is
about Egyptian influence on the Olmec. I did not bring it up to discuss
your beard count.
Doug
Doug Weller
wrote:
[SNIP]
>
>+++ Big caveman smokescreen. He has not offered any evidence that the
>Olmec culture was introduced from anywhere other than Egypt. +++
What's the point? If I tell you that John Graham showed how Olmec
monumental sculpture developed from simple-closed forms to open forms
would you believe me? Or even do the relevant reading? Or the work on Trez
Zapotes which shows development from simple modification of natural
surfaces by cupping, grooving and incision to the much more elaborate
carving with all surfaces modified, showing development from a pre-Olmec
period on? Do you know about Mary Pohl's work on the economic development
in the Gulf coast region that preceded the Olmec and allowed its culture
to develop? How about the Barra phase at Chiapas, with houses, mica
mirrors, figurines, etc?
And you've been given the evidence frequently. Here's an old post from
July 2001 by Bernard Ortiz de Montellano.
QUOTED POST BEGINS:
In article <jt01mt0msu7d9t64l...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
<stev...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
SNIP
What Larry has done is:
>
>Snip
>
> 4. Claimed that a number of old world advanced cultures "developed
> suddenly without a formative phase" and gave examples e.g.
> Olmec on the Mexican Gulf Coast about 1200 B.C.
>
This is the old, tired, mainstay of diffusionists = the sudden unexplained
rise of th Olmecs. I have posted ad nauseam on this- with both Winters and
Athy here are a few quotes:
J. E. Clark. 1997. łThe Arts of Government in Early Mesoamerica˛ Reviews
in Anthropology 26: 211-234
p. 228. The Mazatan case represents a severe challenge to the mother
culture model as rank and simple chiefdom societies (indicated by the
two-tiered settlement hierarchy in Figure 3) in this lowland region
antedate their presence in the Olmec heartland. The Olmecs may have
received their initial stimulus to develop complex society from the
coastal dwellers of the Soconusco region (Clark & Blake 1989).
Similarities in their basic artifact inventories indicate sustained
interaction between the two groups beginning by 1500 BC (Coe 1994).... In
the first half of the eleventh century, the Mazatan region underwent
radical reorganization that can be attributed to intervention by Olmecs.
All the formerly independent simple chiefdoms were consolidated into one
complex chiefdom directed from a new regional center established in the
middle of the region.....In short, the new Mazatan polity overtly signaled
its connections to the heartland Olmecs in a range of media, from domestic
cooking vessels and figurines to public art (Clark 1993, 1994a; Clark &
Blake 1989).
*********..
John Clark and Dennis Gosser. 1995. łReinventing Mesoamericaąs First
Pottery˛ In W. Barnett and J. Hoopes, eds, The Emergence of Pottery:
Technology and Innovation in Ancient Society, 209-221. Washington DC:
p. 211. [paraphrase] The oldest pottery in Mesoamerica are Barra
(Soconusco) 1737-1637 BC (calibrated radiocarbon) mean BC= 1682; Purron
(Mexican highlands) 1900-1680 BC, mean 1805 BC; and Chajil (Veracruz) c.
1600-1400 BC, mean 1600?
*******
Stacey Symonds. 2000. łThe Ancient Landscape at San Lorenzo Tenochtitlan,
Veracruz, Mexico: Settlement and Nature˛ In Olmec Art and Archaeology in
Mesoamerica. John E. Clark and Mary R. Pye, eds. 55-74 Washington, DC:
National Gallery of Art.
p. 58. ... Excavations at San Lorenzo and some sites in the inner
hinterland show that these early layers are quite dense and contiguous
with San Lorenzo phase material, implying continuous occupation from these
earlier phases into the San Lorenzo A phase.
p. 64. Extrapolation from excavation data (see Cyphers 1991, 1992, 1993,
1994) leads us to believe that this significant population (as indicated
by the number of sites) grew fairly rapidly during the Ojochí and Bajío
phases (c. 1400-1200 BC) at the beginning of the Early Preclassic
occupation, so that by the San Lorenzo A phase (c. 1100-1000 BC) the
population and its organizational characteristics were already in place.
*******
Ponciano Ortiz and Ma. del Carmen Rodriguez. 2000. łThe Sacred Hill of El
Manatí: A Preliminary Discussion of the Siteąs Ritual Paraphernalia˛ In
Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica. John E. Clark and Mary R. Pye,
eds. 75-93 Washington, DC: National Gallery of Art.
p. 75. The earliest evidence of ancient Olmec ritual in Mesoamerica dates
to about thirty-six hundred years ago and comes from a spring in the Olmec
heartland of lowland Veracruz, Mexico. We designate the site El Manatí
after the hill, Cerro Manatí, on which the spring is located... The
objects recovered from El Manatí were deposited there over a period of six
hundred years [1600-1000 BC]. The long and continued ritual use of the
spring and its immediate surroundings indicates that El Manatí was a
sacred space.
Pp. 75-79 {BOM earliest deposit Manatí A stone bowls, obsidian fragments,
one figurine, high quality axes and beads, + rubber balls} The radiocarbon
dates from this deposit corroborate the ceramic evidence. The ceramics
include diagnostic tecomate forms, neckless jars with narrow openings and
encircling grooves below their rims [fig.14], as well as plates with
vertical exterior and interior grooves below the everted rim. The vessels
were covered with red specular hematite slip, and brown and black slip,
similar to the pottery styles of the Barra and Locona complexes described
for the Pacific Coast region of Chiapas [Clark 1994, Lowe 1975, Ceja 1985;
Clark and Pye, this volume.
p. 79.During the Manatí B phase [c. 1500-1200 BC] ....Axes were still
offered but they were no longer randomly cast into the spring. Instead.
they were buried or placed in the mud in formal patterns: arranged in
lines following the north-south axis either singly or in groups, always
maintaining symmetry. Highlighting these groups were special arrangements
of axes placed in tight circles with their bits pointing upwards like
petals of a flower [fig. 16]. Others were bundles of three to twelve axes
grouped together.... These ritual axe offerings, first evident at El
Manatí, were precursors to later offerings known for La Venta (Tabasco),
San Isidro (Chiapas) and La Merced in the municipality of Hidalgotitlan,
Veracruz, a site recently discovered and excavated by members of the
Manatí Project.
*******
John E. Clark and Mary E. Pye. 2000. łThe Pacific Coast and the Olmec
Question˛ In Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica. John E. Clark and
Mary R. Pye, eds. 217-251 Washington, DC: National Gallery of Art.
p. 243 . At the beginning of the Early Formative, the Mokaya at the
Soconusco were clearly independent of other peoples of Mesoamerica, Early
forms of rank society, or simple chiefdoms, evolved in the Pacific Coast
region, and these institutions were quickly adopted by neighboring peoples
including those living in Oman [what is usually called the Olmec
heartland] (see Clark 1994a; Clark and Blake 1994). There is clear
archaeological evidence of early contact between the peoples of the
pacific Coast and those of Olman in pre-Olmec times, most apparent in
ceramic assemblages and the types of obsidian imported into each region.
The Mokayaąs impact on the first villagers of Olman remains to be
determined, but we think it was significant [see Clark 1990; Clark and
Blake 1989).
*********
Philip J. Arnold. 2000. łSociopolitical Complexity and the Gulf Olmecs: A
View from the Tuxtla Mountains˛ In Olmec Art and Archaeology in
Mesoamerica. John E. Clark and Mary R. Pye, eds. 117-135 Washington, DC:
National Gallery of Art.
p. 218. ... Some early discussions suggested that the Gulf Olmecs
constituted the łearliest civilization˛ of the cultura madre (mother
culture) of Mesoamerica [Bernal 1969; Coe 1968]. This characterization is
now suspect, particularly in light of research along the Pacific Coast of
Mesoamerica that documents a complex sociopolitical organization
apparently antedating the łprecocious˛ Gulf Olmecs [Clark 1991,1994; Clark
and Blake 1994; Clark and Pye, this volume; Love 1991]...
In fact many archaeologists view the Gulf Olmecs as simply one of several
Mesoamerican complex societies that arose over the course of the Early-to
Middle Formative era, thereby deemphasizing the role of diffusion and
implicating a process of development that was not confined to a single set
of circumstances [Demarest 1989; Flannery and Marcus 1994; Grove 1993;
Hammond 1989; Love 1991; Sharer 1989].
***********
John E. Clark and Mary Pye. 2000. ŚThe Pacific Coast and the Olmec
Question˛
In Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica. John E. Clark and Mary R.
Pye, eds. 217-51 Washington, DC: National Gallery of Art.
Pp. 245-246. [Conclusion]
Much of the current debate about the Olmecs concerns the traditional
mother culture view. For us, this is still a primary issue. Our data from
the Pacific Coast show that the mother culture idea is still viable in
terms of cultural practices. The early Olmecs created the first
civilization in Mesoamerica; they had no peers, only contemporaries.
Creation of this first stratified society involved the forging and
crystallization of social, political, and religious institutions that
became the hallmarks of Mesoamerica itself. As with all historical
entities and cultural configurations, this was not creation ex nihilo but
from preexistent matter. The Olmecs clearly were influenced by their
predecessors and neighbors, such as the Mokaya, in significant ways, but
they also created essentially new institutions on their own, and for this
reason they hold the founding position in Mesoamerican history. Once the
Olmecs had devised hierarchical forms of social and political life, their
continuing interactions with their more rustic neighbors served to impart
these beliefs and practices to others who, for reasons of personal
advantages, adopted them. In short, the earliest Olmecs created
Mesoamerica by disseminating a particular way of life and view of the
cosmos. Mesoamerica as both a cultural and geographic reality was
historically constituted by the spatial distribution of societies that
shared in basic Olmec institutions and representational systems. Along the
Pacific Coast, this first occurred about 1100 B.C., but this first system
did not last. The Middle Formative transmission of Olmec institutions did
take hold, however, and eventually evolved into the Izapa system. These
developments at the end of the Middle Formative are still poorly
understood but are clearly tied to the cessation of Olmec culture.
*********
David C. Grove. 1993. łOlmec˛ Horizons in Formative Period Mesoamerica:
Diffusion or Social Evolution?˛ In Don S. Rice, ed.Latin American
Horizons. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks.
p.85 The łorigins˛ of Olmec culture have been speculative at times.
Because the early La Venta explorations were confined to a mound-plaza
complex (Complex A) now known to be relatively late in Olmec prehistory,
no antecedents to the artifacts recovered there were readily apparent, and
thus a notion began that perhaps Olmec culture was intrusive and that it
had not originated on the Gulf Coast (see below also). However, the
stratigraphic data later retrieved by Michael Coe and Richard Diehl from
San Lorenzo clearly demonstrate that Olmec culture is indeed indigenous to
the Gulf Coast (Coe 1970; Coe and Diehl 1980; Grove 1981a: 376-378).
********
The argument for the origin of Olmec style coming from coastal Guatemala
is made by John Graham, łOlmec Diffusion: A Cultural View from Pacific
Guatemala,˛ pp. 227-246. This book has chapter by practically all the key
archaeologists involved in Olmec research. Now, having published a number
of books, I can tell you that these chapters were written up to 2 years
before publication. Furthermore, ideas are published as papers in
professional journals before they get into books. These ideas are at least
10 years old.
As I pointed out previously, the Olmec *did not* arise suddenly. In the
Gulf Area, there is evidence of continual and gradually increasing in
complexity occupation of the San Lorenzo site dating to 1500 B.C. (Coe and
Diehl 1980) and in the La Venta site occupation of the Rio Bari as far
back as 1800 B.C. (Rust and Leyden 1994). A recent summary of the origin
of the Olmecs is the quote from Clark (1991):
łThe Mesoamerican tradition was first clearly in place by Olmec times.
Here [in Guatemala BOM] its beginnings are traced back five centuries
before the Olmecs to the Mokaya of the Pacific Coast of Chiapas, Mexico.
It is argued here that the first complex cities in Middle America arose in
this littoral shore and had profound and widespread civilizing influence
on the area that would soon become the nucleus of Mesoamerica. Recent
research in the Mazatan region of Coastal Chiapas suggests that simple
chiefdom societies were in place by at least 1650 B.C.˛
Clark, J. F. 1991. łThe Beginnings of Mesoamerica: Apologia for the
Soconusco Early Formative.˛ in *The Formation of Complex Society in
Southeastern Mesoamerica.* edited by Wm. R. Fowler. 13-26. Boca Raton, FL:
CRC Press.
Coe, M. D. Coe and R. A. Diehl. 1980. *In the Land of the Olmecs:
Archeology of San Lorenzo Tenochtitlan.* 2 vols. Austin: University of
Texas Press.
Rust, W.F. and B. W. Leyden. 1994. łEvidence of Maize use at Early and
Middle Preclassic La Venta Olmec Sites,˛ in S. Johannessen and C. H.
Hostoy, eds. *Corn and Culture in the Prehistoric World* pp. 181-201.
Boulder: Westview Press.
******
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
END OF QUOTED POST.
Doug Weller
a nemes crown.
Katherine Griffis once described the nemes crown as "a piece of striped
cloth pulled tight across the forehead and tied in kind of a
tail at the back, while a flap on each side of the shoulders
fell down the front. At the brow, it was decorated with the
ureaus cobra and the vulture, symbolizing again Lower and
Upper Egypt, respectively.
Bernard points out that the Pajapan statue does not have the cobra and
vulture. It does not have cloth down the sides, what we have are long
earspoools with human faces. It does not have a tail in the back or a
cloth across the forehead.
RAJ see 'flamelike' serpents *beside* the brow. Even if they are there,
that is *not* a nemes crown. I think that the so-called serpents are more
likely part of the statues Olmec Dragon headdress.
Larry Athy
demonstrated again that he has no purpose in posting here except to be
disagreeable. My 1990 paper has not previously been discussed here and
does not relate to any discussion here under any title. It was
concerned with general areas, not specific cultures.
Regards, Larry Athy, P.E.
Doug Weller
wrote:
>
I still don't understand why you denied having written a paper on beards.
Some of your comments sound very much like comments in your 1990 paper on
beards. It is clearly at least in part about the Olmec and on the topics
being discussed in this thread.
And you brought it up a few months ago under the thread 'Parallels'. I
think it may be that post that sparked off the beard discussion.
Larry Athy
here in another attempt to avoid the issue and deceive you (his only
talents).
==============
I had written: ++ Big caveman smokescreen. He has not offered any
evidence that the Olmec culture was introduced from anywhere other than
Egypt. ++
Rather than try to supply such evidence he rambled: ~~ What's the point?
If I tell you that John Graham showed how Olmec monumental sculpture
developed from simple-closed forms to open forms would you believe me?
Or even do the relevant reading? Or the work on Trez Zapotes which shows
development from simple modification of natural surfaces by cupping,
grooving and incision to the much more elaborate carving with all
surfaces modified, showing development from a pre-Olmec period on? Do
you know about Mary Pohl's work on the economic development in the Gulf
coast region that preceded the Olmec and allowed its culture to develop?
How about the Barra phase at Chiapas, with houses, mica mirrors,
figurines, etc?
And you've been given the evidence frequently. Here's an old post from
July 2001 by Bernard Ortiz de Montellano.
--------------------
+++ All of this is supplemental to the premise that the Egyptians
influenced the Olmec culture, not at all contradictory. I agree with
most of it.
- The caveman has still not offered any evidence that shows any other
source for all the Egyptian techniques and art except for Egypt. There
are no other possibilities, and he surely knows it. +++
Regards, Larry Athy, P.E.
Doug Weller
wrote:
>On Sat, Oct 18, 2003, 8:20am (CDT+6), a ramtopped cave dweller posted
>here in another attempt to avoid the issue and deceive you (his only
>talents).
>==============
>I had written: ++ Big caveman smokescreen. He has not offered any
>evidence that the Olmec culture was introduced from anywhere other than
>Egypt. ++
>----------------------
>Rather than try to supply such evidence he rambled: ~~ What's the point?
>If I tell you that John Graham showed how Olmec monumental sculpture
>developed from simple-closed forms to open forms would you believe me?
>Or even do the relevant reading? Or the work on Trez Zapotes which shows
>development from simple modification of natural surfaces by cupping,
>grooving and incision to the much more elaborate carving with all
>surfaces modified, showing development from a pre-Olmec period on? Do
>you know about Mary Pohl's work on the economic development in the Gulf
>coast region that preceded the Olmec and allowed its culture to develop?
>How about the Barra phase at Chiapas, with houses, mica mirrors,
>figurines, etc?
That is hardly rambling. It's about developments that led up the technical
skills you claim were brought by Egyptians. The evidence you claim
doesn't exist.
>And you've been given the evidence frequently. Here's an old post from
>July 2001 by Bernard Ortiz de Montellano.
>(Quotes cut.) ~~
>--------------------
>+++ All of this is supplemental to the premise that the Egyptians
>influenced the Olmec culture, not at all contradictory. I agree with
>most of it.
>- The caveman has still not offered any evidence that shows any other
>source for all the Egyptian techniques and art except for Egypt. There
>are no other possibilities, and he surely knows it. +++
You seem to believe you are Cleopatra. :-)
Larry Athy
his cave long enough to write (I comment in [----] marks): ~~ RAJ places
a lot of emphasis on the Pajapan statue, which he claims wears a nemes
cloth pulled tight across the forehead and tied in kind of a tail at the
back, while a flap on each side of the shoulders fell down the front. At
the brow, it was decorated with the ureaus cobra and the vulture,
description.]
Bernard points out that the Pajapan statue does not have the cobra and
vulture. It does not have cloth down the sides, what we have are long
earspoools with human faces. It does not have a tail in the back or a
cloth across the forehead.
RAJ see 'flamelike' serpents *beside* the brow. Even if they are there,
that is *not* a nemes crown. I think that the so-called serpents are
a nemes crown. There were many different headdresses (crowns) in Egypt.
There had not been any similar headdresses in America prior to the Olmec
times, nor were there any carved statues. It is clearly the statue
described in Egyptian history as having been left there. There are
quite a few other statues in the Olmec area that have the nemes
headdress (crown), including the twins near San Lorenzo.] ~~
--------------------
+++ All of what caveman has posted is immaterial to the Egyptian/Olmec
premise. He simply disagrees with immaterial details. He has not (and
will not) give us any other source for all of the Egyptian technology,
art, etc.. +++
Regards, Larry Athy, P.E.
Larry Athy
here in another attempt to avoid the issue and deceive you (his only
talents).
==============
rambling. It's about developments that led up the technical skills you
claim were brought by Egyptians. The evidence you claim doesn't exist.
--------------------
+++ Not true at all! These developments are concurrent with the
Egyptian/Olmec developments, or later. +++
--------------------
I had written: ++ All of this is supplemental to the premise that the
Egyptians influenced the Olmec culture, not at all contradictory. I
agree with most of it.
- The caveman has still not offered any evidence that shows any other
source for all the Egyptian techniques and art except for Egypt. There
are no other possibilities, and he surely knows it. ++
Since he is unable to reply to what I had written, he wrote: ~~ You seem
to believe you are Cleopatra. ~~
------------------------
+++ More dweller fiction; however, I would rather be Cleopatra (dead)
than a ramtopped dweller (only mentally dead). He is clearly unable to
deal with my premise. +++
Regards, Larry Athy, P.E.
Doug Weller
wrote:
>On Sat, Oct 18, 2003, 8:10pm (CDT+6), a ramtopped dweller came out of
>his cave long enough to write (I comment in [----] marks): ~~ RAJ places
>a lot of emphasis on the Pajapan statue, which he claims wears a nemes
>crown. [Not my understanding. It clearly does not wear the nemes crown.]
>Katherine Griffis once described the nemes crown as "a piece of striped
>cloth pulled tight across the forehead and tied in kind of a tail at the
>back, while a flap on each side of the shoulders fell down the front. At
>the brow, it was decorated with the ureaus cobra and the vulture,
>symbolizing again Lower and Upper Egypt, respectively. [Relatively good
>description.]
>Bernard points out that the Pajapan statue does not have the cobra and
>vulture. It does not have cloth down the sides, what we have are long
>earspoools with human faces. It does not have a tail in the back or a
>cloth across the forehead.
>RAJ see 'flamelike' serpents *beside* the brow. Even if they are there,
>that is *not* a nemes crown. I think that the so-called serpents are
>more likely part of the statues Olmec Dragon headdress. [Yes, it is not
>a nemes crown.
So R.A.J. is wrong. Fine, we agree on that.
> There were many different headdresses (crowns) in Egypt.
Immaterial, as you would say.
>There had not been any similar headdresses in America prior to the Olmec
>times, nor were there any carved statues.
> It is clearly the statue
>described in Egyptian history as having been left there.
There is NO statue described in Egyptian history as having been left
there. You can produce no Egyptian texts that show a statue having been
left there. I can't find a claim by Jairazbhoy in Rameses III, Father of
Ancient America that claims this. If it's there, please point me to the
page name. If not, perhaps you would provide the Egyptian source.
> There are
>quite a few other statues in the Olmec area that have the nemes
>headdress (crown), including the twins near San Lorenzo.] ~~
Substantiate these claims for nemes crowns.
Here are the twins (identifying details on the headdresses were
obliterated)
http://www.rose-hulman.edu/~delacova/xalapa-museum-7.htm
The side views make it even clearer that they are not wearing the nemes
crown.
http://www.rose-hulman.edu/~delacova/xalapa/museum-29.jpg
http://www.rose-hulman.edu/~delacova/xalapa/museum-30.jpg
Here is the nemes crown.
http://www.cosmopolis.ch/akhenaten.jpg
>--------------------
>+++ All of what caveman has posted is immaterial to the Egyptian/Olmec
>premise. He simply disagrees with immaterial details. He has not (and
>will not) give us any other source for all of the Egyptian technology,
>art, etc.. +++
I've given you sources for the carving. I've explained that there was no
irrigation, no need for terracing. There is nothing that requires
Egyptians.
Doug Weller
wrote:
>On Sat, Oct 18, 2003, 9:42pm (CDT+6), a ramtopped cave dweller posted
You don't get the joke. You're in denial, and Cleopatra is sometimes
called -- never mind.
Larry Athy
well that he knows nothing about Egyptian art or history.
==================
I had written: ++ ---- There are
----------------------
He, now: ~~ Substantiate these claims for nemes crowns.
obliterated)
http://www.rose-hulman.edu/~delacova/xalapa-museum-7.htm
The side views make it even clearer that they are not wearing the nemes
crown.
http://www.rose-hulman.edu/~delacova/xalapa/museum-29.jpg
-----------------------
+++ Those shown are indeed nemes headdresses, the same as occur
repeatedly in Egyptian art. That should be obvious to anyone who has a
book on Egyptian history. +++
-------------------------
~~ Here is the nemes crown.
http://www.cosmopolis.ch/akhenaten.jpg ~~
------------------------
+++ That is a very unusual variation of a nemes crown. +++
--------------------
premise. He simply disagrees with immaterial details. He has not (and
will not) give us any other source for all of the Egyptian technology,
art, etc.. ++
~~ I've given you sources for the carving. I've explained that there was
no irrigation, no need for terracing. There is nothing that requires
------------------
+++ This is all just unsupported dweller claims. He has not cited any
pre-Olmec culture in America that made use of any of these technologies
or art styles. Everything that he has cited has been during or after
the Olmec culture. The Olmec culture is accepted by all scholars as
being the first culture above the tribal level in N. America. +++
Regards, Larry Athy, P.E.
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
Athy) in sci.archaeology, wrote the following:
>On Sat, Oct 18, 2003, 10:44pm (CDT+6), a cave dweller demonstrated very
>well that he knows nothing about Egyptian art or history.
>==================
>I had written: ++ ---- There are
>quite a few other statues in the Olmec area that have the nemes
>headdress (crown), including the twins near San Lorenzo. ++
>----------------------
>He, now: ~~ Substantiate these claims for nemes crowns.
>Here are the twins (identifying details on the headdresses were
>obliterated)
>http://www.rose-hulman.edu/~delacova/xalapa-museum-7.htm
>The side views make it even clearer that they are not wearing the nemes
>crown.
>http://www.rose-hulman.edu/~delacova/xalapa/museum-29.jpg
>http://www.rose-hulman.edu/~delacova/xalapa/museum-30.jpg ~~
>-----------------------
>+++ Those shown are indeed nemes headdresses, the same as occur
>repeatedly in Egyptian art. That should be obvious to anyone who has a
>book on Egyptian history. +++
Er, no, they are not. I happen to have quite a few books on Egyptian
art, history and culture and these images are not of the ancient
Egyptian nemes crown. Quite honestly, they resemble more like tefillin
worn with tallit. For more on tefillin, see:
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Judaism/tefillin.html
http://www.jewfaq.org/signs.htm
The "twins" imagery is much closer to that of Chagall's rendering of a
rabbi wearing both tefillin and tallit. See:
http://151.38.39.251/ebraismoecristianesimo/foto/tefillin/chagall_tall.jpg
So, based on your analogy, should we be talking about the Jewish source
of Olmec culture? :)
>-------------------------
>~~ Here is the nemes crown.
>http://www.cosmopolis.ch/akhenaten.jpg ~~
>------------------------
>+++ That is a very unusual variation of a nemes crown. +++
Nonsense, it's one of the few times this king is shown wearing the
traditional nemes headwear, which is why the imagery is notable.
The nemes is show in its usual modes at
http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/art/ucarchive/uc33422.gif
with info on the crowns of a king at
http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/ideology/king/what.html
There are several examples of Egyptian nemes headdresses shown on
Egyptians kings at
http://www.clevelandart.org/archive/pharaoh/photos/
including a poorly fitted one on the Roman Emperor Nero, and noted as
characteristically "un-Egyptians" in its presentation.
and
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/reg.htm
wherein the nemes headdess of Tutankhamun (from his coffinette), the
headdress of Ramses II (surmounted by the Double Crown) from Abu Simbel
and a rendering of (I believe) Ramses III are shown. None of these
headdresses, which are very much the traditional mode of royal
headdress, resemble that of the Olmec twins.
Since we have actual examples of the nemes headdress (which were
excavated from Tutankhamun's tomb on the mummy itself), we are aware
that its artistic representation and its actual appearance match.
Sorry, Athy, but here it is YOUR perception of the headdress which is
faulty, not Doug's nor books of Egyptian history/culture/art.
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, MA (Lon)
Member, International Association of Egyptologists
American Research Center in Egypt, ASOR, EES, SSEA
Oriental Institute
Oriental Studies Doctoral Program [Egyptology]
Oxford University
Oxford, United Kingdom
Doug Weller
wrote:
>On Sat, Oct 18, 2003, 10:44pm (CDT+6), a cave dweller demonstrated very
>well that he knows nothing about Egyptian art or history.
>==================
>I had written: ++ ---- There are
>quite a few other statues in the Olmec area that have the nemes
>headdress (crown), including the twins near San Lorenzo. ++
>----------------------
>He, now: ~~ Substantiate these claims for nemes crowns.
>Here are the twins (identifying details on the headdresses were
>obliterated)
>http://www.rose-hulman.edu/~delacova/xalapa-museum-7.htm
>The side views make it even clearer that they are not wearing the nemes
>crown.
>http://www.rose-hulman.edu/~delacova/xalapa/museum-29.jpg
>http://www.rose-hulman.edu/~delacova/xalapa/museum-30.jpg ~~
>-----------------------
>+++ Those shown are indeed nemes headdresses, the same as occur
>repeatedly in Egyptian art. That should be obvious to anyone who has a
>book on Egyptian history. +++
>-------------------------
>~~ Here is the nemes crown.
>http://www.cosmopolis.ch/akhenaten.jpg ~~
>------------------------
>+++ That is a very unusual variation of a nemes crown. +++
Nope, it's not an unusual variation. But it's interesting that you don't
know what you are looking at, which is the nemes headdress (which is what
is really is, not a crown) *plus* the double crown.
Some more:
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/reg.htm
http://artworld.uea.ac.uk/objects/6/details.html
http://www.egyptologyonline.com/pharaoh's_crowns.htm
http://www.historywiz.com/galleries/akhenaten.htm
>--------------------
>++ All of what caveman has posted is immaterial to the Egyptian/Olmec
>premise. He simply disagrees with immaterial details. He has not (and
>will not) give us any other source for all of the Egyptian technology,
>art, etc.. ++
>----------------
>~~ I've given you sources for the carving. I've explained that there was
>no irrigation, no need for terracing. There is nothing that requires
>Egyptians. ~~
>------------------
>+++ This is all just unsupported dweller claims. He has not cited any
>pre-Olmec culture in America that made use of any of these technologies
>or art styles. Everything that he has cited has been during or after
>the Olmec culture. The Olmec culture is accepted by all scholars as
>being the first culture above the tribal level in N. America. +++
That may have been true for most scholars when you wrote your paper on
beards in 1990, it is simply not true now. You are badly out of touch with
current research.
http://www.csms.ca/Olmec.htm
(The Canadian Society for Mesoamerican Studies)
Which says among other things:
"The prevailing view now is that "Olmec" identifies one of many early
cultures emergent in the Formative period from about 2000 BC to CE 200.
Olmec formative culture developed on the Gulf Coast (see map) of Mexico,
contemporary with other Early Formative centres, but excelling in
monumental architecture and sculpture although some other centres did
spectacular works.
The stylistic similarity so evident in Early Formative artifacts, which
used to be seen as evidence of conquest or cultural dominance, is now seen
as a common heritage from earlier beliefs and practices."
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
Athy) in sci.archaeology, wrote the following:
>On Sat, Oct 18, 2003, 10:44pm (CDT+6), a cave dweller demonstrated very
>well that he knows nothing about Egyptian art or history.
>==================
>I had written: ++ ---- There are
>quite a few other statues in the Olmec area that have the nemes
>headdress (crown), including the twins near San Lorenzo. ++
>----------------------
>He, now: ~~ Substantiate these claims for nemes crowns.
>Here are the twins (identifying details on the headdresses were
>obliterated)
>http://www.rose-hulman.edu/~delacova/xalapa-museum-7.htm
>The side views make it even clearer that they are not wearing the nemes
>crown.
>http://www.rose-hulman.edu/~delacova/xalapa/museum-29.jpg
>http://www.rose-hulman.edu/~delacova/xalapa/museum-30.jpg ~~
>-----------------------
>+++ Those shown are indeed nemes headdresses, the same as occur
>repeatedly in Egyptian art. That should be obvious to anyone who has a
>book on Egyptian history. +++
Er, no, they are not. I happen to have quite a few books on Egyptian
art, history and culture and these images are not of the ancient
Egyptian nemes crown. Quite honestly, they resemble more like tefillin
worn with tallit. For more on tefillin, see:
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Judaism/tefillin.html
http://www.jewfaq.org/signs.htm
The "twins" imagery is much closer to that of Chagall's rendering of a
rabbi wearing both tefillin and tallit. See:
http://151.38.39.251/ebraismoecristianesimo/foto/tefillin/chagall_tall.jpg
So, based on your analogy, should we be talking about the Jewish source
of Olmec culture? :)
>-------------------------
>~~ Here is the nemes crown.
>http://www.cosmopolis.ch/akhenaten.jpg ~~
>------------------------
>+++ That is a very unusual variation of a nemes crown. +++
Nonsense, it's one of the few times this king is shown wearing the
Tom McDonald
<snip>
>
> So, based on your analogy, should we be talking about the Jewish source
> of Olmec culture? :)
Katherine,
Do you know if Jewish men could grow full beards ca. 3600 ya?
[:-))]
If so, do you have some books to recommend to Larry for his
counting pleasure?
This could open up a whole world of in-comers to the
Americas. Where, after all, did those 10 lost tribes wind up
at? With a bit of fortitude, we could re-capitulate all of
19th century pseudo-scientific North American archaeology.
Joseph Smith would have been so proud.
Tom McDonald
<snip>
--
remove 'nohormel' to reply
Doug Weller
wrote:
I think Larry will provide claims for Jewish inscriptions, and claims for
Jewish representations in Mesoamerican art (they must be Jewish because of
their hooked noses sort of thing).
[SNIP]
Larry Athy
well that he knows nothing about Egyptian or Olmec art or history.
==================
He, had written: ~ Substantiate these claims for nemes crowns. Here are
the twins (identifying details on the headdresses were obliterated)
http://www.rose-hulman.edu/~delacova/xalapa-museum-7.htm The side views
make it even clearer that they are not wearing the nemes crown.
http://www.rose-hulman.edu/~delacova/xalapa/museum-29.jpg
http://www.rose-hulman.edu/~delacova/xalapa/museum-30.jpg ~
I had replied: ++ Those shown are indeed nemes headdresses, the same as
occur repeatedly in Egyptian art. That should be obvious to anyone who
has a book on Egyptian history. ++
+++ He did not reply. Perhaps he has looked at the book "Chronicles of
the Pharoahs", by Peter A. Clayton, 1994, pages 152 and 154. These show
photos of statues of Rameses II, that have a headdress almost identical
with that of the twins at San Lorenzo. The main exception is the top
part of the headdress, which is square in one case and round in the
other.
- Most such headdresses in Egypt did not have the top part. In that
same book, see pages 32, 52, 53, 62, 78, 84, 88, 96, 106, 120, 128, 156,
166, and 180. The top part seems to have been added at the time of
Rameses II.
- There are several other stone statues at La Venta that have
headdresses the same as the Rameses II headdress with the round top
part. +++
------------------
pre-Olmec culture in America that made use of any of these technologies
or art styles. Everything that he has cited has been during or after the
Olmec culture. The Olmec culture is accepted by all scholars as being
the first culture above the tribal level in N. America. ++
~~ That may have been true for most scholars when you wrote your paper
on beards in 1990, it is simply not true now. You are badly out of touch
with current research.
http://www.csms.ca/Olmec.htm
(The Canadian Society for Mesoamerican Studies)
Which says among other things:
"The prevailing view now is that "Olmec" identifies one of many early
cultures emergent in the Formative period from about 2000 BC to CE 200.
Olmec formative culture developed on the Gulf Coast (see map) of Mexico,
contemporary with other Early Formative centres, but excelling in
monumental architecture and sculpture although some other centres did
spectacular works.
The stylistic similarity so evident in Early Formative artifacts, which
used to be seen as evidence of conquest or cultural dominance, is now
-------------------
+++ I agree with this!!! The first tribal Olmec identified seems to
have been about 2000 BC. They were the first American culture to rise
to a much higher level very suddenly during the San Lorenzo times.
There were many other tribal natives in America during the tribal Olmec
times. +++
Regards, Larry Athy, P.E.
Larry Athy
posted the same thing here twice. I suspect that she is really the
caveman operating under an alias. If such is not the case, she surely
has not seen the San Lorenzo twins.
Regards, Larry Athy, P.E.
Larry Athy
claim of his alias when he wrote: ~~ I think Larry will provide claims
for Jewish inscriptions, and claims for Jewish representations in
Mesoamerican art (they must be Jewish because of their hooked noses sort
-------------------
+++ As I have indicated previously, there is evidence at La Venta of
other than Egyptian visitors from the eastern Mediterranean; however, I
have seen no evidence of the Hebrew being there. +++
Regards, Larry Athy, P.E.
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
Athy) in sci.archaeology, wrote the following:
>On Sun, Oct 19, 2003, 6:55am (CDT+6), Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
Oh, great heavens above, Athy. The second posting came about due to a
glitch in the news server. You are quite paranoid if you think that
somehow proves me as "someone else." I am not Doug, and you are well
aware of this from previous posts we have had with one another over the
years.
I have seen the examples you gave of the Lorenzo Twins, which has your
"evidence" of a nemes headdress. You choose to ignore what evidence I
gave to the contrary, as well as stated evidence from Mesoamerican
specialists: who is fooling themselves here? Surely not I.
If you are so insecure in your presumptions that you choose to ignore
contra evidence and use the _ad hominem_ approach to this argument, then
your theory must be very bankrupt indeed.
Read the URL's I gave, and please, please, please: read a book on
ancient Egyptian titulary, crowns and so on, with an open mind and not
one that has sought to find that which does not exist. Not everything
you see is interrelated culturally, and your perception alone does not
constitute factual evidence.
Regards --
Larry Athy
posted here illogically again. She clearly is not able to even consider
the truth, perhaps because of anti-diffusion intimidation.
- I have in my personal library over a dozen books on the Olmecs and at
least a dozen on ancient Egyptians. Many of the Egyptian headdresses
are clearly the same as those of the Olmec twins and several of them are
identical. I have recently cited specific page references supporting
that fact.
Regards, Larry Athy, P.E>
Larry Athy
continued his irrational objections to all things having to do with
diffusion.
==================
I had written: ++ There had not been any similar headdresses in America
prior to the Olmec times, nor were there any carved statues. It is
clearly the statue
-----------------------
He, now: ~~ There is NO statue described in Egyptian history as having
been left there. You can produce no Egyptian texts that show a statue
having been left there. I can't find a claim by Jairazbhoy in Rameses
III, Father of Ancient America that claims this. If it's there, please
point me to the page name. If not, perhaps you would provide the
-----------------------
+++ I posted this information here some time ago but do not remember
the source. Even though it does not mention the statue, as far as I
know, I do find the following reference to the claim of Rameses III that
he had visited Manu.
- "Rameses III, Father of Ancient America", by Jairazbhoy, Page 12:
"Rameses writes in his inscriptions that he has actually reached his
mountain in the far west of the world (ref. #1) - which was known as
Manu." Ref. 1: Breasted, J.H., "Ancient Records of Egypt", etc..
- Page 26: "But there was never any doubt that they reached the ends of
the earth - Rameses IV declared that ""the Ocean and the Great Circuit
___ to the ends of the supports of the sky"" were under his father's
grasp." (Ref. 16.)
- Page 27: "It is highly unlikely that the fleet, that Rameses says he
sent to the ends of the earth and to the sea of inverted water, would
have been unconscious that the entrance to the underworld lay in the Far
West of the world; -- ."
- Page 66: "The entrance to the Egyptian Underworld was the place where
the sun went down - that was the mountain Manu, in the Far West."
Page 139: "REFERENCES: Note; The chief sources of the chapter appear in
the previous works of this author as follows: (Those works are listed)."
- "Ancient Egyptians in Middle and South America", by Jairazbhoy. Page
1: "In the first volume of this work I set out a huge amount of evidence
linking the Olmecs with New Kingdom Egypt, --- ."
- "The Gods of the Egyptians", by E. A. Wallis Budge. Page 156: " --
out of one mountain came the sun every morning, and into the other he
entered every night. The mountain of sunrise was called Bakhau and the
mountain of sunset, Manu."
- This all supports the fact that Rameses reached the mountain Manu in
the Far West of the world; however it does not mention a statue. On the
other hand, there are a number of Olmec statues that are clearly
Egyptian in style. +++
Regards, Larry Athy, P.E.
Doug Weller
wrote:
>On Sat, Oct 18, 2003, 10:44pm (CDT+6), a caveman posted here and
>continued his irrational objections to all things having to do with
>diffusion.
>==================
>I had written: ++ There had not been any similar headdresses in America
>prior to the Olmec times, nor were there any carved statues. It is
>clearly the statue
>described in Egyptian history as having been left there. ++
>-----------------------
>He, now: ~~ There is NO statue described in Egyptian history as having
>been left there. You can produce no Egyptian texts that show a statue
>having been left there. I can't find a claim by Jairazbhoy in Rameses
>III, Father of Ancient America that claims this. If it's there, please
>point me to the page name. If not, perhaps you would provide the
>Egyptian source. ~~
>-----------------------
>+++ I posted this information here some time ago but do not remember
>the source. Even though it does not mention the statue, as far as I
>know, I do find the following reference to the claim of Rameses III that
>he had visited Manu.
I will come back to this in more detail, but I gather that you are
withdrawing the claim to Egyptian 'historical records' having described a
statue being left there.
>- "Rameses III, Father of Ancient America", by Jairazbhoy, Page 12:
>"Rameses writes in his inscriptions that he has actually reached his
>mountain in the far west of the world (ref. #1) - which was known as
>Manu." Ref. 1: Breasted, J.H., "Ancient Records of Egypt", etc..
Nope. I have no idea why Jairazbhoy made that claim, but it's wrong (i.e.
his references don't mention such an inscription). More later, but his
references have been checked.
>- Page 26: "But there was never any doubt that they reached the ends of
>the earth - Rameses IV declared that ""the Ocean and the Great Circuit
>___ to the ends of the supports of the sky"" were under his father's
>grasp." (Ref. 16.)
Ever hear of hyperbole?
>- Page 27: "It is highly unlikely that the fleet, that Rameses says he
>sent to the ends of the earth and to the sea of inverted water, would
>have been unconscious that the entrance to the underworld lay in the Far
>West of the world; -- ."
>- Page 66: "The entrance to the Egyptian Underworld was the place where
>the sun went down - that was the mountain Manu, in the Far West."
>Page 139: "REFERENCES: Note; The chief sources of the chapter appear in
>the previous works of this author as follows: (Those works are listed)."
>- "Ancient Egyptians in Middle and South America", by Jairazbhoy. Page
>1: "In the first volume of this work I set out a huge amount of evidence
>linking the Olmecs with New Kingdom Egypt, --- ."
>- "The Gods of the Egyptians", by E. A. Wallis Budge. Page 156: " --
>out of one mountain came the sun every morning, and into the other he
>entered every night. The mountain of sunrise was called Bakhau and the
>mountain of sunset, Manu."
>- This all supports the fact that Rameses reached the mountain Manu in
>the Far West of the world; however it does not mention a statue. On the
>other hand, there are a number of Olmec statues that are clearly
>Egyptian in style. +++
> Regards, Larry Athy, P.E.
>
If I have time tonight I'll assemble all I have on the above and post it.
Doug Weller
wrote:
>On Mon, Oct 20, 2003, 9:28am (CDT+6), Katherine=A0Griffis-Greenberg
>posted here illogically again. She clearly is not able to even consider
>the truth, perhaps because of anti-diffusion intimidation.
She's reported what she sees, as have I. There are clear differences.
Remember, RAJ claimed that the San Martin statue had a nemes headdress but
it obviously does not.
>- I have in my personal library over a dozen books on the Olmecs and at
>least a dozen on ancient Egyptians. Many of the Egyptian headdresses
>are clearly the same as those of the Olmec twins and several of them are
>identical. I have recently cited specific page references supporting
>that fact.
Which ones in Clayton are identical? Mutilations and all?
Doug Weller
wrote:
[SNIP]
>
>- Page 27: "It is highly unlikely that the fleet, that Rameses says he
>sent to the ends of the earth and to the sea of inverted water, would
>have been unconscious that the entrance to the underworld lay in the Far
>West of the world; -- ."
I wonder what Larry thinks the reference to 'the sea of inverted water' is
supposed to mean.
[SNIP]
Larry Athy
continued his irrational objections to all things having to do with
simply made more unsupported claims.
Regards, Larry Athy, P.E.
Larry Athy
that were so irrational that it is not possible for me to reply. He
clearly has nothing important to write.
Regards, Larry Athy, P.E.
Doug Weller
wrote:
[SNIP]
>
>On Tue, Oct 21, 2003, 5:33am (CDT+6), a caveman posted here and
>continued his irrational objections to all things having to do with
>diffusion. Rather than reply to what I had written and he quoted, he
>simply made more unsupported claims
In other words, you can't refute what I have said. RAJ's claims about an
Egyptian foundation are demonstrably wrong. You can't deal with that so
you, as usual, result to insults and denial.