[Fwd: On the alleged accuracy of the Great Pyramid] #2
Jiri Mruzek
> I will start without any previous assumption on whether the Egyptian
> knew or did not know this or that. I will only consider the issues
> involved on recovering information with a high accuracy on the Pyramid.
> In line with this approach I will deal only with the difficulties
> related to points 3) and 4) above.
>
> THE STATE OF THE PYRAMID
>
> It has to be remember that the Pyramid of Cheops is in a very bad state.
> It has not taken well the attacks of time.
You mean attacks of people. So many tyrants wanted to raze it
to the ground, and so many Victorian tourists wanted to break
it apart, and yet the Pyramid is remarkably well preserved despite
having been skinned alive..
> The original dimensions of
> the Pyramid were given by the casing stones, but they are not there to
> be measured because the Pyramid was stripped of them and they were used
> to build the fortress of Cairo. Just a few isolated casing stones of the
> first row of a single side of the Pyramid is available for measure.
Well, no.
Howard Vyse, and Flinders Petrie each found some casing
blocks. You heard Petrie's testimony as to the precision
and accuracy of the facing blocks? Was Petrie not respectable
as a scientist?
> The
> corner stones are gone and their position has to be assumed. The
> original side slope has to be extrapolated from the available single
> row.
Actually, there are some empirical theories operating with
the notion of uneven sides. The ingenious theory accounts
for the apparent differences. So, even these so called imprecisions
would be accurate renderings, instead.
Yes, you guessed it, I give those theories a lot of creed,
basing on the physical proximity of what is left today to such
a brilliant version of the Pyramid's architecture.
> Any error on the determination of this slope will be multiply by
> more than 100 times in this extrapolation. As we shall see later, it is
> not a surprise that the output of different authors is different.
>
> I will concentrate my analysis of results on only three areas: the slope
> of the Pyramid, the dimensions of its perimeter the orientation of its
> sides.
>
> Pyramid height from base to last row: According to Jomard 138.30 m,
> According to Petrie 139.40.
>
> We such a difference? because the nine of ten uppermost rows of the
> Pyramid are missing, so the altitude is only a guess derived of the
> determination of the slope. They are not measuring, they are guessing.
>
Extrapolating - yes. Guessing -no. There is a diff.
> The place where this problem of the bad conservation of the Pyramid and
> implications on measuring are acknowledge is a book from Pochan that
> states "Due to the present state of the Pyramid the dimensions of the
> sides cannot be known with an accuracy larger than 0.1 m and the
> original height cannot be known with an accuracy better than 0.5 m".
> Petrie implicitly acknowledge the problem when he states that the slopes
> of the Pyramid are know with an accuracy of 1 minute. This is equivalent
> to an error of 5 cm in the determination of the key parameters of the
> Pyramid
>
> The slope of the sides is according to Petrie is 51 degrees 51 minutes
> plus minus one minute. To code pi it shall be 51 d 51 m 34 s, to code
> phi it shall be 51 d 49 m 38 s.
And, it will code both, if one arranges the corners slightly off
being a true square..
> In case the orthodox point of view where
> correct and if it were only a ‘round’ figure it shall be 51 d 50 m 35s.
> So you can choose any value you want, all of them fit inside the
> boundaries provided by Petrie.
Isn't it amazing that both variations still fit into
the boundaries?
> Due to its bad state the Pyramid cannot
> provide any data with higher accuracy, and anybody that quotes an
> accuracy of second or arc or mm is just cheating himself.
Perhaps not. A lot depends on the accuracy of the measurement.
> Quoting Martin
> Gardner "how easy it is to work over an undigested mass of data and
> emerge with a pattern, which at first glance is so intricately put
> together that it is difficult to believe it is nothing more than the
> product of a man delusion.
So, if it is difficult to believe - why believe it?
Is it delusional to suspect rational thinking in our
ancestors, where there are signs of it?
> ON THE ISSUE OF THE ACCURACY OF THE RECOVERY
>
> For more than a century theodolites have been measuring the second of
> arc. Nevertheless two problems will limit the accuracy of the recovery
> even on a perfectly conserved Pyramid.
>
> a)
> Till recently, it was not so easy to measure lengths. So you needed a
> independent measurement of distance to start with and continue with
> triangulations. This limited the accuracy that Petrie could have got
> measuring distances.
Petrie's were the best measuring tools available then.
He did quite well. Others like Cole measuring later had
confirmed this.
> b)
> Theodolites of the days of Petrie could not be located with high
> precision on top of the point we wanted to measure. An error of several
> mm would have been unavoidable. This problem is composed by the fact
> that we have not available a real corner of a real stone because -as
> said before- the corner stone do not exists and we have to "imagine"
> where it was.
We have facing stones on two sides, and we have the exposed
pavement, on which the Pyramid was built. We have the corner
sockets, and we have some corner marks. We have the ancient
reports telling us that the Pyramid encodes important info.
Now, it really looks that way. What more do you want to be
interested and noncomittal rather than scathingly critical??
Continued in part 3
__________________________________________________________
The mathematical significance of the 12 point periphery
of the prehistoric Cinderella engraving
***************************************
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/5586/atma.htm
continued in
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/5586/trihex.htm
continued in
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/5586/frapent1.htm
______________________________________________________________
Seal of Atlantis
******************
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/5586/seat1.htm
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/5586/seat1a.htm
Jiri Mruzek
SK
Jiri Mruzek wrote in message <3680D0C0...@lynx.bc.ca>...
when it was built, it was built to exactly align with the star
Alpha Draconis, the Dragon Star from the Constellation
Draco, which occupied the center spot of the area that
the Earth's axis points to. [Also known as (al) Thuban]
This star occupied the spot that Polaris, our current
North Star occupies, but Alpha Draconis is the star that
was the truest to align with our Earth's axis of any other of
the 5 North Stars that have occupied this spot.
http://einstein.stcloudstate.edu/Dome/clicks/thuban.html
>
This would account for measurements variations.
>
Suzanne
fluff
<jirim...@lynx.bc.ca> wrote:
>> Due to its bad state the Pyramid cannot
>> provide any data with higher accuracy, and anybody that quotes an
>> accuracy of second or arc or mm is just cheating himself.
>
>Perhaps not. A lot depends on the accuracy of the measurement.
>
>> Quoting Martin
>> Gardner "how easy it is to work over an undigested mass of data and
>> emerge with a pattern, which at first glance is so intricately put
>> together that it is difficult to believe it is nothing more than the
>> product of a man delusion.
>
>So, if it is difficult to believe - why believe it?
>Is it delusional to suspect rational thinking in our
>ancestors, where there are signs of it?
I love this last statement, very concise. Many assume our ancestors
to be ignorant: but the truth of the matter is, we are ignorant in our
understanding of our ancestors, and fail to appreciate their true
capabilities. Those who deviate from the traditional viewpoint, are
branded as mental cases.
Ash
Ash
Jiri Mruzek
fluff wrote:
>
> On Wed, 23 Dec 1998 03:15:12 -0800, Jiri Mruzek
> <jirim...@lynx.bc.ca> wrote:
>
> >> Due to its bad state the Pyramid cannot
> >> provide any data with higher accuracy, and anybody that quotes an
> >> accuracy of second or arc or mm is just cheating himself.
> >
> >Perhaps not. A lot depends on the accuracy of the measurement.
> >
> >> Quoting Martin
> >> Gardner "how easy it is to work over an undigested mass of data and
> >> emerge with a pattern, which at first glance is so intricately put
> >> together that it is difficult to believe it is nothing more than the
> >> product of a man delusion.
> >
> >So, if it is difficult to believe - why believe it?
> >Is it delusional to suspect rational thinking in our
> >ancestors, where there are signs of it?
>
> I love this last statement, very concise. Many assume our ancestors
> to be ignorant: but the truth of the matter is, we are ignorant in our
> understanding of our ancestors, and fail to appreciate their true
> capabilities. Those who deviate from the traditional viewpoint, are
> branded as mental cases.
>
True. It drives me insane:-))
Our brain capacity must have been around for the last
hundred thousand years. Specimens that old were found,
which are said to "outwardly" resemble the H.S.S.
If these specimens were outwardly like us, who's to say
that they were not of the same intelligence?
No one seems to contemplate the possibility that the original
H.S.S. was even more intelligent on the average than we are?
Certainly, the intelligence of the present humanity is not
showing any signs of improving. To the contrary, the present
Homo Sapiens Sapient seems to have degenerated to the point
of not being able to solve simple tasks routinely performed
by our ancestors all over this planet.
Jiri
Mathematical symbolism of the 12 point periphery
of an engraving from La Marche, France
***************************************
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/5586/atma.htm
continued in
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/5586/trihex.htm
continued in
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/5586/frapent1.htm
______________________________________________________________
Seal of Atlantis
******************
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/5586/seat1.htm
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/5586/seat1a.htm
> Ash
>
> Ash
David Grayshan
Jiri Mruzek wrote:
> (SNIP)
> True. It drives me insane:-))
> Our brain capacity must have been around for the last
> hundred thousand years. Specimens that old were found,
> which are said to "outwardly" resemble the H.S.S.
> If these specimens were outwardly like us, who's to say
> that they were not of the same intelligence?
> No one seems to contemplate the possibility that the original
> H.S.S. was even more intelligent on the average than we are?
> Certainly, the intelligence of the present humanity is not
> showing any signs of improving. To the contrary, the present
> Homo Sapiens Sapient seems to have degenerated to the point
> of not being able to solve simple tasks routinely performed
> by our ancestors all over this planet.
>
> Jiri
(SNIP)
Well, Jiri, while I am in no way an Orford follower, in "Gods of the New
Millennium" he does raise some points about the claimed evolutionary
development of H.S.S. that one would like to see answered someday.
I mean, if we've been around for some 100.000 years with these brain
capabilities, it does seem a little odd, does it not, that we apparently did
not use them until suddenly, some 5 - 6.000 years ago?
But then there seem to many anomolies between logical deductions one can make
from fields outside archaeology and theories advanced and events claimed by
archaeologists themselves to account for human history.
And no, I'm not prepared to say anything further on this matter until I have
had the chance to verify things that I've come across recently. Hence the
phrase "seem to be" above. I need several months as I am a rank amateur with
enough on my hands just organising a "normal" life (whatever that is!) and so
I cannot devote all my working hours to these questions as can some who post
to this NG. This gives them an advantage over such as myself which some use
quite patronisingly, so I will not post anything until I am sure of my facts.
And yes, one wonders does one not, at the apparent decline in mental capacity
of late among the Great Unwashed? :-))
TTFN.
David.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
<snip>
>True. It drives me insane
<snip>
Jiri, that sentence should be past tense.
"It is always the best policy to tell the truth, unless
of course, you are an exceptionally good liar."
(Jerome K. Jerome)
Jiri Mruzek
twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> Jiri Mruzek <jirim...@lynx.bc.ca> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >True. It drives me insane
> <snip>
>
> Jiri, that sentence should be past tense.
>
Very funny, Spasm.
I always knew that you are a joker.
Jiri Mruzek
David Grayshan wrote:
>
> Jiri Mruzek wrote:
>
> > (SNIP)
>
> > True. It drives me insane:-))
> > Our brain capacity must have been around for the last
> > hundred thousand years. Specimens that old were found,
> > which are said to "outwardly" resemble the H.S.S.
> > If these specimens were outwardly like us, who's to say
> > that they were not of the same intelligence?
> > No one seems to contemplate the possibility that the original
> > H.S.S. was even more intelligent on the average than we are?
> > Certainly, the intelligence of the present humanity is not
> > showing any signs of improving. To the contrary, the present
> > Homo Sapiens Sapient seems to have degenerated to the point
> > of not being able to solve simple tasks routinely performed
> > by our ancestors all over this planet.
> >
> > Jiri
>
> (SNIP)
>
> Well, Jiri, while I am in no way an Orford follower, in "Gods of the New
> Millennium" he does raise some points about the claimed evolutionary
> development of H.S.S. that one would like to see answered someday.
>
I must read the book. Sounds interesting.
> I mean, if we've been around for some 100.000 years with these brain
> capabilities, it does seem a little odd, does it not, that we apparently did
> not use them until suddenly, some 5 - 6.000 years ago?
It seems impossible. What were all those individuals with
great intellects thinking? Were they all on drugs for
the past 90,000 years?
snip
>
> And yes, one wonders does one not, at the apparent decline in mental capacity
> of late among the Great Unwashed? :-))
:-)) There is no Viagra for that decline.
Jiri
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/5586/index.html
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/5586/namon.htm
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/5586/atma.htm
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/5586/seat1.htm
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/5586/seat1a.htm
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/5586/pyrostar.htm
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/5586/frapent1.htm
> TTFN.
>
> David.
Dwight E. Howell
Jiri Mruzek wrote in message <368773E2...@lynx.bc.ca>...
tradtions ended up dead.
They were also building up the body of knowledge at least a little faster
than it was being lost which can be a very hard thing to do in small groups
without written records and large numbers of people to remember things. If
only one person in the group knows something and they die you are back to
square one unless somebody outside the group cares to share the information
with the group. Until writing was invented everything a group knew was in
the minds of its living members. Think about how much we would know about
colonel America if all we knew was what was in the heads of living people
with no way to check against original sources.
Jiri Mruzek
Why? Was there a Stone Age Taliban enforcing strict adherence
to loinskins? How subjective of you..
> They were also building up the body of knowledge at least a little faster
> than it was being lost which can be a very hard thing to do in small groups
> without written records and large numbers of people to remember things.
Practical knowledge is - well practically rewarding..
It pays to keep it. One may survive longer.
> If
> only one person in the group knows something and they die you are back to
> square one unless somebody outside the group cares to share the information
> with the group.
If.. And, if not? The knowledge survives.
> Until writing was invented everything a group knew was in
> the minds of its living members.
Products can serve as reminders of the production method, too.
For instance, scentific mathematics are recorded in the figure
of the nine fingered monkey from Nasca, Peru. The Magdalenians
may have spoken a simple but well structured language, which
could serve as a good tool for thought.
> Think about how much we would know about
> colonel America if all we knew was what was in the heads of living people
> with no way to check against original sources.
:-))
Who is colonel America? Is it colonial America, or
did you mix up Captain America with Colonel Sanders?:-))
BTW, if a language contains relatively few words, it is
easier to devise a graphic symbol for each word. Magdalenians
left a legacy of advanced art. Why couldn't they have writing?
Remember, how Altamira was declared a fake? Experts had agreed
that the Altamira cave paintings were academically equal to the
best French painters of the day.
There was no way that Magadalenians could have been so advanced
in one area, while being in the primitive stages in other areas.
This reminds us that Egyptologists today renounce the possibility
that the Sphinx could be around 10,000 years old, on the very
same basis:
There was no way anyone had the tech 10,000 years ago to
transport 200 ton blocks from the Sphinx's ditch to sites,
where these blocks repose today.
But, we know that there was the academically advanced art of
the Magdalenians, and that is something not taken into account.
Orthodoxy is oblivious to a plethora of evidence that there was
an advanced civilization long predating even the predynastic
Egyptians. it never considers this evidence en masse.
> >> And yes, one wonders does one not, at the apparent decline in mental
> capacity
> >> of late among the Great Unwashed? :-))
> >
> >:-)) There is no Viagra for that decline.
> >
Happy 1999!
Dain of the Iron Hills
and not meaning to step on any toes here, I felt I had to respond to this
thread. Thirdly, this is done in a kind of piecemeal fashion (some quotes
from one response, some from another).
<snip>
>I mean, if we've been around for some 100.000 years with these brain
>capabilities, it does seem a little odd, does it not, that we apparently did
>not use them until suddenly, some 5 - 6.000 years ago?
I am assuming you are speaking of the construction of ancient sites in
Africa, Asia and the Middle East (if I'm wrong, I do apologize). If
humans have been around for 100,000 years with these brain capabilities,
as you say, why did we not start building according to modern building
codes and styles? Where are the 100,000 year old 130 floor skyscapers?
It takes time to develop a knowledge base, and even more time when
starting from scratch. Some one had to first come up with the individual
concepts which then grew into a knowledge base. A parallel arguement
could be made by asking if you knew everything you know now when you were
5 years old. Of course you didn't, but as you grew, you learned, some
from teachers (those who came before you) and some you figured out on your
own (unique expansion of your personal knowledge base). Now, if you
didn't have ANY teachers (people, books, etc) and had to discover
everything on your own, would you have the same amount of knowledge you
have right now? No, you wouldn't. The same basic principles could be
translated to the earliest humans.
>> They were also building up the body of knowledge at least a little faster
>> than it was being lost which can be a very hard thing to do in small groups
>> without written records and large numbers of people to remember things.
>
>Practical knowledge is - well practically rewarding..
>It pays to keep it. One may survive longer.
This may be true, but it is also true that accidents happen, and without a
way to record knowledge aside from oral tradition, knowledge has a better
chance of becoming lost.
>Products can serve as reminders of the production method, too.
>For instance, scentific mathematics are recorded in the figure
>of the nine fingered monkey from Nasca, Peru. The Magdalenians
>may have spoken a simple but well structured language, which
>could serve as a good tool for thought.
Not necessarily true. Especially when dealing with an oral tradition.
Case in point, in the Americas, before the western invasion, there were
artisans who could create works of great beauty out of obsidian, I believe
the style of production is refered to as "pressure-flaking" (but could be
wrong on the terminology). To this day, there is no one who is capabale
of creating anything nearly as finely detailed as some of the examples
found in Central American digs. While the general concept is still
present, the skill has been lost.
>And yes, one wonders does one not, at the apparent decline in mental capacity
>of late among the Great Unwashed? :-))
And who, exactly, are the Great Unwashed?
--
Yeah, I'm a 6'3" dwarf. What of it?!?
--------------------DO NOT SEND ANY JUNK E-MAIL----------------------
If you send me any junk e-mail, you are breaking the following laws: US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B); Sec.227(b)(1)(C). And I can pursue action under: Sec.227(b)(3)(C) - look 'em up.
David Grayshan
Howdy do too.
Dain of the Iron Hills wrote:
> First, I would like to say I am new to this group, so howdy! Secondly,
> and not meaning to step on any toes here, I felt I had to respond to this
> thread. Thirdly, this is done in a kind of piecemeal fashion (some quotes
> from one response, some from another).
>
> (SNIP)
>
> I am assuming you are speaking of the construction of ancient sites in
> Africa, Asia and the Middle East (if I'm wrong, I do apologize). If
> humans have been around for 100,000 years with these brain capabilities,
> as you say, why did we not start building according to modern building
> codes and styles? Where are the 100,000 year old 130 floor skyscapers?
Who says they didn't? But conventional accounts of archaeology and ancient history insist that all civilisation as we know it began in the fertile crescent just before the rise of the
Egyptian civilisation. We are trying to say that this might easily be wrong. It does not seem logical that there was a sudden lurch into the kind of intelligence needed to think in an
abstract manner and to develop at least some kind of technology. But it need not be a building technology of course (though some of us are still by no means convinced of the conventional
dating ascribed to certain ancient monuments, thinking they could date from much earlier).
Why could there not have been an advanced civilisation say, 50.000 years ago? If human intelligence with its present capabilities is indeed 100.000 years old, then this is at least
hypothetically possible, surely? I know the arguments: where then are the traces of such? Well, maybe they are visible and we are misinterpreting them or maybe we don't wee them yet. And of
course maybe there was no such civilisation. At least I try to keep an open mind on the subject, as, I deduce from your posting, do you.
> It takes time to develop a knowledge base, and even more time when
> starting from scratch. Some one had to first come up with the individual
> concepts which then grew into a knowledge base. (SNIP)
Yup. And they may well not have invented writing. So they had an oral tradition, they passed on knowledge via Bards and Shamans, in the form of Myths. This subject was intensively analysed
by Santillana and von Dachen in the book "Hamlet's Mill".
> (SNIP)
> >Products can serve as reminders of the production method, too.
> >For instance, scentific mathematics are recorded in the figure
> >of the nine fingered monkey from Nasca, Peru. The Magdalenians
> >may have spoken a simple but well structured language, which
> >could serve as a good tool for thought.
Well, you seem to be taking quotes from different postings. I did not write the above, in fact none except the first paragraph. Still, there seem to be plenty of indications that peoples
long before the Fertile Crescent civilisations had plenty of advanced knowledge. The "100.000 year" point was only meant to support the question, "Why not?"
> Not necessarily true. Especially when dealing with an oral tradition.
> Case in point, in the Americas, before the western invasion, there were
> artisans who could create works of great beauty out of obsidian, I believe
> the style of production is refered to as "pressure-flaking" (but could be
> wrong on the terminology). To this day, there is no one who is capabale
> of creating anything nearly as finely detailed as some of the examples
> found in Central American digs. While the general concept is still
> present, the skill has been lost.
>
> >And yes, one wonders does one not, at the apparent decline in mental capacity
> >of late among the Great Unwashed? :-))
>
> And who, exactly, are the Great Unwashed?
It's an old expression to designate the hoi-polloi, which is an even older expression.
> Yeah, I'm a 6'3" dwarf. What of it?!?
Did you write this? What does it mean? :-))
>
>
> --------------------DO NOT SEND ANY JUNK E-MAIL----------------------
> If you send me any junk e-mail, you are breaking the following laws: US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B); Sec.227(b)(1)(C). And I can pursue action under: Sec.227(b)(3)(C) - look 'em up.
I wouldn't dare.
David.
David Grayshan
David Grayshan wrote:
> (SNIP)
> Well, maybe they are visible and we are misinterpreting them or maybe we don't wee them yet.
No doubt I have accidentally found the reason for the erosion on the sides of the Sphynx here!
It should of course have been "see", but now I prefer my original.
> (SNIP)
Tony Hague
David Grayshan <dgra...@tschan-partner.com> wrote:
>Why could there not have been an advanced civilisation say, 50.000
>years ago? If human intelligence with its present capabilities is
>indeed 100.000 years old, then this is at least hypothetically
>possible, surely?
This seems a rather silly argument; consider the development of
the electronic computer; we didn't have them until what, 50 years
ago - we certainly haven't got more intelligent in the last 50 years
to propel the development, it is just the normal pattern of innovation.
Tony.
David Grayshan
Different human civilisations might manifest themselves in different ways.
I'm talking about the ability to conceptualise, to develop a technology of
some sort, be it medical or mechanical or whatever. And to be purposeful
about it. The development of the PC was hardly systematic after all, was
it? More like a series of accidents (see "Accidental Empires" for example).
While we have developed our technologies we have seriously neglected our
"spiritual" (I prefer the word "ethical") development very badly as well as
our sense of responsibility to the environment in which we live. This may
cost us the continuation of our civiliastion. We may disappear in a
climactic disaster, for example. What then will be left of us after just,
say, 3000 years?
Bloody little, I should think. Not even a Pyramid (our buildings, except
for some cathedrals and suchlike and the earthquake-proof houses in
California and Japan are all relatively flimsy). What would any
hypothetical successor civilisation to ours find of us? What would they
deduce about us, if anything? Would they know of the conceptual heights to
which, say, Einstein, Planck or Dawkins have taken us? Doubt it. Any
hypothetical successor civilisation to ours might indeed conclude that
THEY were the peak of civilisation, the highest mental development of the
human race, just as we now think of ourselves.
Dunno if this is clear enough but I'm trying to answer your point.
By the way I don't think my point was "silly". To use abusive terms like
that is to invite them back, you know.
Steve Marcus
On what do you base the supposition that "bloody little" of our
civilization will survive a climatic disaster? What, indeed, is your
definition of a "climatic disaster"? My understanding is that such an
event wounld not be instantaneous in the manner of, for example, an
asteroid impact. I would expect that barring such an instantaneous
catastrophy, physical evidence detailing much of our infrastucture, and
vast amounts of our written, audio and video records will be around
3,000 years from now, just as such evidence of, for example, Egyptian
civilization survives today. Given an instantaneous catastrophy, reduce
"much" and "vast amounts" to "some small amount".
I've been following your position in several of the news groups. The
bottom line is that it is essentially impossible to discuss your
position, which amounts to arguing that "there **could** have been
earlier technically advanced civilizations. Well sir, anything is
**possible**, but the issue is whether the possibility is at all the
least little bit likely. We have zero evidence of the existence of any
earlier technically advanced civilizations. We also have zero evidence
of any catastrophic events in the relevant time frames you've variously
discussed (say 50,000 years) that could have instanteously wiped out
such a civilization. And anticipating your reaction, yes, scientists
(for example geologists) regularly do look for such things. They
haven't found any.
I also notice that almost any criticism of your point of view ends up as
being considered by you to be "abusive". Perhaps you should consider
that it is the impossibility of rationally discussing your position with
you that may provoke people responding to it to be a little bit, let's
say, miffed. You've taken a "heads I win, tails you lose" position, and
it's not scientific to any extent, it's just rabble-rousing. Those who
wish to believe on faith that there were "mysterious unknown ancient
civilizations" will flock to support your argument. Those who believe
that questions of science and history, including the existence of
"ancient technologically advanced civilizations", are suceptible to
analysis by considering known evidence, by continuing to seek new
evidence, and then using the scientific method to understand such
evidence will be upset by your arguments. Why? Because they seduce
those who believe on faith away from the awesome power and beauty of the
scientific method, which after all is said and done, is the highest
achievement of our species.
Besides which, the aliens seeded our planet with the basis of all
intelligence and civilization millions of years ago, and then took all
of the evidence with them. It's certainly possible.
Best,
Steve
--
The above posting is neither a legal opinion, nor legal advice, and
should not be construed as either. It does not represent the opinion of
my employer, but is merely my personal view.
M.C.Harrison
>
> climactic disaster, for example. What then will be left of us after just,
> say, 3000 years?
> Bloody little, I should think. Not even a Pyramid (our buildings, except
> for some cathedrals and suchlike and the earthquake-proof houses in
> California and Japan are all relatively flimsy). What would any
Actually, it would be as much to say what would be missing, i.e. in as
many thousand years as you like, a future civilisation will be able to
say that someone must have used up the fossil fuels laid down during the
carboniferous period, since they take millions of years to form and
there will not have been time to produce new ones.
Similarily, they would be able to speculate on the billions of cans,
bottles and other trash in landfill sites, which are probably more
durable than the great pyramid. In fact, pollution in general is a clear
indication of fossil fuel usage and high technology. The rain forest can
probably grow back in a geological instant, though.
And, how would the nuclear testing in the fifties and sixties be
interpretated? Plenty of evidence for that around now, a serious boost
to carbon-14 in all living things that has no precedent in things that
died prior to the tests.
> hypothetical successor civilisation to ours find of us? What would they
> deduce about us, if anything? Would they know of the conceptual heights to
> which, say, Einstein, Planck or Dawkins have taken us? Doubt it. Any
> hypothetical successor civilisation to ours might indeed conclude that
> THEY were the peak of civilisation, the highest mental development of the
> human race, just as we now think of ourselves.
I'd say we have reached the highest *technological* mental development,
but that is not the same thing as the highest mental development. I
don't know what mental development can be measured in, except the
technological achievements of the species. For all I know, dolphins have
reached undreamt of heights of cerebral understanding, but they have no
desire or ability to tell us primitive button-punchers what we're
missing out on.
> By the way I don't think my point was "silly". To use abusive terms like
> that is to invite them back, you know.
Welcome to Usenet ;-)
Dain of the Iron Hills
<snip>
>Why could there not have been an advanced civilisation say, 50.000 years
ago? If human intelligence with its present capabilities is indeed 100.000
years old, then this is at least
>hypothetically possible, surely? I know the arguments: where then are the
traces of such? Well, maybe they are visible and we are misinterpreting
them or maybe we don't wee them yet. And of
>course maybe there was no such civilisation. At least I try to keep an
open mind on the subject, as, I deduce from your posting, do you.
I try to keep an open mind on most issues and take anything I read or hear
with a grain of salt (I personally don't believe there is an Absolute
Truth to any topic, at least not one anyone could understand).
As far as an earlier civilization, I have my doubts, but anything is
possible. I am a strong believer in evolution, even though the common
ancestor of humans and other great apes has yet to be (and may very well
never be) found (or perhaps it has and we haven't realized it), so I can
understand your standpoint on the dating issue of the structures you've
mentioned. However, I would have to belive that there would be some
indication of an older civilization in the form of actual physical
artifacts, unless of course the civilization had been *completely* wiped
out (major natural disaster or disease and all artifacts made of nonviable
materials). It is possible, not likely IMHO, but possible.
>> It takes time to develop a knowledge base, and even more time when
>> starting from scratch. Some one had to first come up with the individual
>> concepts which then grew into a knowledge base. (SNIP)
>
>Yup. And they may well not have invented writing. So they had an oral
tradition, they passed on knowledge via Bards and Shamans, in the form of
Myths. This subject was intensively analysed
>by Santillana and von Dachen in the book "Hamlet's Mill".
Any idea where I can get a copy? The topic of oral history has always
interested me.
>Well, you seem to be taking quotes from different postings.
Yeah, I did the post in a piecemeal fashion after readin through the
thread. Instead of making multiple posts, I decided to just address all
the issues I intended to in one post.
>> Yeah, I'm a 6'3" dwarf. What of it?!?
>
>Did you write this? What does it mean? :-))
Dain of the Iron Hills comes from the works of JRR Tolkien. He appears at
the Battle of Five Armies (end of _The Hobbit_), leading the dwarvish
army. He was also Thorin Oakenshield's cousin, and became King Under the
Mountain following Thorin's death at the aforementioned battle. My first
name is actually Dain (though my folks never admitted they took it from
Tolkien's work, I have my suspicions) and I'm 6'3". That line is my
common sig along with the Junk e-mail warning (aimed solely at purveyors
of spammed ads, which I received a ton of when I first started visiting
NGs, and nobody else <g>).
--
Yeah, I'm a 6'3" dwarf. What of it?!?
--------------------DO NOT SEND ANY JUNK E-MAIL----------------------
Louann Miller
> >Why could there not have been an advanced civilisation say, 50.000 years
> ago? If human intelligence with its present capabilities is indeed 100.000
> years old, then this is at least
> >hypothetically possible, surely?
> However, I would have to belive that there would be some
> indication of an older civilization in the form of actual physical
> artifacts, unless of course the civilization had been *completely* wiped
> out (major natural disaster or disease and all artifacts made of nonviable
> materials). It is possible, not likely IMHO, but possible.
I've read all the Graham Hancock stuff on this subject (heck, I've heard
him speak in person) and although entranced I remain unconvinced.
There's certainly time since H. sapiens evolved for this sort of thing
to have happened, but it doesn't appear that it did.
Everyone agrees that a civilization even remotely as techie as ours
would have influence world-wide -- people wander, and ideas spread.
Certainly Hancock, like Von Danikken before him, sees evidence of the
First Ones scattered all over the globe. That's what ruins it for me.
It's not the artifacts I don't see that worry me -- it's the
domesticated plants and animals. If a globe-spanning culture predated
ours, then why didn't they leave horses and sheep and cattle in the
Americas? Why didn't they take maize and potatoes and tomatoes to the
Old World, and bring back wheat and barley in exchange? On the dark
side, why didn't they take smallpox and syphillis to the various
continents where our own history didn't first find them? These are the
kinds of human traces that would linger, and they didn't.
--
Updated 9/28/98! Media fan fiction at http://www.cyberramp.net/~millers
David Grayshan
Your interesting posting deserves a considered reply for which I do not have time
for a couple of days (work again). In due course I shall return the courtesy.....
Regards,
David.
Morgan Rodwell
Louann Miller wrote:
>
> I've read all the Graham Hancock stuff on this subject (heck, I've heard
> him speak in person) and although entranced I remain unconvinced.
> There's certainly time since H. sapiens evolved for this sort of thing
> to have happened, but it doesn't appear that it did.
>
> Everyone agrees that a civilization even remotely as techie as ours
> would have influence world-wide -- people wander, and ideas spread.
> Certainly Hancock, like Von Danikken before him, sees evidence of the
> First Ones scattered all over the globe. That's what ruins it for me.
> It's not the artifacts I don't see that worry me -- it's the
> domesticated plants and animals. If a globe-spanning culture predated
> ours, then why didn't they leave horses and sheep and cattle in the
> Americas? Why didn't they take maize and potatoes and tomatoes to the
> Old World, and bring back wheat and barley in exchange? On the dark
> side, why didn't they take smallpox and syphillis to the various
> continents where our own history didn't first find them? These are the
> kinds of human traces that would linger, and they didn't.
>
While I think Hancock is slightly more believable than Von Daniken (who
was totally grasping at straws), I must defend him here against your
poor and uninformed logic.
Perhaps the reason you don't see domesticate plants and animals shared
around the world is the following:
If Hancock is right, and a civilization predated those archaeology has
found, he places the end of this civilization some 12000 years ago. A
lot changes in twelve thousand years. And in his books he indicates
that the "Atlantean" civilization was fleeing the Antarctic. Perhaps
they didn't have time to move livestock and plants around the world.
Perhaps they didn't even know of the potato, and why would you need
cattle in America when you had bison?
As for diseases, the last migration of the Inuit from Asia to North
America was only 5000 years ago. They brought disease to the New World
that was previously unknown. Also, there is evidence that some diseases
which were brought from Asia to the Americas could not survive due to a
low population density and a lack of host species.
As to plants, one mystery surrounds the origins of corn. It is the only
domesticated plant for which we can find no evidence of a natural
progenitor.
Morgan Rodwell
Doug Weller
-0700, rod...@cadvision.com said...
>
> If Hancock is right, and a civilization predated those archaeology has
> found, he places the end of this civilization some 12000 years ago. A
> lot changes in twelve thousand years. And in his books he indicates
> that the "Atlantean" civilization was fleeing the Antarctic
>
How does he deal with the fact the Antarctic was covered with ice?
Doug
--
Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
Submissions to: sci-archaeol...@medieval.org
Doug's Archaeology Page: http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
Jiri Mruzek
David Grayshan wrote:
> Dain of the Iron Hills wrote:
> > (SNIP)
> Why could there not have been an advanced civilisation say, 50.000 years ago? If human intelligence with its present capabilities is indeed 100.000 years old, then this is at least
> hypothetically possible, surely? I know the arguments: where then are the traces of such? Well, maybe they are visible and we are misinterpreting them or maybe we don't wee them yet.
Case in point, my observations of scientific encodings in
prehistoric images.
> And of course
> maybe there was no such civilisation. At least I try to keep an open mind on the subject, as, I deduce from your posting, do you.
>
Without "such" civilization, we would never find an explanation
for the many mysteries found worldwide, aside from aliens.
Consider Tiahuanaco. It is reliably dated to having been built
up to 17,000 years ago, judging by the astronomical alignments
of its architecture. These findings of professor Arthur Posnansky
were subsequently confirmed by respected astronomers.
So, either all the alignments are accidental (fat chance), or
the builders from 500 AD were focusing on a point in time that
far back. This would be just as remarkable, for the Indians
would have had to have the mathematical and astronomical savvy
to roll the clockworks of the heavens back that far.
And what was there 17,000 years ago, anyway?
The gigantic (up to 450 tons) pier blocks of Puma Punku, Tiahuanaco
are as perfectly shaped and smooth, as if they were modern works
from fine concrete poured into forms.
> > It takes time to develop a knowledge base, and even more time when
> > starting from scratch. Some one had to first come up with the individual
> > concepts which then grew into a knowledge base. (SNIP)
Well, we do have the time (100,000 years), don't we?
Of course, early on in the homo sapiens sapient's history,
development of the concept of knowledge, and of systematic
research to deepen that knowledge could come quite easily
to investigative people unburdened by a long established
system of religious taboos, etc. And, of course, a quest for
knowledge could also be made into a religion.
> Yup. And they may well not have invented writing. So they had an oral tradition, they passed on knowledge via Bards and Shamans, in the form of Myths. This subject was intensively analysed
> by Santillana and von Dachen in the book "Hamlet's Mill".
Once you have a complex language, you are dealing with
(oral) symbols. Writing is merely a natter of creating
graphical symbols for the verbal ones.
I think, the point is that once you start creating written
symbols, no one is stopping you from creating ever more,
and perfecting them. The advanced Stone-Age art is a proof
of a lot of attention having been given to graphic expression
and notation.
> > (SNIP)
>
> > >Products can serve as reminders of the production method, too.
> > >For instance, scentific mathematics are recorded in the figure
> > >of the nine fingered monkey from Nasca, Peru. The Magdalenians
> > >may have spoken a simple but well structured language, which
> > >could serve as a good tool for thought.
>
> Well, you seem to be taking quotes from different postings. I did not write the above, in fact none except the first paragraph. Still, there seem to be plenty of indications that peoples
> long before the Fertile Crescent civilisations had plenty of advanced knowledge. The "100.000 year" point was only meant to support the question, "Why not?"
I wrote the paragraph above about the nine fingered monkey.
I am utterly serious about my claim. Unfortunately, no one
on the internet seems to have the mind to tackle my findings
in depth, and either disprove or confirm my observations.
The local scholars have embraced a policy of ignoring me.
It is the only thing left for them to do while saving a
semblance of dignity.
BTW, the so called precession numbers, which are the subject
of Hamlet's Mill, come up very clearly in one chapter of
my report.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/5586/atma.htm
However, their context is not precession, but rather the
Golden Section.
Here is a brief excerpt from the "atma.htm".
I should also tell you that the "Frame" is a collection
of 12 distinct points marking the periphery of a 14,000
years old engtraving from France..
************************************
Unique Frame values
16 27 80 81 110 113 139 146 147 173
In the above list of unique Frame values 139 146 147 also
produce the value of 432 , as the result of a direct arithmetical
operation - adding.
Incredibly, the neighbouring values to 139, and 147 replace them
in the same equation! Therefore, half of the ten unique Frame
values of the Frame in a row (113, 139,146,147,173 ), complies
with this "432" (precessional numbers) formula.
16 27 113 139 146 147 173
139 + 146 + 147 = 432
113 + 146 + 173 = 432
BTW, the other half ( 16 27 80 81 110 ) adds up to the control
value of 314 i.e., PI.
And what about 16 & 27?
16 x 27 = 432
Jiri
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/5586/index.html
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/5586/namon.htm
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/5586/trihex.htm
Alex Green
>How does he deal with the fact the Antarctic was covered with ice?
So was Greenland ...
Sincerely,
Alex Green
Ars artis est celare artem
Steve Marcus
>
> x-no-archive: yes
> >> cost us the continuation of our civiliastion. We may disappear in a
> >> climactic disaster, for example. What then will be left of us after just,
> >> say, 3000 years?
> >> Bloody little, I should think. Not even a Pyramid (our buildings, except
>
> >civilization will survive a climatic disaster?
>
> disaster, and little of our civilization will survive 3000 years. I
> tend to agree. It might take a little longer (10,000 years) for all
> the metals to disappear, leaving only rock (which will eventually
> crumble away as well).
>
> There seems to be some history between you and him that I am not
> interested in, and I am not taking "sides" here, just agreeing with a
> specific point.
>
> ToddH
> Copyright(c) 1998
Hello ToddH:
Actually, Mr. Grayshan and I have no "history"; my post was the first
post in which I have ever responded to him.
And what he did say was:
"We may disappear in a climactic disaster, for example. What then will
be left of us after just, say, 3000 years? Bloody little, I should
think. Not even a Pyramid (our buildings, except for some cathedrals and
suchlike and the earthquake-proof houses in
California and Japan are all relatively flimsy)."
Given that the topic under discussion was the existence of technically
advanced civilizations thousands of years ago, I construed his reference
to buildings, etc. to mean that little evidence of our civilization
would survive 3,000 years after a climatic catastrophy, and requested
support for this statement. If you don't think that this was a fair
reading of Mr. Grayshan's point, I'm very sorry. It remains to be seen
whether Mr. Grayshan also feels that I misinterpreted his point.
Morgan Rodwell
>
> In article <3696E847...@cadvision.com>, on Fri, 08 Jan 1999 22:25:27
> -0700, rod...@cadvision.com said...
> >
> > If Hancock is right, and a civilization predated those archaeology has
> > found, he places the end of this civilization some 12000 years ago. A
> > lot changes in twelve thousand years. And in his books he indicates
> > that the "Atlantean" civilization was fleeing the Antarctic
> >
>
>
He argues that it wasn't, against the geological and meteorological
evidence.
Morgan Rodwell
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
<rod...@cadvision.com> wrote:
> As to plants, one mystery surrounds the origins of corn. It is the only
> domesticated plant for which we can find no evidence of a natural
> progenitor.
>
> Morgan Rodwell
Where do you people get these things? It is pretty well agreed by modern
botanists that maize (Zea mays) derives from the wild ancestor teosinte
(Zea mexicana). See C. Heizer. 1990. *Sed to Civilization* Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
--
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
Doug Weller
0000, alex...@enterprise.net said...
> Doug Weller wrote in message ...
>
>
>
>
>
12 000 years ago, maybe. Not when Scandinavians were building churches and
houses there, if that's what you are referring to.
David Grayshan
I have saved both your previous posting and this brief response and again assure
that I will try to do justice to your questions. I can confirm that your first
posting addressed to me was the first I had ever heard from you.
Incidentally I am puzzled by your sentence: "I've been following your position in
several of the news groups". I hardly consider my postings to be worthy of my own
post-posting attention, let alone worthy of the attention of others. Why on earth
would you consider my jottings worthy of "following"? You amaze me. Care to
enlighten?
Steve Marcus wrote:
> toddh wrote:
> >
> > x-no-archive: yes
> > >> cost us the continuation of our civiliastion. We may disappear in a
> > >> climactic disaster, for example. What then will be left of us after just,
> > >> say, 3000 years?
> > >> Bloody little, I should think. Not even a Pyramid (our buildings, except
> >
> > >On what do you base the supposition that "bloody little" of our
> > >civilization will survive a climatic disaster?
> >
> > He didn't say that. He said "we" might not survive a climatic
> > disaster, and little of our civilization will survive 3000 years. I
> > tend to agree. It might take a little longer (10,000 years) for all
> > the metals to disappear, leaving only rock (which will eventually
> > crumble away as well).
> >
> > There seems to be some history between you and him that I am not
> > interested in, and I am not taking "sides" here, just agreeing with a
> > specific point.
> >
> > ToddH
> > Copyright(c) 1998
>
> Hello ToddH:
>
> Actually, Mr. Grayshan and I have no "history"; my post was the first
> post in which I have ever responded to him.
>
> And what he did say was:
>
> "We may disappear in a climactic disaster, for example. What then will
> be left of us after just, say, 3000 years? Bloody little, I should
> think. Not even a Pyramid (our buildings, except for some cathedrals and
> suchlike and the earthquake-proof houses in
> California and Japan are all relatively flimsy)."
>
> Given that the topic under discussion was the existence of technically
> advanced civilizations thousands of years ago, I construed his reference
> to buildings, etc. to mean that little evidence of our civilization
> would survive 3,000 years after a climatic catastrophy, and requested
> support for this statement. If you don't think that this was a fair
> reading of Mr. Grayshan's point, I'm very sorry. It remains to be seen
> whether Mr. Grayshan also feels that I misinterpreted his point.
>
Steve Marcus
>
> Hello Steve,
>
> I have saved both your previous posting and this brief response and again assure
> that I will try to do justice to your questions. I can confirm that your first
> posting addressed to me was the first I had ever heard from you.
>
> Incidentally I am puzzled by your sentence: "I've been following your position in
> several of the news groups". I hardly consider my postings to be worthy of my own
> post-posting attention, let alone worthy of the attention of others. Why on earth
> would you consider my jottings worthy of "following"? You amaze me. Care to
> enlighten?
Hello David,
I just happened to see a couple of your posts in which you took people
to task for being "abusive". I lurk on a couple of archaeology groups
and an "ancient history" group, among others; looking at the headers in
this thread I'll have to amend my statement a bit. I don't follow
sci.skeptic, so the posts that I saw were likely all on sci.archaeology.
I considered the posts that I read as being "worth following" not so
much for the positions stated in the posts, but for the fact that
someone can take such positions in a (supposedly) science related
newsgroup and then get offended when people get upset by them. I am
constantly amazed that as the 20th century draws to a close, folks can
still take the Barry Fells, the Von Danikens and the Hancocks seriously.
In your case, you are simply asserting a position with absolutely no
evidence, licensed by the old "well it _could_ be possible" argument (a
variation of the mis-cited and mis-understood "absence of evidence is
not evidence of absence" theme). Don't get me wrong, you have every
right to take whatever view you wish, and to publicly espouse it. My
sole intention in posting was to point out to you that IMHO folks
weren't really "flaming" you or being abusive, but were writing out of
(what I believe to be) some frustration.
By the way, while I will certainly read the response that you are
composing to my initial post, please understand that it may not mean
that much to me or provoke me into a prolonged dialogue. There would be
little point to it, because if you are getting the better of the
argument, I'll simply assert that you are wrong, because the aliens
seeded our planet with the basis of all intelligence and civilization
millions of years ago, and then took all of the primary evidence with
them. Sure, we haven't found any evidence of this **yet**. But anything
is possible, and absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. ;)
Best,
Steve
<snip>
Dain of the Iron Hills
>As to plants, one mystery surrounds the origins of corn. It is the only
>domesticated plant for which we can find no evidence of a natural
>progenitor.
>
>Morgan Rodwell
I have to disagree with you BIG TIME on this one. One of my ethnobotony
professors at UNC-CH was Dr. Yarnell (now retired) who spent much of his
career researching the domestication of corn. Modern corn (Zea mays) can
be traced back to the precursor species teocinte (sp?) (Zea mexicana).
Domestication of this species is believed to have started in central
Mexico (I have forgotten the regional name, sorry, but I'll see if I can
dig it up, along with any other related info).
Alex Green
>In article <8uHl2.5$sM....@news.enterprise.net>, on Sat, 9 Jan 1999
10:41:47 -
>0000, alex...@enterprise.net said...
>> Doug Weller wrote in message ...
>> >How does he deal with the fact the Antarctic was covered with ice?
>>
>> So was Greenland ...
>
>12 000 years ago, maybe. Not when Scandinavians were building churches and
>houses there, if that's what you are referring to.
As you suggest, the Greenland ice cover has varied over the last 12,000
years. So has the ice cover in the Antarctic Peninsula (for references
please see my discussion with Paul Heinrich). Conditions there were
marginally suitable for human habitation during the Holocene Optimum period
11,000-9,000 BP (9,000-7,000 BCE). I doubt if this was a long or secure
enough period to produce an advanced civilization, but colonization by
hunter-gatherers from Tierra del Fuego is a possibility.
Heinrich
"Alex Green" <alex...@enterprise.net> wrote:
[Doug Weller wrote in message...
[>In article <8uHl2.5$sM....@news.enterprise.net>,
[> On Sat, 9 Jan 1999 10:41:47 -0000, alex...@enterprise.net said...
[>>Doug Weller wrote in message...
[>>
[>> So was Greenland...
[>12 000 years ago, maybe. Not when Scandinavians were
[>referring to.
[
[As you suggest, the Greenland ice cover has varied over
[the last 12,000 years. So has the ice cover in the Antarctic
[Peninsula (for references please see my discussion with Paul
[Heinrich). Conditions there were marginally suitable for
[human habitation during the Holocene Optimum period
[11,000-9,000 BP (9,000-7,000 BCE).
This is not what either Mr. Graham Hancock or Mr. Rand
Flem-Ath is arguing. On page 471 of "The Fingerprints of
the Gods," (FOG) Mr. Hancock states:
"In the southern hemisphere, Hapgood's model shows the
landmass that we now call Antarctica, much of which was
previously at temperate even warm latitudes, being
shifted in its entirety inside the Antarctic Circle .
The overall movement is seen as having been in the region
of 30 degrees (approximately 2000 miles) and having been
concentrated, in the main, between the years 14,500 BC
and 12,500 BC but with massive aftershocks on a
planetary scale continuing at widely-separated intervals
down to about 9500 BC."
Elsewhere, FOG suggests that the shift occurred between
15,000 to 8,000 BC with a preference for 12,400 12,500 BC
as being when the most displacement occurred. Thus, FOG
claims that Antarctica was mostly or completely ice-free
and temperate, even "warm," *prior to* 15,000 BC (17,000 BP)
and completely buried by ice *after* 12,400 BC. (14,400 BP).
Thus, FOG's claims are completely inconsistent with the
Holocene Optimum period, 7,0009,000 BC (9,000-11,000 BP),
in both timing and magnitude of climatic change that it
proposes.
Similarly, Mr. Rand Flem-Ath claims in "When the Sky
Fell" that "Lesser Antarctica" was completely ice-free
prior to 11,600 BP (9,600 BC). After 11,600 BP is when
this book claims that antarctica became completely
ice-covered and Siberia started having subpolar climates.
Again "When the Sky Fell" claims a far greater
magnitude of climatic change than occurred at the
Holocene Optimum period. The timing that it proposes
is also inconsistent with the Holocene Optimum period.
The Holocene Optimum period is irrelevant to the claims
being made by either the "Fingerprints of the Gods" or
"When the Sky Fell." The period of temperate and warmer
climates that both books argue for in Antarctica occurred
before the Holocene Optimum period. In fact, it occurs
after both books claim that Antarctica became completely
ice-covered. Also, both books argue that climate in
Antarctica was very much warmer than it was during the
Holocene Optimum period.
[doubt if this was a long or secure enough period to
[produce an advanced civilization, but colonization by
[hunter-gatherers from Tierra del Fuego is a possibility.
It certainly would have been impossible for any sort
of agricultural or pastoral society to have developed.
Sincerely,
Paul V. Heinrich All comments are the
hein...@intersurf.com personal opinion of the writer and
Baton Rouge, LA do not constitute policy and/or
opinion of government or corporate
entities. This includes my employer.
"To persons uninstructed in natural history, their country
or seaside stroll is a walk through a gallery filled with
wonderful works of art, nine-tenths of which have their faces
turned to the wall."
- T. H. Huxley
Alex Green
>David Grayshan wrote:
>>[snip]
>In your case, you are simply asserting a position with absolutely no
>evidence, licensed by the old "well it _could_ be possible" argument (a
>variation of the mis-cited and mis-understood "absence of evidence is
>not evidence of absence" theme).
This is classic post-modernist flim-flam.
There is a clear difference between a theory someone cooked up yesterday and
an assertion made in ancient writing.
For example, the Sumerians and the Egyptians write that their culture was
given to them by incomers.
As always the first question is "Was the author an eye-witness?"
If the answer is "Yes" then this is a Primary source and no amount of squink
will disprove it (you need rock-solid dating and first-class archaeology to
do that).
If the answer is "No" then the next question must be "Was this a deposition
taken from an eye-witness?"
Then "Was this a reliable tradition handed down from an eye-witness?"
etc.
As a lawyer you, of all people, should know the difference between a fact
which must be explained and hearsay which can be ruled inadmissible.
Doug Weller
09:46:36 -0000, alex...@enterprise.net said...
>
> As you suggest, the Greenland ice cover has varied over the last 12,000
> years. So has the ice cover in the Antarctic Peninsula (for references
> please see my discussion with Paul Heinrich). Conditions there were
> marginally suitable for human habitation during the Holocene Optimum period
> enough period to produce an advanced civilization, but colonization by
> hunter-gatherers from Tierra del Fuego is a possibility.
>
>
David Grayshan
The way your post appeared confused me slightly at first, because of the
indenting deeming to suggest that I had written the passage you quote, which
obviously I did not write. Reading further I deduce you are replying to Steve
Marcus, who did write those words.
Interesting. Is Steve really a lawyer? Then you know each other already? Judging
by your ability to argue logically in the abstract, I could easily be persuaded
that you, too, are a lawyer or a barrister. Am I jumping to conclusions?
Anyway, as I promised Steve, there will be a reply, though I doubt if I shall
address the remarks made by Steve with the kind of relentless counter-argument
that you applied. It is not my usual style, nor do I have the training. But I
admired your logic.
David.
David Grayshan
Thou hath caused me to smile.
I do not expect you to enter into any kind of correspondance with me. I do have a
position, which will take some time to formulate properly.
I try, truly, not to say something on the NG that I would not say to a person to their
face. I take exception when people call others names such as "you are stupid", "he is
barking mad" etc. and I call this abuse, yes.
I am even guilty of it myself, but always when provoked, never proactively, and only
seldom, by my reckoning. Twice I have done it when people randomly hurl insulting names
at Hancock (a favourite hate-figure), not to defend Hancock (I have come some distance
away from being convinced by FOG), but simply for the principle. Perhaps this was not a
good idea.
I will still take the trouble to state my position sometime soon, since your
nicely-phrased posting more or less leaves me with little choice.
Regards,
David.
Steve Marcus wrote:
> David Grayshan wrote:
> >
> > Hello Steve,
> >
> > I have saved both your previous posting and this brief response and again assure
> > that I will try to do justice to your questions. I can confirm that your first
> > posting addressed to me was the first I had ever heard from you.
> >
> > Incidentally I am puzzled by your sentence: "I've been following your position in
> > several of the news groups". I hardly consider my postings to be worthy of my own
> > post-posting attention, let alone worthy of the attention of others. Why on earth
> > would you consider my jottings worthy of "following"? You amaze me. Care to
> > enlighten?
>
> Hello David,
>
> I just happened to see a couple of your posts in which you took people
> to task for being "abusive". I lurk on a couple of archaeology groups
> and an "ancient history" group, among others; looking at the headers in
> this thread I'll have to amend my statement a bit. I don't follow
> sci.skeptic, so the posts that I saw were likely all on sci.archaeology.
>
> I considered the posts that I read as being "worth following" not so
> much for the positions stated in the posts, but for the fact that
> someone can take such positions in a (supposedly) science related
> newsgroup and then get offended when people get upset by them. I am
> constantly amazed that as the 20th century draws to a close, folks can
> still take the Barry Fells, the Von Danikens and the Hancocks seriously.
>
> In your case, you are simply asserting a position with absolutely no
> evidence, licensed by the old "well it _could_ be possible" argument (a
> variation of the mis-cited and mis-understood "absence of evidence is
> not evidence of absence" theme). Don't get me wrong, you have every
> right to take whatever view you wish, and to publicly espouse it. My
> sole intention in posting was to point out to you that IMHO folks
> weren't really "flaming" you or being abusive, but were writing out of
> (what I believe to be) some frustration.
>
> By the way, while I will certainly read the response that you are
> composing to my initial post, please understand that it may not mean
> that much to me or provoke me into a prolonged dialogue. There would be
> little point to it, because if you are getting the better of the
> argument, I'll simply assert that you are wrong, because the aliens
> seeded our planet with the basis of all intelligence and civilization
> millions of years ago, and then took all of the primary evidence with
> them. Sure, we haven't found any evidence of this **yet**. But anything
> is possible, and absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. ;)
>
> Best,
>
> Steve
>
> <snip>
Steve Marcus
>
> Steve Marcus wrote in message <36980D...@erols.com>...
> >David Grayshan wrote:
> >>[snip]
> >evidence, licensed by the old "well it _could_ be possible" argument (a
> >variation of the mis-cited and mis-understood "absence of evidence is
> >not evidence of absence" theme).
>
Sorry. I beg to differ. I'm not a post-modernist. There's absolutely
nothing post modernist about pointing out that "absence of evidence is
not evidence of absence" is meaningful only when considered along with
the issue of what is, or is not, likely. We've no evidence that fairies
exist. Does this absence of evidence strongly imply that fairies in
fact do not exist, or will you argue that merely because we have no
evidence that fairies exist, it's nevertheless still very possible that
they do?
Mr. Grayshan has been asserting that there has existed at last one prior
technologically advanced civilization that we have not yet discovered
evidence of. And he has asserted that this lack of evidence is logical
because if there's some sort of catastrophy, there won't be anything
left of our civilization after 3,000 years. I think that extraordinary
claims require extraordinary proof, and I've seen no evidence at all
submited by Mr. Grayshan.
> There is a clear difference between a theory someone cooked up yesterday and
> an assertion made in ancient writing.
>
> For example, the Sumerians and the Egyptians write that their culture was
> given to them by incomers.
>
> As always the first question is "Was the author an eye-witness?"
>
> If the answer is "Yes" then this is a Primary source and no amount of squink
> will disprove it (you need rock-solid dating and first-class archaeology to
> do that).
Well, do you know whether the author was an eye-witness?
> If the answer is "No" then the next question must be "Was this a deposition
> taken from an eye-witness?"
Do you know the answer to this either?
> Then "Was this a reliable tradition handed down from an eye-witness?"
>
> etc.
Do you know the answer to this one, either?
> As a lawyer you, of all people, should know the difference between a fact
> which must be explained and hearsay which can be ruled inadmissible.
I have some idea of the difference between facts and hearsay (some of
which can be admissible, by the way). But before you have a fact, you
need to submit evidence. So what evidence did Mr. Grayshan assert.
What evidence are you asserting?
If, for example, there are some ancient Egyptian writings that state
that their culture was handed to them by "incomers", that why does it
follow that these "incomers" were from an advanced civilization that was
around, say 25,000 years ago? Would it be fair to say that a large part
of our American culture originally came to us by way of "incomers" from
England? Would this imply that these "incomers" were more technically
or socially advanced than we are today?
In short, I do know the difference between facts and hearsay. And I
also know that merely because something is written down, there's no
implication that it literally means what it says rather than being
allegorical (biblical story of creation), that it was intended as a
historical document (epic of Gilgamesh), or that it necessarily has any
basis in truth (legend of the Bermuda triangle). And with nothing but
respect intended, I think that the writings that you refer to have not
been shown to be anything but hearsay (writings by other than
eye-witnesses) which requires that those who take them literally bear
the burden of finding the evidence to support that what they assert is
literally true.
Louann Miller
> While I think Hancock is slightly more believable than Von Daniken (who
> was totally grasping at straws), I must defend him here against your
> poor and uninformed logic.
No need to go all Admiral Naismith. Let's discuss the topic on its
merits.
> If Hancock is right, and a civilization predated those archaeology has
> found, he places the end of this civilization some 12000 years ago. A
> lot changes in twelve thousand years. And in his books he indicates
> that the "Atlantean" civilization was fleeing the Antarctic.
When I heard him speak a few years ago at a "Fingerprints of the Gods"
book signing, he'd backed off the Antartic thing. Wisely, I think -- the
crustal-slippage theory he'd borrowed for the purpose seemed thin, and
he ignores all the evidence (such as ice-core layers) that the Antartic
ice cap has been where it is for considerably longer than 12K years. He
had not offered a specific alternate location for his civilization.
> Perhaps
> they didn't have time to move livestock and plants around the world.
> Perhaps they didn't even know of the potato, and why would you need
> cattle in America when you had bison?
I wasn't thinking of food crops and animals being carried along in the
evacuation after the Fall of Atlantis so much as transmitted around by
ancestral-culture traders and explorers during the period when their
civilization was fully up and running. Livestock and basic crops are
just too damn useful not to take along with you, or to adopt the good
ones from less-advanced cultures you meet on your travels. Look at how
quickly the Plains Indians adopted the horse, the Navaho adopted the
sheep, and Europeans picked up on the potato and other American crops.
> As for diseases, the last migration of the Inuit from Asia to North
> America was only 5000 years ago. They brought disease to the New World
> that was previously unknown. Also, there is evidence that some diseases
> which were brought from Asia to the Americas could not survive due to a
> low population density and a lack of host species.
Agreed; I see this as a much weaker point in my own argument, which is
why I didn't leave it to carry the weight on its own. But it is
suggestive.
> As to plants, one mystery surrounds the origins of corn. It is the only
> domesticated plant for which we can find no evidence of a natural
> progenitor.
Teosine, isn't it?
PZ Myers
>Morgan Rodwell wrote:
>
[snip]
>
>> As to plants, one mystery surrounds the origins of corn. It is the only
>> domesticated plant for which we can find no evidence of a natural
>> progenitor.
>
>Teosine, isn't it?
Close. Teosinte. And Rodwell is dead wrong here. Teosinte is a fairly common
wild grass found in Mexico and Guatemala that really looks nothing like
good ol' Zea mays on casual examination. It can be crossed with corn fairly
easily, though, and produces fertile hybrids.
Corn is also related to Tripsacum -- you can cross Zea and Tripsacum and
get infertile hybrids.
Contrary to the original poster's assertion, the origins of corn are quite
well known and the subject of quite a bit of study. Here's a few refs:
Galinat, WC (1988) The Origin of Corn. pp. 1-31. In Sprague, G. F.,
Dudley, J. W., Editors. Corn and Corn Improvement, Third
Edition. American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America,
and Soil Science Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin.
White S, Doebley J (1998) Of genes and genomes and the origin of maize.
Trends Genet 14(8):327-32
Doebley J, Stec A, Gustus C (1995) teosinte branched1 and the origin of
maize: evidence for epistasis and the evolution of dominance. Genetics
141(1):333-46
--
PZ Myers
Alex Green
>Sorry. I beg to differ. I'm not a post-modernist. There's absolutely
>nothing post modernist about pointing out that "absence of evidence is
>not evidence of absence" is meaningful only when considered along with
>the issue of what is, or is not, likely.
Likelihood is subjective, is it not? Unless the universe of discourse is
both finite and fully known, absence of evidence is never evidence of
absence.
>We've no evidence that fairies
>exist. Does this absence of evidence strongly imply that fairies in
>fact do not exist, or will you argue that merely because we have no
>evidence that fairies exist, it's nevertheless still very possible that
>they do?
Insufficient data. What are your sources, what do they mean by fairies,
etc, etc.
>Mr. Grayshan has been asserting that there has existed at last one prior
>technologically advanced civilization that we have not yet discovered
>evidence of. And he has asserted that this lack of evidence is logical
>because if there's some sort of catastrophy, there won't be anything
>left of our civilization after 3,000 years. I think that extraordinary
>claims require extraordinary proof, and I've seen no evidence at all
>submited by Mr. Grayshan.
Sea levels world-wide have risen by about 100 metres since the last ice age.
In the process a land area rather larger than the Indian subcontinent has
been submerged. Recent coastal discoveries in Peru demonstrate that there
is archaelogy still to be found from the ice age period.
>> There is a clear difference between a theory someone cooked up yesterday
and
>> an assertion made in ancient writing.
>>
>> For example, the Sumerians and the Egyptians write that their culture was
>> given to them by incomers.
>>
>> As always the first question is "Was the author an eye-witness?"
>>
>> If the answer is "Yes" then this is a Primary source and no amount of
squink
>> will disprove it (you need rock-solid dating and first-class archaeology
to
>> do that).
>
>Well, do you know whether the author was an eye-witness?
Very few ancient authors were eye-witnesses (see below).
>> If the answer is "No" then the next question must be "Was this a
deposition
>> taken from an eye-witness?"
>
>Do you know the answer to this either?
Most ancient documents are scribal records. Recent research in Israel
suggests that it is very difficult to teach the ancient syllabic scripts to
children. Until the advent of the alphabet writing was largely restricted
to trained scribes.
>> Then "Was this a reliable tradition handed down from an eye-witness?"
>>
>> etc.
>
>Do you know the answer to this one, either?
The reliability of the scribal tradition can be determined from the records
we have (in the most part it is very reliable). Records that derive from a
previous oral tradition are harder to assess, but accurate oral transmission
is widely (though not universally) known.
>If, for example, there are some ancient Egyptian writings that state
>that their culture was handed to them by "incomers", that why does it
>follow that these "incomers" were from an advanced civilization that was
>around, say 25,000 years ago? Would it be fair to say that a large part
>of our American culture originally came to us by way of "incomers" from
>England? Would this imply that these "incomers" were more technically
>or socially advanced than we are today?
This is a very good argument.
We currently have no ancient records more than about 6,000 years old. I
think this makes figures like 25,000 years beyond the scope of informed
discussion until we have some archaeology on which to base it.
The Egyptians and the Sumerians ascribe advanced technology to the bringers
of their culture, but you are right to question the degree of technology
required. Americans are all themselves incomers, so the English comparison
is short of the mark, but the reaction of the Aztecs to Cortez would be a
fair example. The Cargo Cult is another modern example of this phenomenon.
Arthur C. Clarke is quoted as saying that any sufficiently advanced
technology is indistinguishable from magic.
>And with nothing but
>respect intended, I think that the writings that you refer to have not
>been shown to be anything but hearsay (writings by other than
>eye-witnesses) which requires that those who take them literally bear
>the burden of finding the evidence to support that what they assert is
>literally true.
This is of course the post-modernist position. The burden of proof falls
_equally_ on those who assert literal truth and those who deny it. I
personally like the Scottish legal verdict of Not Proven. As a practical
point very little archaeology is possibe without a context in which to place
it.
Steve Marcus
You wrote:
>
> Steve Marcus wrote in message <369995...@erols.com>...
> >Sorry. I beg to differ. I'm not a post-modernist. There's absolutely
> >nothing post modernist about pointing out that "absence of evidence is
> >not evidence of absence" is meaningful only when considered along with
> >the issue of what is, or is not, likely.
>
> Likelihood is subjective, is it not? Unless the universe of discourse is
> both finite and fully known, absence of evidence is never evidence of
> absence.
Alex, likelihood is really not subjective. It's unlikely that a coin
will come up heads 10 times in a row. It's very unlikely that it will
come up heads 100 times in a row.
Perhaps you should consider the article at:
http://www.csicop.org/si/9801/adler.html
on the question of the usefulness and propriety of the "absence of
evidence..." argument.
As to the what constitutes post-modernism, see:
http://165.123.33.33/yr1996/july/opin_960722.html
In arguing that there was a "technologically advanced" (througout this
post I'm using that phrase in the sense of being at or near or beyond
our level of technology) civilization that taught the Egyptians, you are
simply making an assertion with absolutely no concrete evidence. Given
that there is at least one other explanation for Egyptian civilization
(the classical explanation), the argument that "absence of evidence..."
does not afford us a basis for believing in the existence of that
"technolgocially advanced" civilization, particularly when you offer no
facts to explain why artifacts of that mysterious civilization haven't
been discovered. In saying this I'm not only not espousing
post-modernism, I'm taking a position about 180 degrees opposed to
post-modernism.
> >We've no evidence that fairies
> >exist. Does this absence of evidence strongly imply that fairies in
> >fact do not exist, or will you argue that merely because we have no
> >evidence that fairies exist, it's nevertheless still very possible that
> >they do?
>
> Insufficient data. What are your sources, what do they mean by fairies,
> etc, etc.
Fairies: The mythical supernormal beings that were believed to possess
magic powers and the ability to alter their size and shape. Those
beings that in more modern times have been "romanticized" to take the
form of small, delicate winged beings such as the Disney character
"Tinkerbell". Specifically, those beings that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
championed as actually existing based upon some photographs allegedly
taken by two teenage sisters in England in the early part of this
century, which photographs are obviously "doctored". You know what I
mean Alex. We have zero evidence that these beings exist, or ever
existed. Will you argue based upon the "absence of evidence..." that we
should nevertheless subscribe to the possibility that fairies do exist?
Or that the possibility that they do is at all likely? Or that the word
likely in the last question is "subjective"?
> >Mr. Grayshan has been asserting that there has existed at last one prior
> >technologically advanced civilization that we have not yet discovered
> >evidence of. And he has asserted that this lack of evidence is logical
> >because if there's some sort of catastrophy, there won't be anything
> >left of our civilization after 3,000 years. I think that extraordinary
> >claims require extraordinary proof, and I've seen no evidence at all
> >submited by Mr. Grayshan.
>
> Sea levels world-wide have risen by about 100 metres since the last ice age.
> In the process a land area rather larger than the Indian subcontinent has
> been submerged. Recent coastal discoveries in Peru demonstrate that there
> is archaelogy still to be found from the ice age period.
So? We have cores from the sea floor. We've looked for impact craters
(produced by asteroids or comets) and found them underwater. Large
areas of present day land have been high and dry for millions of years.
No artificats from any technically advanced civilization pre-dating the
Egyptians has been found.
What about Egypt itself? If the ambassadors from the "technologically
advanced" civilization taught the Egyptians, did they do the teaching in
Antarctica or in Egypt? If the former, why don't the records state that
the teaching was not done in Egypt? If the latter, why shouldn't we
find artifacts from that civilization in Egypt?
In arguing that the remains of a "technically advanced civilization" (or
two) from 50,000 years ago, (or from millions of years ago, or simply
pre-Egyptian) exist but are as yet undiscovered, you are simply
asserting a hypothesis which can't be falsified. As such it isn't
science, it's just wishful thinking. That's okay, nothing wrong with
dreaming. My original post to Mr. Grayshan simply made the point that
when you engage in that sort of thing in a science oriented newsgroup,
without presenting anything remotely resembling hard facts to back it
up, you can expect that some folks hanging out there will be "annoyed".
> >> There is a clear difference between a theory someone cooked up yesterday
> and
> >> an assertion made in ancient writing.
> >>
> >> For example, the Sumerians and the Egyptians write that their culture was
> >> given to them by incomers.
> >>
> >> As always the first question is "Was the author an eye-witness?"
> >>
> >> If the answer is "Yes" then this is a Primary source and no amount of
> squink
> >> will disprove it (you need rock-solid dating and first-class archaeology
> to
> >> do that).
> >
> >Well, do you know whether the author was an eye-witness?
>
> Very few ancient authors were eye-witnesses (see below).
Is there any evidence that _any_ of the authors that you are talking
about were eyewitnesses?
> >> If the answer is "No" then the next question must be "Was this a
> deposition
> >> taken from an eye-witness?"
> >
> >Do you know the answer to this either?
>
> Most ancient documents are scribal records. Recent research in Israel
> suggests that it is very difficult to teach the ancient syllabic scripts to
> children. Until the advent of the alphabet writing was largely restricted
> to trained scribes.
Assuming for the purposes of discussion only that the above is so, does
the difficulty of becoming a trained scribe mean that everything that
the scribes wrote down was necessarily fact based or true?
> >> Then "Was this a reliable tradition handed down from an eye-witness?"
> >>
> >> etc.
> >
> >Do you know the answer to this one, either?
>
> The reliability of the scribal tradition can be determined from the records
> we have (in the most part it is very reliable). Records that derive from a
> previous oral tradition are harder to assess, but accurate oral transmission
> is widely (though not universally) known.
Again, you are asserting something without supporting it with reference
to evidence ("in most part it is very reliable"), but again, assuming
that it's so merely for discussion purposes, do you have evidence that
the particular writings that you want to rely upon with respect to
"incomers" teaching the Egyptians are based upon accurate oral
transmission? Are the "incomers" described as being "technically
advanced"?
I note, at this point, that you haven't responded to the questions that
I raised re the biblical story of creation, the Epic of Gilgamesh, and
the legend of the Bermuda triangle. Yet you assume that the ancient
scribes faithfully reproduced what someone else saw, or some oral
tradition, and that these writings must be literally true because they
wrote them down.
> >If, for example, there are some ancient Egyptian writings that state
> >that their culture was handed to them by "incomers", that why does it
> >follow that these "incomers" were from an advanced civilization that was
> >around, say 25,000 years ago? Would it be fair to say that a large part
> >of our American culture originally came to us by way of "incomers" from
> >England? Would this imply that these "incomers" were more technically
> >or socially advanced than we are today?
>
> This is a very good argument.
Thanks
> We currently have no ancient records more than about 6,000 years old. I
> think this makes figures like 25,000 years beyond the scope of informed
> discussion until we have some archaeology on which to base it.
Forget 25,000 years. You assert that some ancient Egyptian writings
state that their culture was handed to them by "incomers". Why does it
follow that the "incomers" were from a civilization that was
"technologically advanced" in the sense of approaching or exceeding our
present level of technology?
> The Egyptians and the Sumerians ascribe advanced technology to the bringers
> of their culture, but you are right to question the degree of technology
> required.
Thank you.
<I accidently snipped your discussion of Cortez and have reproduced it
below. I hope that it shows up properly in my answer.>
> The Egyptians and the Sumerians ascribe advanced technology to the bringers
> of their culture, but you are right to question the degree of technology
> required. Americans are all themselves incomers, so the English comparison
> is short of the mark, but the reaction of the Aztecs to Cortez would be a
> fair example. The Cargo Cult is another modern example of this phenomenon.
> Arthur C. Clarke is quoted as saying that any sufficiently advanced
> technology is indistinguishable from magic.
This is precisely my point. Sure, the Aztecs could have considered
Cortez to be magical, or a god or both. Do you consider Cortez to have
been as "technologically advanced" as we are today? So assuming that
the Egyptians were taught things by a culture that was advanced beyond
the Egyptian culture at that point, and that the Egyptians regarded
these folks as "magical" or as gods, why the leap to "technologically
advanced" as in beyond what we have today?
The Cargo Cult is another modern example of this phenomenon.
> Arthur C. Clarke is quoted as saying that any sufficiently advanced
> technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Yes, but what Mr. Grayshan and you were talking about are civilizations
that approach or exceed our present level of technology (after all, just
_how_ did the Egyptians move those big pyramid blocks??). Again, that
one culture was in position to teach things to another doesn't imply
that the former was advanced to our level, or close to our level.
> >And with nothing but
> >respect intended, I think that the writings that you refer to have not
> >been shown to be anything but hearsay (writings by other than
> >eye-witnesses) which requires that those who take them literally bear
> >the burden of finding the evidence to support that what they assert is
> >literally true.
>
> This is of course the post-modernist position. The burden of proof falls
> _equally_ on those who assert literal truth and those who deny it. I
> personally like the Scottish legal verdict of Not Proven. As a practical
> point very little archaeology is possibe without a context in which to place
> it.
Well, Not Proven is an excellent position. If, for example, Hancock
would preface his positions with "It hasn't been proven, and there's no
real evidence to support it, but...", who could quarrel with him? I
doubt that he would sell many books or find sponsers for television
shows though.
And, with respect, my position isn't post-modernist. I've said nothing
about "literal truth"; I said that those who assert that the writings
that you rely upon should be interpreted literally (are literally true)
have the burden of adducing evidence in support of that assertion. In
other words, if _you_ make extraordinary claims, the burden is on
_you_. It isn't shared by me.
The proof of this is simple. I will again claim that present day
civilization was communicated to us by extraterristrial beings millions
of years ago. Obviously, we are the product of genetic manipulation by
these beings, who then told selected humans the things that started us
down the road to our present level of technology. These beings have
watched over us, and continue to do so. Do you now suggest that anyone
who reads this claim and disagrees with it has a burden of any kind to
disprove it? Or will you agree that the burden of proof to establish
the claim is all mine? And since the absence of any evidence in support
of my claim does not mean that there isn't, somewhere out there,
evidence that would support the claim, do you think that people should
believe that my claim is anything other than extremely, extremely
unlikely?
Alex Green
>You wrote:
>> Likelihood is subjective, is it not? Unless the universe of discourse is
>> both finite and fully known, absence of evidence is never evidence of
>> absence.
>
>Alex, likelihood is really not subjective. It's unlikely that a coin
>will come up heads 10 times in a row. It's very unlikely that it will
>come up heads 100 times in a row.
Statistics is a demanding discipline. The history of telephone polling for
American elections is a good example of how easy it is to get it wrong.
>Perhaps you should consider the article at:
> http://www.csicop.org/si/9801/adler.html
>
>on the question of the usefulness and propriety of the "absence of
>evidence..." argument.
Alien abduction? Are you serious?
>As to the what constitutes post-modernism, see:
>
> http://165.123.33.33/yr1996/july/opin_960722.html
Or http://www.bkstore.com/johns-hopkins/fac/spiegel.html
Or http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/murphy/pomo.htm
>In arguing that there was a "technologically advanced" (througout this
>post I'm using that phrase in the sense of being at or near or beyond
>our level of technology) civilization that taught the Egyptians, you are
>simply making an assertion with absolutely no concrete evidence.
The assertion is not mine. It is the ancient Egyptians' (Edfu Building
Texts).
>Fairies: The mythical supernormal beings that were believed to possess
>magic powers and the ability to alter their size and shape. Those
>beings that in more modern times have been "romanticized" to take the
>form of small, delicate winged beings such as the Disney character
>"Tinkerbell". Specifically, those beings that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
>championed as actually existing based upon some photographs allegedly
>taken by two teenage sisters in England in the early part of this
>century, which photographs are obviously "doctored". You know what I
>mean Alex. We have zero evidence that these beings exist, or ever
>existed. Will you argue based upon the "absence of evidence..." that we
>should nevertheless subscribe to the possibility that fairies do exist?
>Or that the possibility that they do is at all likely? Or that the word
>likely in the last question is "subjective"?
This is a sci. ng
>> >Mr. Grayshan has been asserting that there has existed at last one prior
>> >technologically advanced civilization that we have not yet discovered
>> >evidence of. And he has asserted that this lack of evidence is logical
>> >because if there's some sort of catastrophy, there won't be anything
>> >left of our civilization after 3,000 years. I think that extraordinary
>> >claims require extraordinary proof, and I've seen no evidence at all
>> >submited by Mr. Grayshan.
>>
>> Sea levels world-wide have risen by about 100 metres since the last ice
age.
>> In the process a land area rather larger than the Indian subcontinent has
>> been submerged. Recent coastal discoveries in Peru demonstrate that
there
>> is archaelogy still to be found from the ice age period.
>
>So? We have cores from the sea floor. We've looked for impact craters
>(produced by asteroids or comets) and found them underwater. Large
>areas of present day land have been high and dry for millions of years.
>No artificats from any technically advanced civilization pre-dating the
>Egyptians has been found.
Statistics again. The samples we have so far are biased.
>What about Egypt itself? If the ambassadors from the "technologically
>advanced" civilization taught the Egyptians, did they do the teaching in
>Antarctica or in Egypt? If the former, why don't the records state that
>the teaching was not done in Egypt? If the latter, why shouldn't we
>find artifacts from that civilization in Egypt?
In Egypt. The number of "ambassadors" reported was not large, so the
artefacts would be few and perhaps even concentrated in one place.
>In arguing that the remains of a "technically advanced civilization" (or
>two) from 50,000 years ago, (or from millions of years ago, or simply
>pre-Egyptian) exist but are as yet undiscovered, you are simply
>asserting a hypothesis which can't be falsified. As such it isn't
>science, it's just wishful thinking. That's okay, nothing wrong with
>dreaming. My original post to Mr. Grayshan simply made the point that
>when you engage in that sort of thing in a science oriented newsgroup,
>without presenting anything remotely resembling hard facts to back it
>up, you can expect that some folks hanging out there will be "annoyed".
Which is the more likely statement?
1) We have discovered remains from every civilisation that ever existed.
2) We have not.
So far, 1) loses out every time.
>does
>the difficulty of becoming a trained scribe mean that everything that
>the scribes wrote down was necessarily fact based or true?
No, but it makes it more likely.
>> The reliability of the scribal tradition can be determined from the
records
>> we have (in the most part it is very reliable). Records that derive from
a
>> previous oral tradition are harder to assess, but accurate oral
transmission
>> is widely (though not universally) known.
>
>Again, you are asserting something without supporting it with reference
>to evidence ("in most part it is very reliable")
We have evidence of how scribes were trained, and examples of their skill at
copying.
>do you have evidence that
>the particular writings that you want to rely upon with respect to
>"incomers" teaching the Egyptians are based upon accurate oral
>transmission?
This is moot. The present temple at Edfu is recent. The Texts themselves
are much older.
>Are the "incomers" described as being "technically
>advanced"?
Yes
>I note, at this point, that you haven't responded to the questions that
>I raised re the biblical story of creation, the Epic of Gilgamesh, and
>the legend of the Bermuda triangle. Yet you assume that the ancient
>scribes faithfully reproduced what someone else saw, or some oral
>tradition, and that these writings must be literally true because they
>wrote them down.
The Bermuda triangle legend is modern. There are two different Biblical
stories of creation, one or both of which are copied from earlier works. It
is unlikely that these were intended as history in the modern sense. The
Epic of Gilgamesh may contain history (as distinct from being history).
>You assert that some ancient Egyptian writings
>state that their culture was handed to them by "incomers". Why does it
>follow that the "incomers" were from a civilization that was
>"technologically advanced" in the sense of approaching or exceeding our
>present level of technology?
It doesn't. The ancient Egyptians assert that the "incomers" were
"technologically advanced" in the sense of exceeding _their_ present level
of technology. Any subsequent comparison is presently unsustainable.
>Yes, but what Mr. Grayshan and you were talking about are civilizations
>that approach or exceed our present level of technology (after all, just
>_how_ did the Egyptians move those big pyramid blocks??).
This is a deliberate misrepresentation of my position.
>And, with respect, my position isn't post-modernist. I've said nothing
>about "literal truth"; I said that those who assert that the writings
>that you rely upon should be interpreted literally (are literally true)
>have the burden of adducing evidence in support of that assertion.
!!
Steve Marcus
>
> Steve Marcus wrote in message <369AD6...@erols.com>...
> >You wrote:
> >> Likelihood is subjective, is it not? Unless the universe of discourse is
> >> both finite and fully known, absence of evidence is never evidence of
> >> absence.
> >
> >Alex, likelihood is really not subjective. It's unlikely that a coin
> >will come up heads 10 times in a row. It's very unlikely that it will
> >come up heads 100 times in a row.
>
> Statistics is a demanding discipline. The history of telephone polling for
> American elections is a good example of how easy it is to get it wrong.
But you haven't addressed my point, which was that likelihood is not
really subjective.
> >Perhaps you should consider the article at:
> > http://www.csicop.org/si/9801/adler.html
> >
> >on the question of the usefulness and propriety of the "absence of
> >evidence..." argument.
>
> Alien abduction? Are you serious?
The article deals with the concept of using, versus misusing, the
argument that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". To
characterize the article as being "about" alien abduction is a serious
mis-representation. The article uses alien abduction as one of several
examples of arguments where proponents assert that "the absence of
evidence..." supports an extemely unlikely position.
> >As to the what constitutes post-modernism, see:
> >
> > http://165.123.33.33/yr1996/july/opin_960722.html
>
> Or http://www.bkstore.com/johns-hopkins/fac/spiegel.html
> Or http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/murphy/pomo.htm
> >In arguing that there was a "technologically advanced" (througout this
> >post I'm using that phrase in the sense of being at or near or beyond
> >our level of technology) civilization that taught the Egyptians, you are
> >simply making an assertion with absolutely no concrete evidence.
>
> The assertion is not mine. It is the ancient Egyptians' (Edfu Building
> Texts).
The ancient Egyptians assert that the "incomers" had a civilization
equivalent to our present level of technology, or simply a civilization
more advanced than their own?
> >Fairies: The mythical supernormal beings that were believed to possess
> >magic powers and the ability to alter their size and shape. Those
> >beings that in more modern times have been "romanticized" to take the
> >form of small, delicate winged beings such as the Disney character
> >"Tinkerbell". Specifically, those beings that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
> >championed as actually existing based upon some photographs allegedly
> >taken by two teenage sisters in England in the early part of this
> >century, which photographs are obviously "doctored". You know what I
> >mean Alex. We have zero evidence that these beings exist, or ever
> >existed. Will you argue based upon the "absence of evidence..." that we
> >should nevertheless subscribe to the possibility that fairies do exist?
> >Or that the possibility that they do is at all likely? Or that the word
> >likely in the last question is "subjective"?
>
> This is a sci. ng
Which is precisely why I wrote to Mr. Grayshan that folks weren't being
insulting towards him. They were reacting in an understandably
"short-tempered" way because they were looking at a science newsgroup,
but were reading that, as a matter of fact, there existed a technically
advanced pre-Egyptian for which they know that we have no physical
evidence.
I am curious, though, as to why you would apply the "absence of
evidence..." argument to the "incomers" described by the Egyptians, but
not to the fairies believed to exist by the famous Sir Arthur Conan
Doyle, and for which he submitted photographic evidence as proof in
support of his belief.
> >> >Mr. Grayshan has been asserting that there has existed at last one prior
> >> >technologically advanced civilization that we have not yet discovered
> >> >evidence of. And he has asserted that this lack of evidence is logical
> >> >because if there's some sort of catastrophy, there won't be anything
> >> >left of our civilization after 3,000 years. I think that extraordinary
> >> >claims require extraordinary proof, and I've seen no evidence at all
> >> >submited by Mr. Grayshan.
> >>
> >> Sea levels world-wide have risen by about 100 metres since the last ice
> age.
> >> In the process a land area rather larger than the Indian subcontinent has
> >> been submerged. Recent coastal discoveries in Peru demonstrate that
> there
> >> is archaelogy still to be found from the ice age period.
> >
> >So? We have cores from the sea floor. We've looked for impact craters
> >(produced by asteroids or comets) and found them underwater. Large
> >areas of present day land have been high and dry for millions of years.
> >No artificats from any technically advanced civilization pre-dating the
> >Egyptians has been found.
>
> Statistics again. The samples we have so far are biased.
Easy answer, but you are simply dodging the issue. Again, before
asserting the old "absence of evidence..." saw, scientists would ask
themselves just how probable it would be for a technically advanced
civilization pre-dating the Egytians to have left no artifact that we
have yet discovered.
If this civilization were so advanced, presumably they would have
constituted a very large population (as our civilization does today).
Did these folks live nowhere that isn't beneath today's oceans or at the
present day poles of the earth? Out of all of the infrastructure
necessary to support a civilization as advanced as ours, no remains lie
in location which is both accessible today and that has also been
investigated archaeologically?
> >What about Egypt itself? If the ambassadors from the "technologically
> >advanced" civilization taught the Egyptians, did they do the teaching in
> >Antarctica or in Egypt? If the former, why don't the records state that
> >the teaching was not done in Egypt? If the latter, why shouldn't we
> >find artifacts from that civilization in Egypt?
>
> In Egypt. The number of "ambassadors" reported was not large, so the
> artefacts would be few and perhaps even concentrated in one place.
And the Egyptians, of course, would not record this location.
> >In arguing that the remains of a "technically advanced civilization" (or
> >two) from 50,000 years ago, (or from millions of years ago, or simply
> >pre-Egyptian) exist but are as yet undiscovered, you are simply
> >asserting a hypothesis which can't be falsified. As such it isn't
> >science, it's just wishful thinking. That's okay, nothing wrong with
> >dreaming. My original post to Mr. Grayshan simply made the point that
> >when you engage in that sort of thing in a science oriented newsgroup,
> >without presenting anything remotely resembling hard facts to back it
> >up, you can expect that some folks hanging out there will be "annoyed".
>
> Which is the more likely statement?
> 1) We have discovered remains from every civilisation that ever existed.
> 2) We have not.
> So far, 1) loses out every time.
The fact that statement number 1 is more likely to be true is _not_
evidence for the existence of any specific civilization, including the
mysterious "incomers" you assert that the Egyptians have written about.
>
> >does
> >the difficulty of becoming a trained scribe mean that everything that
> >the scribes wrote down was necessarily fact based or true?
>
> No, but it makes it more likely.
Why?
> >> The reliability of the scribal tradition can be determined from the
> records
> >> we have (in the most part it is very reliable). Records that derive from
> a
> >> previous oral tradition are harder to assess, but accurate oral
> transmission
> >> is widely (though not universally) known.
> >
> >Again, you are asserting something without supporting it with reference
> >to evidence ("in most part it is very reliable")
>
> We have evidence of how scribes were trained, and examples of their skill at
> copying.
What has that to do with the truth of, or factual basis for, the stories
they recorded?
> >do you have evidence that
> >the particular writings that you want to rely upon with respect to
> >"incomers" teaching the Egyptians are based upon accurate oral
> >transmission?
>
> This is moot. The present temple at Edfu is recent. The Texts themselves
> are much older.
>
??
> >Are the "incomers" described as being "technically
> >advanced"?
>
> Yes
>
> >I note, at this point, that you haven't responded to the questions that
> >I raised re the biblical story of creation, the Epic of Gilgamesh, and
> >the legend of the Bermuda triangle. Yet you assume that the ancient
> >scribes faithfully reproduced what someone else saw, or some oral
> >tradition, and that these writings must be literally true because they
> >wrote them down.
>
> The Bermuda triangle legend is modern. There are two different Biblical
> stories of creation, one or both of which are copied from earlier works. It
> is unlikely that these were intended as history in the modern sense. The
> Epic of Gilgamesh may contain history (as distinct from being history).
Each of these examples has been rather cavalierly dismissed by you. I
submit that it is no less easy to dismiss what the Egytian scribes have
written about the "incomers". If not, why not?
> >You assert that some ancient Egyptian writings
> >state that their culture was handed to them by "incomers". Why does it
> >follow that the "incomers" were from a civilization that was
> >"technologically advanced" in the sense of approaching or exceeding our
> >present level of technology?
>
> It doesn't. The ancient Egyptians assert that the "incomers" were
> "technologically advanced" in the sense of exceeding _their_ present level
> of technology. Any subsequent comparison is presently unsustainable.
However, that's not what folks like Von Daniken and Hancock are
asserting. No one is going to buy a book which holds that the Egyptians
were taught how to move blocks by a "more advanced" civilization that
was more advanced in the sense of using oil to lubricate the path along
which the blocks were dragged during the construction of a pyramid.
However, they will, and do, buy books which state and/or imply that the
"more advanced" civilization could do things equivalent to beaming the
blocks into place as the pyramid was being constructed.
> >Yes, but what Mr. Grayshan and you were talking about are civilizations
> >that approach or exceed our present level of technology (after all, just
> >_how_ did the Egyptians move those big pyramid blocks??).
>
> This is a deliberate misrepresentation of my position.
Then I apologize. Somehow I got the impression that you and Mr.
Grayshan were talking about such civilizations. I stated that I was
addressing the existence of such civilizations right at the beginning of
the post to which you responded.
> >And, with respect, my position isn't post-modernist. I've said nothing
> >about "literal truth"; I said that those who assert that the writings
> >that you rely upon should be interpreted literally (are literally true)
> >have the burden of adducing evidence in support of that assertion.
>
> !!
>
I'm not sure that I understand the meaning of the exclamation points.
_You_ have pointed to statements about advanced "incomers" that were
written down by Egyptian scribes and have stated your belief that these
statements are literally true. I've been arguing that many things that
are "written down" are not literally true in the sense that they are
allegorical, interpretative, or flat out inaccurate, and that you have
no presented no physical evidence that these "incomer" statements are
literally true. This isn't post-modernism, it's the insistence on
evidence before one accepts something as being "a fact".
But I'm pretty sure that I understand the meaning of your unindicated
snipping of my statement re "aliens millions of years ago", and your
failure to address my point that "absence of evidence...", as you apply
it, would apply equally well to my supposed aliens. I also understand
your failure to defend your position that "[T]he burden of proof falls
_equally_ on those who assert literal truth and those who deny it". At
the end of the day, you simply cannot defend "absence of evidence..." in
the face of my "aliens" example, and you will not state that anyone
reading my "aliens" example has absolutely no burden to disprove it.
Now I know the importance of "having the last word", so please feel
free. But I don't think that this discussion is going anywhere, so I
doubt that I will spend any more time with it.
John Legon
>>In arguing that there was a "technologically advanced" (througout this
>>post I'm using that phrase in the sense of being at or near or beyond
>>our level of technology) civilization that taught the Egyptians, you are
>>simply making an assertion with absolutely no concrete evidence.
>
>The assertion is not mine. It is the ancient Egyptians' (Edfu Building
>Texts).
>
Can you provide a single quote from the Edfu Building Texts to justify
your claim that these texts make reference to a technologically advanced
civilization?
--
John Legon
Steve Marcus
>
> Steve Marcus wrote in message <369C1E...@erols.com>...
<snip>
>
> >The article deals with the concept of using, versus misusing, the
> >argument that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". To
> >characterize the article as being "about" alien abduction is a serious
> >mis-representation. The article uses alien abduction as one of several
> >examples of arguments where proponents assert that "the absence of
> >evidence..." supports an extemely unlikely position.
>
> I am not arguing from absence of evidence. You are.
ROTFL.
_You_ are the one who has been arguing that merely because we've found
no artifacts from the "incomers", no remains of any "technolgically
advanced" devices out of place for ancient Egypt, no infrastructure to
support the civilization of these "incomers", this does not constitute
evidence that the "incomers" didn't exist. I'm the one who has been
arguing that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" should
_not_ be applied to situations in which the asserted conclusion is
highly improbable. And I've been arguing that given the total lack of
evidence as described above, along with some other problems such as why
this advanced civilization didn't dominate the less advanced
civilizations such as the Egyptians, the existence of a higher
civilization that taught the Egyptians their culture is a textbook
illustration of a situation in which "absence of evidence..." cannot be
applied to argue that the "incomers" existed.
>
<snip>
>
>
> >> >does
> >> >the difficulty of becoming a trained scribe mean that everything that
> >> >the scribes wrote down was necessarily fact based or true?
> >>
> >> No, but it makes it more likely.
> >
> >Why?
>
> See next point below.
>
> >> We have evidence of how scribes were trained, and examples of their skill
> at
> >> copying.
> >
> >What has that to do with the truth of, or factual basis for, the stories
> >they recorded?
>
> The day to day work of scribes involved the accurate copying of royal
> decrees, contracts, etc.
And this fact precludes a scribe from having written down a story about
"incomers" that was not told to the scribe by an eye-witness and
actually had no factual basis at all?
> >> The Bermuda triangle legend is modern. There are two different Biblical
> >> stories of creation, one or both of which are copied from earlier works.
> It
> >> is unlikely that these were intended as history in the modern sense. The
> >> Epic of Gilgamesh may contain history (as distinct from being history).
> >
> >Each of these examples has been rather cavalierly dismissed by you. I
> >submit that it is no less easy to dismiss what the Egytian scribes have
> >written about the "incomers". If not, why not?
>
> The first example is modern and not appropriate to an archaeology ng.
> The second example is two separate cosmologies. It is difficult to assert
> that the original author was an eyewitness to the creation of the universe.
> The third example is as I said. If you want to take it point by point, feel
> free.
>
> There is no intrinsic reason why the original story of the Edfu Texts could
> not be eyewitness testimony by the incomers. Which does not of course prove
> that it was.
ROTFL.
If there is no proof one way or the other that the original story of the
Edfu Texts represents something that _really_ happened, or is even a
distortion of some event that _really_ happened, on what basis do you
argue from these texts that there was an advanced civilization that
taught the Egyptians their culture? Saying that the story _could_ be
true is just meaningless. Anything _could_ have happened.
Egyptologists, however, seem to feel that Egyptian civilization does not
need the "incomers" to have created it. I suspect that they support
their feelings with evidence. It's your burden to show either that
there was such a civilization, or why explain why your position that
there _could_ have been such a civilization is more likely than the
accepted story of how Egyptian civilization developed.
> > I also understand
> >your failure to defend your position that "[T]he burden of proof falls
> >_equally_ on those who assert literal truth and those who deny it".
>
> You cannot assume that an assertion is false until it it is proved true. If
> that were so, I would only have to assert that 'unicorns do not exist' for
> you to believe that they do. An assertion is _unproven_ until it is proved
> either true or false. Hence the burden of proof falls _equally_ on those
> who assert literal truth and those who deny it.
No one is assuming that your assertion is false. It is simply an
assertion with absolutely nothing to support it. The scientific
position would be that your assertion is, therefore, unproven. You are
arguing that because it hasn't been disproved, it is, at least, credible
and may be argued as being "possible". So what? Anything is
_possible_. Absent some compelling reason why the hypothesis should be
taken as being at least as credible as the currently accepted
explanation for the development of Egyptian civilization, the fact that
your hypothesis is _possible_ is just meaningless insofar as science is
concerned.
So if you wish to assert that "unicorns do not exist", I would agree
with you, precisely because there is a total lack of evidence that they
do, plus some pretty plausible explanations for the basis of the
"unicorn legends". I would have no burden to supply any evidence beyond
that. If, however, you wish to assert that "unicorns do exist", then
you would have the absolute burden of proof. And that burden would not
(read carefully, NOT) be satisfied by arguing that just because there's
no evidence that unicorns exist, it doesn't mean that they don't.
And by the way, I've replied to your post because you totally
mischaracterized my position by stating that I'm using the old "absence
of evidence..." ploy, when in fact it is _you_ who are relying on it.
Beyond my reply to your answer to Mr. Legon, don't expect me to
participate further, unless you persist in misrepresenting my position.
Steve Marcus
>
> John Legon wrote in message ...
> >>>post I'm using that phrase in the sense of being at or near or beyond
> >>>our level of technology) civilization that taught the Egyptians, you are
> >>>simply making an assertion with absolutely no concrete evidence.
> >>
> >>The assertion is not mine. It is the ancient Egyptians' (Edfu Building
> >>Texts).
> >>
> >your claim that these texts make reference to a technologically advanced
> >civilization?
>
> ... who illumined this land when they came forth together ..."
>
> [Reymond, E.A.E.; The Mythical Origin of the Egyptian Temple; Manchester
> University Press; Manchester; 1969 p77] as quoted by Bauval and Hancock in
> "Keeper of Genesis" p214 (I have substituted the word 'together' for
> 'unitedly' for ease of reading).
>
> As I stated in reply to Steve in the post to which you replied:
>
> >>You assert that some ancient Egyptian writings
> >>state that their culture was handed to them by "incomers". Why does it
> >>follow that the "incomers" were from a civilization that was
> >>"technologically advanced" in the sense of approaching or exceeding our
> >>present level of technology?
> >
> >It doesn't. The ancient Egyptians assert that the "incomers" were
> >"technologically advanced" in the sense of exceeding _their_ present level
> >of technology. Any subsequent comparison is presently unsustainable.
>
above quoted text as a statement of historical fact rather than a
statement of religious belief (such as, but not necessarily, a portion
of a "creation myth"). Based strictly on the title of Reymond's book,
surely it's as likely that the quoted text is part of a "myth" of some
sort rather than a statement of history (apparently as Hancock et al
would have it).
Alex Green
>In article <nhQm2.35$FN1...@news.enterprise.net>, Alex Green
><alex...@enterprise.net> wrote:
>>>post I'm using that phrase in the sense of being at or near or beyond
>>>our level of technology) civilization that taught the Egyptians, you are
>>>simply making an assertion with absolutely no concrete evidence.
>>
>>The assertion is not mine. It is the ancient Egyptians' (Edfu Building
>>Texts).
>>
>your claim that these texts make reference to a technologically advanced
>civilization?
I was referring to "the Builder Gods, who fashioned in the primeval time,
... who illumined this land when they came forth together ..."
[Reymond, E.A.E.; The Mythical Origin of the Egyptian Temple; Manchester
University Press; Manchester; 1969 p77] as quoted by Bauval and Hancock in
"Keeper of Genesis" p214 (I have substituted the word 'together' for
'unitedly' for ease of reading).
As I stated in reply to Steve in the post to which you replied:
>>You assert that some ancient Egyptian writings
>>state that their culture was handed to them by "incomers". Why does it
>>follow that the "incomers" were from a civilization that was
>>"technologically advanced" in the sense of approaching or exceeding our
>>present level of technology?
>
>It doesn't. The ancient Egyptians assert that the "incomers" were
>"technologically advanced" in the sense of exceeding _their_ present level
>of technology. Any subsequent comparison is presently unsustainable.
Alex Green
>But you haven't addressed my point, which was that likelihood is not
>really subjective.
Despite the best efforts of statisticians, most people continue to be very
VERY bad at assessing likelihood. An obvious high-tech example is the
Challenger disaster.
>The article deals with the concept of using, versus misusing, the
>argument that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". To
>characterize the article as being "about" alien abduction is a serious
>mis-representation. The article uses alien abduction as one of several
>examples of arguments where proponents assert that "the absence of
>evidence..." supports an extemely unlikely position.
I am not arguing from absence of evidence. You are.
>The ancient Egyptians assert that the "incomers" had a civilization
>equivalent to our present level of technology, or simply a civilization
>more advanced than their own?
The latter.
>> This is a sci. ng
>
>Which is precisely why I wrote to Mr. Grayshan that folks weren't being
>insulting towards him. They were reacting in an understandably
>"short-tempered" way because they were looking at a science newsgroup,
>but were reading that, as a matter of fact, there existed a technically
>advanced pre-Egyptian for which they know that we have no physical
>evidence.
>
>I am curious, though, as to why you would apply the "absence of
>evidence..." argument to the "incomers" described by the Egyptians, but
>not to the fairies believed to exist by the famous Sir Arthur Conan
>Doyle, and for which he submitted photographic evidence as proof in
>support of his belief.
I am not applying an absence of evidence argument. You are.
>> >So? We have cores from the sea floor. We've looked for impact craters
>> >(produced by asteroids or comets) and found them underwater. Large
>> >areas of present day land have been high and dry for millions of years.
>> >No artificats from any technically advanced civilization pre-dating the
>> >Egyptians has been found.
>>
>> Statistics again. The samples we have so far are biased.
>
>Easy answer, but you are simply dodging the issue. Again, before
>asserting the old "absence of evidence..." saw, scientists would ask
>themselves just how probable it would be for a technically advanced
>civilization pre-dating the Egytians to have left no artifact that we
>have yet discovered.
In any place that was covered by a glacier, everything would be ground down
fine and then washed away by the meltwater.
To get some idea of the area covered by glaciers, see
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/glaciation.html and
http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/index.html
The parts of Alaska and Siberia now covered in permafrost (and thus
inaccessible to archaeologists) may then have been ice-free
>If this civilization were so advanced, presumably they would have
>constituted a very large population (as our civilization does today).
>Did these folks live nowhere that isn't beneath today's oceans or at the
>present day poles of the earth? Out of all of the infrastructure
>necessary to support a civilization as advanced as ours, no remains lie
>in location which is both accessible today and that has also been
>investigated archaeologically?
According to the Edfu Texts, the incomers lived on an island which was
suddenly flooded, killing most of the inhabitants.
>> In Egypt. The number of "ambassadors" reported was not large, so the
>> artefacts would be few and perhaps even concentrated in one place.
>
>And the Egyptians, of course, would not record this location.
I don't claim that.
>> Which is the more likely statement?
>> 1) We have discovered remains from every civilisation that ever existed.
>> 2) We have not.
>
>> So far, 1) loses out every time.
>
>The fact that statement number 1 is more likely to be true is _not_
>evidence for the existence of any specific civilization, including the
>mysterious "incomers" you assert that the Egyptians have written about.
True. I was countering your argument from absence. The existence of any
other civilisation is currently _unproven_.
>> >does
>> >the difficulty of becoming a trained scribe mean that everything that
>> >the scribes wrote down was necessarily fact based or true?
>>
>> No, but it makes it more likely.
>
>Why?
See next point below.
>> We have evidence of how scribes were trained, and examples of their skill
at
>> copying.
>
>What has that to do with the truth of, or factual basis for, the stories
>they recorded?
The day to day work of scribes involved the accurate copying of royal
decrees, contracts, etc.
>> The Bermuda triangle legend is modern. There are two different Biblical
>> stories of creation, one or both of which are copied from earlier works.
It
>> is unlikely that these were intended as history in the modern sense. The
>> Epic of Gilgamesh may contain history (as distinct from being history).
>
>Each of these examples has been rather cavalierly dismissed by you. I
>submit that it is no less easy to dismiss what the Egytian scribes have
>written about the "incomers". If not, why not?
The first example is modern and not appropriate to an archaeology ng.
The second example is two separate cosmologies. It is difficult to assert
that the original author was an eyewitness to the creation of the universe.
The third example is as I said. If you want to take it point by point, feel
free.
There is no intrinsic reason why the original story of the Edfu Texts could
not be eyewitness testimony by the incomers. Which does not of course prove
that it was.
> I also understand
>your failure to defend your position that "[T]he burden of proof falls
>_equally_ on those who assert literal truth and those who deny it".
You cannot assume that an assertion is false until it it is proved true. If
that were so, I would only have to assert that 'unicorns do not exist' for
you to believe that they do. An assertion is _unproven_ until it is proved
either true or false. Hence the burden of proof falls _equally_ on those
who assert literal truth and those who deny it.
Alex Green
>Alex Green wrote:
>> I am not arguing from absence of evidence. You are.
>
>ROTFL.
>
>_You_ are the one who has been arguing that merely because we've found
>no artifacts from the "incomers", no remains of any "technolgically
>advanced" devices out of place for ancient Egypt, no infrastructure to
>support the civilization of these "incomers", this does not constitute
>evidence that the "incomers" didn't exist. I'm the one who has been
>arguing that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" should
>_not_ be applied to situations in which the asserted conclusion is
>highly improbable.
So you are arguing that absence of evidence _is_ evidence of absence.
>And I've been arguing that given the total lack of
>evidence as described above, along with some other problems such as why
>this advanced civilization didn't dominate the less advanced
>civilizations such as the Egyptians, the existence of a higher
>civilization that taught the Egyptians their culture is a textbook
>illustration of a situation in which "absence of evidence..." cannot be
>applied to argue that the "incomers" existed.
I have never claimed that an absence of evidence argued in favour of the
"incomers" existence.
>> There is no intrinsic reason why the original story of the Edfu Texts
could
>> not be eyewitness testimony by the incomers. Which does not of course
prove
>> that it was.
>
>ROTFL.
>If there is no proof one way or the other that the original story of the
>Edfu Texts represents something that _really_ happened, or is even a
>distortion of some event that _really_ happened, on what basis do you
>argue from these texts that there was an advanced civilization that
>taught the Egyptians their culture?
Taking the text at face value is simply one of several possible approaches
to the text.
>Saying that the story _could_ be
>true is just meaningless.
Only to a post-modernist. To anyone else it would suggest the value of furt
her archaeology.
>Anything _could_ have happened.
>Egyptologists, however, seem to feel that Egyptian civilization does not
>need the "incomers" to have created it. I suspect that they support
>their feelings with evidence.
What is your evidence for this last assertion?
>It's your burden to show either that
>there was such a civilization, or why explain why your position that
>there _could_ have been such a civilization is more likely than the
>accepted story of how Egyptian civilization developed.
I agree.
Alex Green
>Alex Green wrote:
>> I was referring to "the Builder Gods, who fashioned in the primeval time,
>> ... who illumined this land when they came forth together ..."
>>
>> [Reymond, E.A.E.; The Mythical Origin of the Egyptian Temple; Manchester
>> University Press; Manchester; 1969 p77] as quoted by Bauval and Hancock
in
>> "Keeper of Genesis" p214 (I have substituted the word 'together' for
>> 'unitedly' for ease of reading).
>
>above quoted text as a statement of historical fact rather than a
>statement of religious belief (such as, but not necessarily, a portion
>of a "creation myth"). Based strictly on the title of Reymond's book,
>surely it's as likely that the quoted text is part of a "myth" of some
>sort rather than a statement of history (apparently as Hancock et al
>would have it).
You seem very confident that you can tell the difference between myth (by
which you mean just a story) and history.
Respected archaeologists took the same position with regard to Mycenaeans
and Hittites.
Louann Miller
> You seem very confident that you can tell the difference between myth (by
> which you mean just a story) and history.
>
> Respected archaeologists took the same position with regard to Mycenaeans
> and Hittites.
And they quite rightly changed their minds when artifacts were dug up
supporting those two peoples as real. I recommend that you find some
artifacts too.
Steve Marcus
> >
> >ROTFL.
> >
> >_You_ are the one who has been arguing that merely because we've found
> >no artifacts from the "incomers", no remains of any "technolgically
> >advanced" devices out of place for ancient Egypt, no infrastructure to
> >support the civilization of these "incomers", this does not constitute
> >evidence that the "incomers" didn't exist. I'm the one who has been
> >arguing that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" should
> >_not_ be applied to situations in which the asserted conclusion is
> >highly improbable.
>
No. Please go back and re-read the article from "Skeptical Inquirer on
"absence of evidence...". I am arguing that "absence of evidence..." is
not a magic incantation that can be pulled out of the hat to argue that
_every_ thing that one asserts without any supporting evidence is
_possible_. I am arguing that certain propositions, supported by "some"
reasonable logic and for which no other reasonable explanation exists
may well be _possible_ even if no hard evidence has not been found.
See, for example, any of the theories on potential causes of the
periodic 26 million year extinction cycle which are currently being
investigated. A companion star to Sol may well be the cause (or may
not, there are other causes proposed). So far, there's no hard evidence
to support its existence, but given what many scientists believe is firm
evidence that the extinction cycle exists, and given that something must
be causing it, the fact that we haven't found the companion star yet is
not "evidence" that it doesn't exist. The search is continuing.
On the other hand, there is virtually nothing that's been offered to
support the existence of this mysterious technically advanced
civilization which taught the Egyptians. Given that we would expect an
advanced civilization to be very widespread, given that we would expect
to find plenty of artificats from such a civilization, as well as an
extensive infrastructure to support the technology and haven't, given
that there are precious few contemporary writings from the Egyptians
that even allude to such civilization, and none that come right out and
state that there was such a civilization without necessitating some
"interpretation" on the part of the reader to conclude that the writings
are discussing actual beings and actual events, and given that there are
other and much simpler explanations for the beginnings of Egyptian
civilization which are supported by evidence, the absence of evidence
for the advanced civilization leaves only the most remote possibility
that there was such a civilization.
> >And I've been arguing that given the total lack of
> >evidence as described above, along with some other problems such as why
> >this advanced civilization didn't dominate the less advanced
> >civilizations such as the Egyptians, the existence of a higher
> >civilization that taught the Egyptians their culture is a textbook
> >illustration of a situation in which "absence of evidence..." cannot be
> >applied to argue that the "incomers" existed.
>
> I have never claimed that an absence of evidence argued in favour of the
> "incomers" existence.
Haven't you been explaining "why" we haven't found artificats, and then
arguing that merely because we haven't found any yet, this doesn't mean
that the "incomers" didn't exist and doesn't mean that they weren't
technically advanced? If not, then what exactly _have_ you been
arguing?
> >> There is no intrinsic reason why the original story of the Edfu Texts
> could
> >> not be eyewitness testimony by the incomers. Which does not of course
> prove
> >> that it was.
> >
> >ROTFL.
> >If there is no proof one way or the other that the original story of the
> >Edfu Texts represents something that _really_ happened, or is even a
> >distortion of some event that _really_ happened, on what basis do you
> >argue from these texts that there was an advanced civilization that
> >taught the Egyptians their culture?
>
> Taking the text at face value is simply one of several possible approaches
> to the text.
But it doesn't outweigh any of the other approaches. And again, given
that the "coventional" explanation for the development of Egyptian
civilization is supported, in the opinion of the professionals in the
field, by abundant evidence, we can't even say that this possible is
even of equal weight with the other approaches.
> >Saying that the story _could_ be
> >true is just meaningless.
>
> Only to a post-modernist. To anyone else it would suggest the value of furt
> her archaeology.
Even in light of the fact that it is a very unlikely possibility that
the story could be true? Why? And once again, I believe in one
reality, and that a fact is a fact, from any point of view. Saying that
something "could" be true doesn't establish it as a fact, or even as a
likely possibility. If it's an unlikely possibility, then it has little
meaning. I'm not a post-modernist.
> >Anything _could_ have happened.
> >Egyptologists, however, seem to feel that Egyptian civilization does not
> >need the "incomers" to have created it. I suspect that they support
> >their feelings with evidence.
>
> What is your evidence for this last assertion?
I'm not an Egyptologist. But are you asserting that the classical
theory of the beginnings of Egyptian civilization are not supported by
hard evidence such as texts and artifacts? For example, is there no
evidence that the capability of building pyramids evolved beginning with
stepped pyramids, moving along to pyramids that were not "well done" and
that had to have their slopes radically changed during construction, and
finally resulting in the building of the Great Pyramid? Why do we need
to postulate the "incomers" to explain that the Egyptians were given the
technology to build the Great Pyramid by an advanced civilization?
> >It's your burden to show either that
> >there was such a civilization, or why explain why your position that
> >there _could_ have been such a civilization is more likely than the
> >accepted story of how Egyptian civilization developed.
>
> I agree.
Steve Marcus
>
> Alex Green wrote:
> >
> > Steve Marcus wrote in message <369D91...@erols.com>...
> > >Alex Green wrote:
> > >> I am not arguing from absence of evidence. You are.
> > >
> > >ROTFL.
> > >
> > >_You_ are the one who has been arguing that merely because we've found
> > >no artifacts from the "incomers", no remains of any "technolgically
> > >advanced" devices out of place for ancient Egypt, no infrastructure to
> > >support the civilization of these "incomers", this does not constitute
> > >evidence that the "incomers" didn't exist. I'm the one who has been
> > >arguing that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" should
> > >_not_ be applied to situations in which the asserted conclusion is
> > >highly improbable.
> >
> > So you are arguing that absence of evidence _is_ evidence of absence.
>
> No. Please go back and re-read the article from "Skeptical Inquirer on
> "absence of evidence...". I am arguing that "absence of evidence..." is
> not a magic incantation that can be pulled out of the hat to argue that
> _every_ thing that one asserts without any supporting evidence is
> _possible_. I am arguing that certain propositions, supported by "some"
> reasonable logic and for which no other reasonable explanation exists
> may well be _possible_ even if no hard evidence has not been found.
Sorry about that, Alex. The last sentence should conclude with "even if
no hard evidence has been found".
<snip>
Petteri Sulonen
<alex...@enterprise.net> wrote:
ely it's as likely that the quoted text is part of a "myth" of some
> >sort rather than a statement of history (apparently as Hancock et al
> >would have it).
>
>
> You seem very confident that you can tell the difference between myth (by
> which you mean just a story) and history.
>
> Respected archaeologists took the same position with regard to Mycenaeans
> and Hittites.
Yeah, but other respected archeologists eventually dug up evidence
attesting to the reality of these peoples. If you have something that
looks like a myth, walks like a myth, and quacks like a myth, the standard
practice is to consider it's a myth unless evidence to the contrary shows
up (in primary or secondary sources).
This *certainly* when accepting said myth as being 'true' would require
revising entire large bodies of knowledge regarding the development of
science, technology and civilization and such.
-- Petteri
--
"I don't deny God, it's just that I don't know if He created
Man, or Man created Him."
-- Ivan Karamazov, in Dostoevsky's /The Brothers Karamazov/
Petteri Sulonen
> _You_ are the one who has been arguing that merely because we've found
> no artifacts from the "incomers", no remains of any "technolgically
> advanced" devices out of place for ancient Egypt, no infrastructure to
> support the civilization of these "incomers", this does not constitute
> evidence that the "incomers" didn't exist. I'm the one who has been
> arguing that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" should
> _not_ be applied to situations in which the asserted conclusion is
> highly improbable. And I've been arguing that given the total lack of
> evidence as described above, along with some other problems such as why
> this advanced civilization didn't dominate the less advanced
> civilizations such as the Egyptians, the existence of a higher
> civilization that taught the Egyptians their culture is a textbook
> illustration of a situation in which "absence of evidence..." cannot be
> applied to argue that the "incomers" existed.
Especially as there is a very nice trail of archeological evidence about
the development of Egyptian culture from pre-dynastic times onward. If
you're ever in Paris, I highly recommend the Egyptian section of the
Louvre; Napoleon relocated most of the good stuff from Egypt there, the
lousy robber that he was.
They did do some quite amazing stuff a very, very long time ago -- like
grinding a thin, tall 'vase' out of extremely hard rock. No nukes needed
for that, though -- just quartz sand, a pestle made out of rock, and
nearly endless patience. For all of which there is more than enough of
evidence!
David Grayshan
Does the reference below help?
http://atlantisrising.com/issue14/ar14search.html
David Grayshan.
Steve Marcus wrote:
> (SNIP)
> On the other hand, there is virtually nothing that's been offered to
> support the existence of this mysterious technically advanced
> civilization which taught the Egyptians. Given that we would expect an
> advanced civilization to be very widespread, given that we would expect
> to find plenty of artificats from such a civilization, as well as an
> extensive infrastructure to support the technology and haven't, given
> that there are precious few contemporary writings from the Egyptians
> that even allude to such civilization, and none that come right out and
> state that there was such a civilization without necessitating some
> "interpretation" on the part of the reader to conclude that the writings
> are discussing actual beings and actual events, and given that there are
> other and much simpler explanations for the beginnings of Egyptian
> civilization which are supported by evidence, the absence of evidence
> for the advanced civilization leaves only the most remote possibility
> that there was such a civilization.
>
(SNIP)
David Grayshan
proposing a theory as to how they were produced. You might be wrong. As I
have been posting recently there ARE anomolous artifacts that are highly
suggestive of an ancient science more advanced than we suspect today. Of
course, this too is just a theory and I could be wrong.
Regards,
David.
Petteri Sulonen wrote:
> In article <369D91...@erols.com>, barbm...@erols.com wrote:
>
> > _You_ are the one who has been arguing that merely because we've found
> > no artifacts from the "incomers", no remains of any "technolgically
> > advanced" devices out of place for ancient Egypt, no infrastructure to
> > support the civilization of these "incomers", this does not constitute
> > evidence that the "incomers" didn't exist. I'm the one who has been
> > arguing that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" should
> > _not_ be applied to situations in which the asserted conclusion is
> > highly improbable. And I've been arguing that given the total lack of
> > evidence as described above, along with some other problems such as why
> > this advanced civilization didn't dominate the less advanced
> > civilizations such as the Egyptians, the existence of a higher
> > civilization that taught the Egyptians their culture is a textbook
> > illustration of a situation in which "absence of evidence..." cannot be
> > applied to argue that the "incomers" existed.
>
Steve Marcus
>
> Hi Steve,
>
> Does the reference below help?
>
> http://atlantisrising.com/issue14/ar14search.html
>
> David Grayshan.
>
> Steve Marcus wrote:
>
> > (SNIP)
>
> > support the existence of this mysterious technically advanced
> > civilization which taught the Egyptians. Given that we would expect an
> > advanced civilization to be very widespread, given that we would expect
> > to find plenty of artificats from such a civilization, as well as an
> > extensive infrastructure to support the technology and haven't, given
> > that there are precious few contemporary writings from the Egyptians
> > that even allude to such civilization, and none that come right out and
> > state that there was such a civilization without necessitating some
> > "interpretation" on the part of the reader to conclude that the writings
> > are discussing actual beings and actual events, and given that there are
> > other and much simpler explanations for the beginnings of Egyptian
> > civilization which are supported by evidence, the absence of evidence
> > for the advanced civilization leaves only the most remote possibility
> > that there was such a civilization.
> >
>
Hello David,
Thanks for the article. But it only helps in the sense that it supports
my position, and undercuts yours.
The article, when read carefully, contains lots of "maybe", "perhaps",
"needs more investigation", etc. And nothing in the article offers any
proof that Khemet was a technologically advanced civilization or not
simply part of known Egyptian civilization.
What it boils down to is that they found a few potsherds, which they
haven't dated and for which they haven't established an origin. These
potsherds could be from the "conventionally known" dynastic Egyptian
civilizations, or from the immediate percursor of known dynastic
Egyptian civilization, rather than from some mysterious technically
advanced civilization. They found some stone remains that could be an
aqueduct, which they describe as having "the distinctive megalithic,
cyclopean block style evident on the Giza Plateau", (which to me means
that the blocks are similar to the sort of stone remains already known
on the Giza plateau). In a marvel of linguistic legerdemain, they then
immediately speculate that the blocks may represent some unknown
civilization.
They found didn't find the entrance on the southern face of the Great
pyramid, nor any of the "fabulous technology" supposedly hidden in the
underground chambers. That's okay, they say, it _might_ still be there.
As to the coventional origins of dynastic Egypt, and whether "the
Mediterranean flowing into the Nile", is the reason for the fertility of
the Nile Delta, I'm no expert. It's not my mission to offer specific
points from the known body of knowledge about ancient Egypt, and the
Great Pyramid specifically, to rebut this sort of speculation (I would
have to go the library and research the standard texts). Perhaps some
of those learned in Egyptology and/or archaeology might undertake to do
so. My point is simple that there _is_ that body of conventional
knowledge, which _is_ supported by a body of evidence. Against that,
you, and articles such as the one you've cited, offer nothing except
rampant speculation. Again, my original post to you was simply that you
shouldn't be surprised that people following a sci newsgroup get upset
when such speculation is offered as though it represented a scientific
viewpoint.
The bit about the Mayan temple is precious, though. Kept me chuckling
for about ten minutes. Thanks again.
Doug Weller
01:25:23 -0000, alex...@enterprise.net said...
[SNIP
> In any place that was covered by a glacier, everything would be ground down
> fine and then washed away by the meltwater.
Not quite. It's possible/likely some stuff underground might survive. And
glaciers weren't sudden events. In any case, a lot of areas were not covered
by glaciers, and you'd expect to find evidence of trade at least, colonies,
etc.
alex...@enterprise.net
Steve Marcus (barbm...@erols.com) wrote:
> Alex Green wrote:
> >
> > Steve Marcus wrote in message <369D91...@erols.com>...
> > >arguing that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" should
> > >_not_ be applied to situations in which the asserted conclusion is
> > >highly improbable.
> >
> > So you are arguing that absence of evidence _is_ evidence of absence.
>
> No. Please go back and re-read the article from "Skeptical Inquirer on
> "absence of evidence...". I am arguing that "absence of evidence..." is
> not a magic incantation that can be pulled out of the hat to argue that
> _every_ thing that one asserts without any supporting evidence is
> _possible_.
'Possible' comes from Latin and means 'it can (or could) be done'
No degree of likelihood is implied.
> On the other hand, there is virtually nothing that's been offered to
> support the existence of this mysterious technically advanced
> civilization which taught the Egyptians. Given that we would expect an
> advanced civilization to be very widespread, given that we would expect
> to find plenty of artificats from such a civilization, as well as an
> extensive infrastructure to support the technology and haven't, given
> that there are precious few contemporary writings from the Egyptians
> that even allude to such civilization, and none that come right out and
> state that there was such a civilization without necessitating some
> "interpretation" on the part of the reader to conclude that the writings
> are discussing actual beings and actual events, and given that there are
> other and much simpler explanations for the beginnings of Egyptian
> civilization which are supported by evidence, the absence of evidence
> for the advanced civilization leaves only the most remote possibility
> that there was such a civilization.
The fact that the ancient Egyptians buried large ocean-going boats of
excellent design, and yet show no sign of developing them themselves is
curious.
If they had contact at an early stage with a maritime civilisation, this
civilisation would have had colonies and trading posts mainly on the coasts
or on fertile river deltas. These are precisely the areas which have been
flooded by the subsequent rise in sea level.
> > I have never claimed that an absence of evidence argued in favour of the
> > "incomers" existence.
>
> Haven't you been explaining "why" we haven't found artificats, and then
> arguing that merely because we haven't found any yet, this doesn't mean
> that the "incomers" didn't exist and doesn't mean that they weren't
> technically advanced? If not, then what exactly _have_ you been
> arguing?
Try reading my posts. I have been arguing _against_ your cavalier dismissal
of something which is entirely possible. The fact that the whole idea of a
precursor civilisation has been hyped and exaggerated does _not_ make the
existence of an earlier civilisation impossible.
> > >Anything _could_ have happened.
> > >Egyptologists, however, seem to feel that Egyptian civilization does not
> > >need the "incomers" to have created it. I suspect that they support
> > >their feelings with evidence.
> >
> > What is your evidence for this last assertion?
>
> I'm not an Egyptologist. But are you asserting that the classical
> theory of the beginnings of Egyptian civilization are not supported by
> hard evidence such as texts and artifacts? For example, is there no
> evidence that the capability of building pyramids evolved beginning with
> stepped pyramids, moving along to pyramids that were not "well done" and
> that had to have their slopes radically changed during construction, and
> finally resulting in the building of the Great Pyramid? Why do we need
> to postulate the "incomers" to explain that the Egyptians were given the
> technology to build the Great Pyramid by an advanced civilization?
Unfortunately for your point of view, Egyptian archaeology was not begun with
the kind of rigour that is now required. Much of the early work (including
the dating) is ready for review.
Sincerely,
Alex Green
Ars artis est celare artem
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Alex Green
>Especially as there is a very nice trail of archeological evidence about
>the development of Egyptian culture from pre-dynastic times onward. If
>you're ever in Paris, I highly recommend the Egyptian section of the
>Louvre; Napoleon relocated most of the good stuff from Egypt there, the
>lousy robber that he was.
Been there .... Seen that ... (You're exaggerating of course)
Alex Green
>attesting to the reality of these peoples. If you have something that
>looks like a myth, walks like a myth, and quacks like a myth, the standard
>practice is to consider it's a myth unless evidence to the contrary shows
>up (in primary or secondary sources).
I think you mean 'vilified' rather than 'respected'.
>This *certainly* when accepting said myth as being 'true' would require
>revising entire large bodies of knowledge regarding the development of
>science, technology and civilization and such.
It looks as though a substantial revision is now in order:
In article <MPG.1103306ac...@news.demon.co.uk>,
dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Doug Weller) wrote:
> BAR International Series 379 (ii), 1987, Chronologies in the Near East, ed
> Olivier Aurenche, Jacque Evin, Francis Hours, Part ii., Radiocarbon
Chronology
> and the Historical Calendar in Egypt, Haas, Devine, Wenke, Lehner, Wolfli
and
> Bonani.
>
> 12 pyramids, 4 mortuary temples, 1 tomb. Dating charcoal, wood, straw,
grass.
> A lot of this was in the gypsum mortar used, plus eg unburnt reeds from
> mudbrick walls in some pyramid complexes, wood from beams in Djoser's step
> pyramid.
>
> Looks as though dates should be pushed back almost 4 centuries. The
monuments
> and the Kings!
Alex Green
>In article <1Ibn2.63$c72...@news.enterprise.net>, on Thu, 14 Jan 1999
>01:25:23 -0000, alex...@enterprise.net said...
>[SNIP
>
down
>> fine and then washed away by the meltwater.
>
>glaciers weren't sudden events. In any case, a lot of areas were not
covered
>by glaciers, and you'd expect to find evidence of trade at least, colonies,
>etc.
I would be interested to hear of any archaeology that has survived
glaciation.
If we are discussing a maritime civilisation (which seems to be the
front-runner because the ancient Egyptians buried such excellent ocean-going
boats) then any colonies and trading posts would mostly be on the coast or
on fertile river deltas. These are precisely the areas which were
subsequently flooded by the rising sea level.
Petteri Sulonen
<dgra...@tschan-partner.com> wrote:
> You state how they made these vases as if you know. You do not know: you are
> proposing a theory as to how they were produced. You might be wrong. As I
> have been posting recently there ARE anomolous artifacts that are highly
> suggestive of an ancient science more advanced than we suspect today. Of
> course, this too is just a theory and I could be wrong.
Of course it's a theory. But since they _could_ have been produced with
neolithic technology and there's no evidence of any other variety of
technology around, I find it reasonable to assume that in fact they _were_
produced with neolithic technology.
Why, for example, haven't we found, say, a single scrap of stainless steel
or some other alloy that could easily be produced by modern metallurgy but
not by the ancient kind? How come the supposed 'advanced technology'
hasn't left behind so much as a piece of kitchenware?
David Grayshan
intellectually but for which the delivery of "hard" proof is not yet achieved
(and, of course, might never be, is it is an incorrect theory!).
However: as far as I know, there are a LOT of the vase objects now known, and
heaven knows how many remain unrediscovered.
How many man-hours of work, performed as you suggest, would have been involved in
their production? Would this have been economically feasible? And what sort of
work-rate would be necessary? After all, it seems highly unlikely that, say, 1/3
rd. of the local population was engaged in the production of these vases?
They are the work of exceedingly skilled craftspeople (note the PC, there) and
some of the necks on some of the specimens of which I have seen photographs are
seemingly IMPOSSIBLE to use as an access point to the interior for further
grinding.
Also I have never seen one in real life but I understand that these interiors are
absolutely perfec tly smooth and symmetrical, though I would be happy to be
corrected if this information was misleading.
So sorry, really, but your explanation reads to me like an unfounded dismissal
rather than reasoned consideration.
I would be delighted to hear from any real expert, one active in the field of
engineering.
I am thinking of people like Maguirre and Dunn, expert engineers in their
respective fields, who have taken a look at these and other artifacts and have
come out with more and less radical explanations of just how the Egyptians
(Khemitians?) achieved these results.
Regards,
David.
Petteri Sulonen
<alex...@enterprise.net> wrote:
> Petteri Sulonen wrote in message ...
> >Yeah, but other respected archeologists eventually dug up evidence
> >attesting to the reality of these peoples. If you have something that
> >looks like a myth, walks like a myth, and quacks like a myth, the standard
> >practice is to consider it's a myth unless evidence to the contrary shows
> >up (in primary or secondary sources).
>
> I think you mean 'vilified' rather than 'respected'.
Uh... what?
I'm sorry, but I don't follow you at all (except that you seem to disagree
with my post). You are aware that the 'peoples' referred to in my post are
the Hittites etc., who were regarded as mythological until evidence of
their existence turned up.
> >This *certainly* when accepting said myth as being 'true' would require
> >revising entire large bodies of knowledge regarding the development of
> >science, technology and civilization and such.
>
>
> It looks as though a substantial revision is now in order:
I'm not talking a four-century revision in chronology. The original thread
was about the 'hypothesis' that Egyptian civilization was in fact 'taught'
to the Egyptians by an older, technological civilization of possibly
extraterrestial origin. Evidence for *such* a civilization would pretty
much overturn everything we currently think we know about the ancient
world and the origins of civilizations.
Cheers,
-- Petteri
> In article <MPG.1103306ac...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Doug Weller) wrote:
> > BAR International Series 379 (ii), 1987, Chronologies in the Near East, ed
> > Olivier Aurenche, Jacque Evin, Francis Hours, Part ii., Radiocarbon
> Chronology
> > and the Historical Calendar in Egypt, Haas, Devine, Wenke, Lehner, Wolfli
> and
> > Bonani.
> >
> > 12 pyramids, 4 mortuary temples, 1 tomb. Dating charcoal, wood, straw,
> grass.
> > A lot of this was in the gypsum mortar used, plus eg unburnt reeds from
> > mudbrick walls in some pyramid complexes, wood from beams in Djoser's step
> > pyramid.
> >
> > Looks as though dates should be pushed back almost 4 centuries. The
> monuments
> > and the Kings!
--
Petteri Sulonen
> The fact that the ancient Egyptians buried large ocean-going boats of
> excellent design, and yet show no sign of developing them themselves is
> curious.
I'm sorry, but I'm unfamiliar with such research. Would you care to cite a
source?
-- Petteri
Alex Green
>In article <jYPn2.28$RO2...@news.enterprise.net>, "Alex Green"
><alex...@enterprise.net> wrote:
>
>> Petteri Sulonen wrote in message ...
>> >Yeah, but other respected archeologists eventually dug up evidence
>> >attesting to the reality of these peoples. If you have something that
>> >looks like a myth, walks like a myth, and quacks like a myth, the
standard
>> >practice is to consider it's a myth unless evidence to the contrary
shows
>> >up (in primary or secondary sources).
>>
>> I think you mean 'vilified' rather than 'respected'.
>
>Uh... what?
vilified: reviled with abusive or defamatory language
>> It looks as though a substantial revision is now in order:
>
>I'm not talking a four-century revision in chronology. The original thread
>was about the 'hypothesis' that Egyptian civilization was in fact 'taught'
>to the Egyptians by an older, technological civilization of possibly
>extraterrestial origin. Evidence for *such* a civilization would pretty
>much overturn everything we currently think we know about the ancient
>world and the origins of civilizations.
The nature of this suggested earlier civilisation has been hyped and
exaggerated. The only technologies required of them are building large
ocean-going boats, ocean navigation, astronomy and building accurately with
stone.
billy_...@hotmail.com
>The nature of this suggested earlier civilisation has been hyped and
>exaggerated. The only technologies required of them are building large
>ocean-going boats, ocean navigation, astronomy and building accurately with
>stone.
>
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Alex Green
Yes, but 'building accurately with stone' includes feats of incredible
skill. In some cases, skills that we do not possess today. The diorite
vases are an example of this. Carved out of single blocks with slender
fluted necks.
The 'sarcophagus' in the kings chamber is another example. Carved out
of a single block of granite to a high degree of accuracy.
I feel a lot of questions remain unanswered. The trouble is, the
attitude of Egyptologists seems to be to ignore anything that could
contradict the accepted current history. Its about time they started
to look at the whole subject objectively.
Regards
Billy
'A man with a new idea is a crank
until he succeeds'
Mark Twain
twi...@worldnet.att.net
>
>>The nature of this suggested earlier civilisation has been hyped and
>>exaggerated. The only technologies required of them are building large
>>ocean-going boats, ocean navigation, astronomy and building accurately with
>>stone.
>>
>>
>>Sincerely,
>>
>>Alex Green
>
>Yes, but 'building accurately with stone' includes feats of incredible
>skill.
Incredible = beyond credibility.
>In some cases, skills that we do not possess today. <snip>
So?
The ancients used to shave with bronze razors.
We don't have the technology to put that kind of edge on
bronze today.
Skills that we do not possess today are usually lost because
we don't need them.
"It is always the best policy to tell the truth, unless
of course, you are an exceptionally good liar."
(Jerome K. Jerome)
g...@galaxycom.net.nz
twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> billy_...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> >>The nature of this suggested earlier civilisation has been hyped and
> >>exaggerated. The only technologies required of them are building large
> >>ocean-going boats, ocean navigation, astronomy and building accurately with
> >>stone.
> >>
> >>
> >>Sincerely,
> >>
> >>Alex Green
> >
> >Yes, but 'building accurately with stone' includes feats of incredible
> >skill.
>
> Incredible = beyond credibility.
If the 'accuracy' used in building the Pyramids was used today in modern
buildings they wouldn't pass any building codes existing.
> >In some cases, skills that we do not possess today. <snip>
>
> So?
>
> The ancients used to shave with bronze razors.
They used to shave with sea shells also :-)))
> We don't have the technology to put that kind of edge on
> bronze today.
Or need it.
> Skills that we do not possess today are usually lost because
> we don't need them.
True. Very true.
George Black
Alex Green
wrote:
>
>> The fact that the ancient Egyptians buried large ocean-going boats of
>> excellent design, and yet show no sign of developing them themselves is
>> curious.
>
>I'm sorry, but I'm unfamiliar with such research. Would you care to cite a
>source?
Boat Graves and Pyramid Origins: New Discoveries at Abydos, Egypt by David
O'Connor
Expedition, 33.3: 5-17.
http://www.upenn.edu/museum/Zine/expedition33.3.html
O辰onnor, D. The Earliest Royal Boat Graves - Egyptian Archaeology 6,3
http://masca.museum.upenn.edu/foresight/AbydosPict.html
There were two boats buried on the south side of the Great Pyramid. One of
them (140 ft long and built of cedar wood) is now in the Boat Museum there.
Cheryl Haldane Ward has written a lot of papers on the subject
http://www.adventurecorps.com/cwardcv.html
Also see 'The Nautical Heritage of Egypt' in her article
http://www.adventurecorps.com/egyptpotential.html
There are very early egyptian wall paintings of ships in the Cairo museum .
Petteri Sulonen
<dgra...@tschan-partner.com> wrote:
> To be honest, I do not know. I am wrestling with an idea that appeals
> intellectually but for which the delivery of "hard" proof is not yet achieved
> (and, of course, might never be, is it is an incorrect theory!).
>
> However: as far as I know, there are a LOT of the vase objects now known, and
> heaven knows how many remain unrediscovered.
>
> How many man-hours of work, performed as you suggest, would have been
involved in
> their production? Would this have been economically feasible? And what sort of
> work-rate would be necessary? After all, it seems highly unlikely that,
say, 1/3
> rd. of the local population was engaged in the production of these vases?
I'm not an Egyptologist, so I don't have any exact figures. However, does
the following line of reasoning point towards an answer?
Suppose it took 1 craftsman 10 years to make 1 vase. Suppose the
population of pre-dynastic Egypt was 100,000 people. Suppose that 1 out of
1000 was engaged in producing said vases. That would make 100 people
making the vases at a time. This would mean that 10 vases would be
produced per year. According to my Times Atlas of World History, the
neolithic/pre-dynastic period lasted about 3000 years. This would produce
30,000 vases in toto. Is this enough for you?
(Except for the time, the numbers are off the top of my head, but you can
adjust any of them down with up to a factor of 100 and my point still
holds (300 vases still being "a lot" as ancient artifacts go). And at
least some of the numbers, I believe, will turn out to be low estimates.)
As to the economic feasibility, it's obvious that these vases were a
luxury commodity, I'd surmise, connected either with religion or with
'royalty' (whatever that may mean given the context). Is the production of
carpets measuring 5 by 3 meters, totalling 1,000,000 knots per square
meter economically feasible? How about the construction of Aston Martin
automobiles?
> They are the work of exceedingly skilled craftspeople (note the PC, there) and
> some of the necks on some of the specimens of which I have seen
photographs are
> seemingly IMPOSSIBLE to use as an access point to the interior for further
> grinding.
The skill of Egyption craftsmen (hee hee, I prefer going with the
convention; PC people can substitute the feminine equivalent where needed)
is certainly not open to question. No other neolithic people came close to
mastering the art of working hard stone like they did. Just look at e.g.
the sarcophagi, statuary etc. in basalt and granite!
> Also I have never seen one in real life but I understand that these
interiors are
> absolutely perfec tly smooth and symmetrical, though I would be happy to be
> corrected if this information was misleading.
I have seen the vases in real life, and I assure you that they were
extremely symmetrical (although the inside was pretty dark). Although I
did get the feeling that the final finish and perfection of form wasn't
quite as good as that of later work in similar stones (the statuary and
such that I mentioned above).
> So sorry, really, but your explanation reads to me like an unfounded dismissal
> rather than reasoned consideration.
Actually, I used to believe in this kind of stuff. I was eleven years old
at the time. I've been "reasoning" about it pretty much ever since.
"Calculations" like the one above are one example of how it's done. You
don't actually have to run to the library or talk to an expert to assess
the validity of _every_ claim.
This may sound like a cliché and corny, but at least for me it is nothing
but the truth: there is literally nothing I'd like more than the knowledge
that we are or were in fact visited by intelligent extraterrestrials. I'd
*love* it if Atlantis was found. If the opportunity presented itself, I
would be pushing and shoving for all I'm worth to get on that flying
saucer. Unfortunately I haven't seen anything yet that is anywhere near
'evidence' of that: all of the phenomena, stories, and surmises that I've
heard and read about seem to fall into the area that folkloristics
investigates, rather than the natural sciences. The fact that there isn't
a single scrap of "hard" evidence found anywhere has caused me to
effectively abandon hope about this. Please, O please somebody prove me
wrong!
> I would be delighted to hear from any real expert, one active in the field of
> engineering.
>
> I am thinking of people like Maguirre and Dunn, expert engineers in their
> respective fields, who have taken a look at these and other artifacts and have
> come out with more and less radical explanations of just how the Egyptians
> (Khemitians?) achieved these results.
Me too. This is an interesting topic.
David Grayshan
are of course still numerous conservatives among them - bound to be - but
several names have been bandied about in this and other NG's recently within
contexts that encourage an optimistic view, especially about cross-disciplinary
co-operation.
Mind you, despite Doug Weller's sanguine view about the potential shock to
Egyptology I still think that moving the dates of whole tranches of Pharoes back
400 years will give 'em problems, if only because they were so assertive about
the dates now due for revision. I mean, how embarrasing.....
billy_...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >The nature of this suggested earlier civilisation has been hyped and
> >exaggerated. The only technologies required of them are building large
> >ocean-going boats, ocean navigation, astronomy and building accurately with
> >stone.
> >
> >
> >Sincerely,
> >
> >Alex Green
>
> Yes, but 'building accurately with stone' includes feats of incredible
Petteri Sulonen
<alex...@enterprise.net> wrote:
> vilified: reviled with abusive or defamatory language
Yes, I know what vilified means. I just don't know what you're referring to.
> >> It looks as though a substantial revision is now in order:
> >
> >I'm not talking a four-century revision in chronology. The original thread
> >was about the 'hypothesis' that Egyptian civilization was in fact 'taught'
> >to the Egyptians by an older, technological civilization of possibly
> >extraterrestial origin. Evidence for *such* a civilization would pretty
> >much overturn everything we currently think we know about the ancient
> >world and the origins of civilizations.
>
>
> The nature of this suggested earlier civilisation has been hyped and
> exaggerated. The only technologies required of them are building large
> ocean-going boats, ocean navigation, astronomy and building accurately with
> stone.
Sounds interesting, and not unreasonable. Since I don't know jack shit
about this, I won't say any more.
Cheers,
Doug Weller
10:24:18 +0100, dgra...@tschan-partner.com said...
>
> I am thinking of people like Maguirre and Dunn, expert engineers in their
> respective fields, who have taken a look at these and other artifacts and have
> come out with more and less radical explanations of just how the Egyptians
> (Khemitians?) achieved these results.
>
>
Do you really think this is credible?
Doug Weller
14:47:43 -0000, alex...@enterprise.net said...
>
> The nature of this suggested earlier civilisation has been hyped and
> exaggerated. The only technologies required of them are building large
> ocean-going boats, ocean navigation, astronomy and building accurately with
> stone.
>
>
Doug Weller
10:22:50 +0100, dgra...@tschan-partner.com said...
>
> Mind you, despite Doug Weller's sanguine view about the potential shock to
> Egyptology I still think that moving the dates of whole tranches of Pharoes back
> 400 years will give 'em problems, if only because they were so assertive about
> the dates now due for revision. I mean, how embarrasing.....
>
>
an establishment Egyptologist, is one of those involved in the first survey
which produced these dats. Ditto for others.
DEREK HILL
My own view is that we judge these marvellous items by the standards of our
own
society.
Some claim it is ridiculous to suggest that ancient people would invest so
much
time and effort in creating mere jars. They claim this because in our own
day and age we don't see
the same amount of effort invested in apparantly everyday objects.
Well, in three thousand years time perhaps someone will find a buried "Patek
Phillipe" and come to the same conclusion. We cannot rule out that such jars
did not carry the same social cachet as the P.P.
Am I mistaken in my belief that the effort invested in creation is relative
to the society in which the product
is used? I cannot comprehend that my local architectural wonder, Durham
cathedral, was conceived and built over a period of HUNDREDS of years,using
dark ages technology and at staggering financial and human cost.
Who, in this day and age would even contemplate proposing such a project?
And yet built it most definitely was and many others like it. And why?
Because it was central to the society of the time, that society, to some
degree, organised itself to accomodate the building of these wonders.
Cathedrals, food and war, probably in that order.
I believe that the same mechanism was at work in ancient Eygypt, the society
was organised with building of the pyramids and other monuments as a major
priority.
And come to think of it, what exactly is so remarkable about the sarcophagi
of the Egyptians?
I have seen examples of these in the British Museum and I confess that the
workmanship is breathtaking,(though not without its defects)
but nothing that I saw caused me to consider anything other that great skill
and dedication on behalf of the carver. and I certainly cannot see where an
"advanced technology" would be of use.
Either the technology in question would speed up the craftsmen's work (but
still rely on his skill for the outcome)
In which case this guy is going to be knocking them out for every Tom, Dick
and mustapha and the end product is devalued, also, Do we find these
magnificent works all over the place?
Or perhaps it assists the mason in the execution of his work, in which case,
why are there still defects in the
objects created?
I don't know, my own view is that we are looking at the skilled work of a
master craftsman, no other explanation needed.
Consider, one single sarcophagus could be the life's work of a supremely
talented mason, we think
it strange because we cannot imagine anyone doing the same today but then,
we live in different times, swatch watches and fibreboard
wardrobes........our values are skewed slightly.
Bottom line. Any society, using only techniques and materials available to
the Egyptians could build their very own Great Pyramid. Providing of course
that they had the money, personnel and a hundred years to play with.
It's just that the monument produced would need to be VERY, VERY important
indeed.
End of slobbering drivel..............
Petteri Sulonen wrote in message ...
>In article <36A05AC1...@tschan-partner.com>, David Grayshan
><dgra...@tschan-partner.com> wrote:
>
>> To be honest, I do not know. I am wrestling with an idea that appeals
>> intellectually but for which the delivery of "hard" proof is not yet
achieved
>> (and, of course, might never be, is it is an incorrect theory!).
>>
>> However: as far as I know, there are a LOT of the vase objects now known,
and
>> heaven knows how many remain unrediscovered.
----------------------snipped for brevity--------------------------
David Grayshan
correct:
The nuumber of inhabitants, and
The proportion of crafts(ahem)persons
but your reasoning is that one vase could fetch enough money to pay the
crafts(alright then)man for ten years of full-time labour? Sorry, I'm (still) not
convinced. (But: I am a Yorkshireman, they are even more stubborn than the Finns).
How many hugely rich families did such a society support? Not as many,
proportionally, as ours does, I suspect, because of the vastly greater need for
manual labour then. So I am not convinced that there were enough vastly rich
sponsors to support the figures and proportions you propose. What we need here is a
Historical Sociologist who can give some kind of estimates at to these proportions
in an artisanal society. This would be a branch of Archaeology, wouldn't it?
For the rest: you read too much into my mental wanderings. I think that an
"Atlantis" scenario is a romantic but currently untenable concept: "untenable"
because every time somebody comes along with something that looks like a convincing
integrated case, somebody else (like Paul Heinrich) provides alternative
explanations for their basic facts that fit in with current theory, and we're back
at square one. I really thought for a while that Hancock had done it, but no, there
are too many holes and misapprehensions in FOG. Mind you, he still raises some
points in that book that have not been refuted, especially those concerning the old
myths.
But: this "untenable" characterisation could change, one day.
As to the UFO explanation, that's for the birds. I read Alfords "Gods of the New
Millennium" as a piece of science-fiction, no more than that. Mind you, even he
raises some anomolies about human evolution that are still unexplained within
current theory.
So, no, I don't adhere to youthful dreams. Neither do you, I understand: but coming
from the background you do I can feel how you would have a natural affinity with
myths and legends. There was even a painter who understood The Kalevala so well that
his paintings can cause a temporary suspension of disbelief (I am myself a complete
Akseli fan) and you can actually feel that it must have been so, for a while.
Then there are some other anomolies which are relevant and partially fit into
subjects already discussed.
I refer to a posting from correspondent Christer, a Swedish gentleman of this NG's
acquaintance, with whose conclusions you do not have to agree to understand that he,
too, has traced some anomolies (he supplies references, I have not verified them, I
take them on trust unless somebody of repute can refute them). I apologise for their
length.
"But there is testimony from all parts of the world that the side which is now
turned toward the evening once faced the morning.
In the second book of his history, Herodotus relates his conversations
with Egyptian priests on his visit to Egypt some time during the
second half of the fifth century before the present era. The priests
asserted that within historical ages and since Egypt become a kingdom,
" four times in this period (so they told me) the sun rose contrary to
his wont; twice he rose were he now sets, and twice he set where he
now rises"(1)
The Magical Papyrus Harris speaks of a cosmic upheaval of fire and
water when " the south becomes north, and the Earth turns over."(2)
In the Papyrus Ipuwer it is similarly stated that "the land turns
round (over) as does a potter´s wheel" and the " Earth turned upside
down."(3)
The texts found in the pyramids say that the luminary "ceased to live
in the occident, and shines, a new one, in the orient".(4)
In the tomb of Senmut, the architect of Queen Hatshepsut, a panel on
the ceiling shows the celestial sphere with the signs of the zodiac
and other constellations in "a reversed orientation" of the southern
sky.(5) The center of this panel is occupied by the Orion-Sirius
group, in which orion appears west of Sirius instead of east. "The
orientation of the southern panel is such that the person in the tomb
looking at it has to lift his head and face north, not south." " With
the reversed orientation of the south panel , Orion, the most
conspicuous constellation of the southern sky, appeared to be moving
eastward, i.e., in the wrong direction."(6)
Plato wrote in his dialog, "The Statesman" (Politicus): " I mean the
change in the rising and setting of the sun and the other heavenly
bodies, how in those times they used to set in the quarter where they
now rise, and used to rise where they now set... the god at the time
of the quarrel, you recall, changed all that to the present
system as a testimony in favor of Atreus. At certain periods the
universe has it´s present circular motion, and at other periods it
revolves in the reverse direction. Of all
the changes which take place in the heavens this reversal is the
greatest and most complet."(7) The reversal of the movement of the sun
in the sky was not a peaceful event, it was an act of wrath and
destruction. Plato proceeded: "There is at that time great destruction
of animals in general, and only a small part of the human race
survives."(15)
Caius Julius Solinus, a Latin author of the third century wrote of the
people living on the southern borders of Egypt: "The inhabitants of
this country say that they have it from their ancestors that the sun
now sets where it formerly rose."(8)
"The Chines say that it is only since a new order of things has come
about that the stars move from east to west."(9)
In the Syrian city Ugarit (Ras Shamra) was found a poem dedicated to
the planet-godess Anat, who "massacred the population of the Levant"
and who "exchanged the two dawns and the position of the stars."(10)
The hieroglyphics of the Mexicans describe four movements of the sun,
'nahui ollin tonatiuh'. " The Indian authors translate 'ollin' by
'motions of the sun.' When they find the number 'nahui' added, they
render 'nahui ollin' by the words 'sun (tonatiuh) in his four
motions.'"(11) These "four motions" refer to "four prehistoric suns"
or "world ages," with shifting cardinal points.(12)
The Eskimos of Greenland told missionaries that in ancient time the
earth turned over and the people who lived then become antipodes.(13)
The Koran speaks of the Lord "of two easts and two wests"(14)
etc, etc....
<...>
WHEN HUMANS WERE AN ENDANGERED SPECIES
At one point during the last 400,000 years, the human population
worldwide was reduced to only about 10,000 breeding men and
women---the size of a very small town. What caused this population
"bottleneck"? Did a population crash engulf the entire globe. If not,
who was spared?
Such questions arise from a surprising observation: Human DNA is
remarkably uniform everywhere humans are found. This hidden genetic
uniformity is difficult to believe if one strolls through a
cosmopolitan city like New York or Paris. Nevertheless, compared to
the DNA of the great apes, whose mutation rates should be close to
ours, human genes on the average show far fewer mutations. Human DNA
from Tokyo and London is more alike than that from two lowland
gorillas occupying the same forest in West Africa. Harvard
anthropologist M. Ruvolo has commented: "It is a mystery that none of
us can explain."
The clear implication is that humans recently squeezed through a
population bottleneck, during which many accumulated mutations were
wiped out. In a sense, the human race began anew during the last
400,000 years. Unfortunately, DNA analysis cannot say where the very
grim reaper came from. (15)
<...>
References:
(1) Herodotus, Bk. ii, 142 (transl. A. D. Godley, 1921).
(2) H.O.Lange, "Der Magische Papyrus Harris," K. Danske Videnskabernes
Selskab (1927), p.58.
(3) Papyrus Ipuwer 2:8. Cf Lange´s (German) translation of the papyrus
(Sitzungsberichte d. Preuss. Akad. der Wissenschaften (1903), pp.
601-610).
(4) L. Speelers, Les Textes des Pyramides (1923), I.
(5) A. Pogo, "The Astronomical Ceiling Decoration in the Tomb of
Senmut (XVIIIth Dynasty)," Isis (1930), p. 306.
(6) Ibid, pp. 306, 315, 316.
(7) Plato, The Statesman or Politicus (transl. H.N. Fowler, 1925),
pp.49, 53.
(8) Solinus, Polyhistor, xxxii.
(9) Bellamy, Moons, Myths and Man, p. 69.
(10) C. Virolleaud, "La déesse Anat," Mission de Ras Shamra, Vol. IV
(1938).
(11) Humboldt, Researches, I, 351.
(12) Seler, Gesammelte Abhandlungen, II, 799
(13) Olrik, Ragnarök, p 407.
(14) Koran, Sura LV.
(15) Gibbons, Ann; "The Mystery of Humanity's Missing Mutations,"
Science, 267:35, 1995.
Regards,
--
Christer"
There is one other observable phenomenon which might not fit into the Uniformitarian
view of Geology and therefore of Archaeology (in more recent times): bird migration.
Since this is an Archaeology NG I will not go into the little that I have been able
to find out about modern theories concerning migration. Suffice to say that it is
possible (I repeat: only "possible", not "probable") that patterns of modern bird
migration do not fit so well with the Pangea/Uniformitarian model for Geology. If
the evolutionary precursors of modern birds also migrated (quite possible, after
all), then there is no anomoly. But there is no evidence that this is the case (mind
you, evidence will be very hard to find!).
Also, I would be very interested to know if the proposed date for the splitting-off
of Australia in the Pangea model is compatible with the estimated dates of emergence
of the divergent species found there.
Just a few typical rambles, hope you were entertained.
Regards,
David.
Petteri Sulonen wrote:
> In article <36A05AC1...@tschan-partner.com>, David Grayshan
> <dgra...@tschan-partner.com> wrote:
>
> (SNIP)
>
> Suppose it took 1 craftsman 10 years to make 1 vase. Suppose the
> population of pre-dynastic Egypt was 100,000 people. Suppose that 1 out of
> 1000 was engaged in producing said vases. That would make 100 people
> making the vases at a time. This would mean that 10 vases would be
> produced per year. According to my Times Atlas of World History, the
> neolithic/pre-dynastic period lasted about 3000 years. This would produce
> 30,000 vases in toto. Is this enough for you?
>
> (SNIP)
>
> As to the economic feasibility, it's obvious that these vases were a
> luxury commodity, I'd surmise, connected either with religion or with
> 'royalty' (whatever that may mean given the context). Is the production of
> carpets measuring 5 by 3 meters, totalling 1,000,000 knots per square
> meter economically feasible? How about the construction of Aston Martin
> automobiles?
>
> (SNIP)
>
> Actually, I used to believe in this kind of stuff. I was eleven years old
> at the time. I've been "reasoning" about it pretty much ever since.
> "Calculations" like the one above are one example of how it's done. You
> don't actually have to run to the library or talk to an expert to assess
> the validity of _every_ claim.
>
> This may sound like a cliché and corny, but at least for me it is nothing
> but the truth: there is literally nothing I'd like more than the knowledge
> that we are or were in fact visited by intelligent extraterrestrials. I'd
> *love* it if Atlantis was found. If the opportunity presented itself, I
> would be pushing and shoving for all I'm worth to get on that flying
> saucer. Unfortunately I haven't seen anything yet that is anywhere near
> 'evidence' of that: all of the phenomena, stories, and surmises that I've
> heard and read about seem to fall into the area that folkloristics
> investigates, rather than the natural sciences. The fact that there isn't
> a single scrap of "hard" evidence found anywhere has caused me to
> effectively abandon hope about this. Please, O please somebody prove me
> wrong!
>
> (SNIP)
David Grayshan
To be honest, I don't know what he thinks. You are referring to the cartoon on the
Laura Lee webpage, no doubt. I would hope that his book, when finally issued over
here, will clarify that seeming oddity. I don't understand it, either.
Regards,
David.
Doug Weller wrote:
> In article <36A05AC1...@tschan-partner.com>, on Sat, 16 Jan 1999
> 10:24:18 +0100, dgra...@tschan-partner.com said...
> >
> > I am thinking of people like Maguirre and Dunn, expert engineers in their
> > respective fields, who have taken a look at these and other artifacts and have
> > come out with more and less radical explanations of just how the Egyptians
> > (Khemitians?) achieved these results.
> >
> >
> Dunn? The man who thinks the Egyptians had a space satellite?
>
> Do you really think this is credible?
David Grayshan
will become obsolete (it lists all the hitherto conventional dates). How long has the
C14 project been going on? Could he not have waited with the Revised Edition until the
C14 project was completed? Or will it take such a long time still until the results
are known?
Regards,
David.
Doug Weller wrote:
> In article <36A1ABEA...@tschan-partner.com>, on Sun, 17 Jan 1999
> 10:22:50 +0100, dgra...@tschan-partner.com said...
> >
> > Mind you, despite Doug Weller's sanguine view about the potential shock to
> > Egyptology I still think that moving the dates of whole tranches of Pharoes back
> > 400 years will give 'em problems, if only because they were so assertive about
> > the dates now due for revision. I mean, how embarrasing.....
> >
> >
> Some perhaps. But Lehner, for instance, who is certainly a person you'd call
> an establishment Egyptologist, is one of those involved in the first survey
> which produced these dats. Ditto for others.
>
David Grayshan
Great Pyramids were built over such a period (by whosoever). But we are told
that the period was not much more than 30 years, if that. This I find hard to
swallow.
DEREK HILL wrote:
> (SNIP)
> I cannot comprehend that my local architectural wonder, Durham
> cathedral, was conceived and built over a period of HUNDREDS of years,using
> dark ages technology and at staggering financial and human cost.
> Who, in this day and age would even contemplate proposing such a project?
> And yet built it most definitely was and many others like it. And why?
> Because it was central to the society of the time, that society, to some
> degree, organised itself to accomodate the building of these wonders.
> Cathedrals, food and war, probably in that order.
Hm. I doubt the idea that the Cathedral came before the food, but as to
dedication, yes.
> I believe that the same mechanism was at work in ancient Eygypt, the society
> was organised with building of the pyramids and other monuments as a major
> priority.
There are other views than that the Great Pyramids were tombs. For example, they
look very functional to me: but I have not yet visited them.
> And come to think of it, what exactly is so remarkable about the sarcophagi
> of the Egyptians?
> I have seen examples of these in the British Museum and I confess that the
> workmanship is breathtaking,(though not without its defects)
> but nothing that I saw caused me to consider anything other that great skill
> and dedication on behalf of the carver. and I certainly cannot see where an
> "advanced technology" would be of use.
> (SNIP)
> Consider, one single sarcophagus could be the life's work of a supremely
> talented mason, we think
> it strange because we cannot imagine anyone doing the same today
> (SNIP)
I think that the reference concerns special cases, like the black "Sarcophagus"
(or whatever it is) in the Great Pyramid. I understand that ancient Chinese
artists could take an extraordinarily long time to produce one work, though how
long (and how reliable the stories are!) I caould not say. So the scenario is
possibly not entirely unprecedented.
> Bottom line. Any society, using only techniques and materials available to
> the Egyptians could build their very own Great Pyramid. Providing of course
> that they had the money, personnel and a hundred years to play with.
Exactly! Not 30! And we haven't even touched on the subject of the South
American pyramids.
> It's just that the monument produced would need to be VERY, VERY important
> indeed.
Oh, yes. Could such a building be built just as the tomb of a king, however
divine he was believed to be? I don't know, but I'm not convinced. MInd you, the
effort needed to build a pyramid might well have been much more than that needed
to build a Cathedral. This could be calculated, taking into account the effort
involved in raising exceedingly heavy blocks to considerable heights, with ramps
or whatever. I wonder: has this been done?
Regards,
David.
>
>
> (SNIP)
Doug Weller
21:45:16 +0100, dgra...@tschan-partner.com said...
> Hi Doug,
>
> To be honest, I don't know what he thinks. You are referring to the cartoon on the
> Laura Lee webpage, no doubt. I would hope that his book, when finally issued over
> here, will clarify that seeming oddity. I don't understand it, either.
>
>
http://www.lauralee.com/chrisdunn/New_images/RelaySat.GIF
That is his image and title, of course.
Doug Weller
21:49:42 +0100, dgra...@tschan-partner.com said...
> Oh? I didn't know that. Pity that the latest edition of "The Complete Pyramid Book"
> will become obsolete (it lists all the hitherto conventional dates). How long has the
> C14 project been going on? Could he not have waited with the Revised Edition until the
> C14 project was completed? Or will it take such a long time still until the results
> are known?
>
>
to ask his publishers to hold up a book until an article with no publication
date was published would be a little much, I think!
Alex Green
><alex...@enterprise.net> wrote:
>
>> vilified: reviled with abusive or defamatory language
>
>Yes, I know what vilified means. I just don't know what you're referring
to.
Your description of the discoverers of the Mycenaeans and the Hittites as
'respected' archaeologists.
Their reception by their peers was rather less effusive than you suggest.
DEREK HILL
David Grayshan wrote in message <36A251A4...@tschan-partner.com>...
>Well, yes, hundreds of years you say. I could easily accept a scenario
where the
>Great Pyramids were built over such a period (by whosoever). But we are
told
>that the period was not much more than 30 years, if that. This I find hard
to
>swallow.
>
Sure, the shorter the time period of construction the more amazing the whole
project is, but, without knowing how many were involved it isn't possible to
start setting a timescale threshold below which we cannot accept
construction with known methods.
>DEREK HILL wrote:
>
>> (SNIP)
>
>> I cannot comprehend that my local architectural wonder, Durham
>> cathedral, was conceived and built over a period of HUNDREDS of
years,using
>> dark ages technology and at staggering financial and human cost.
>> Who, in this day and age would even contemplate proposing such a project?
>> And yet built it most definitely was and many others like it. And why?
>> Because it was central to the society of the time, that society, to some
>> degree, organised itself to accomodate the building of these wonders.
>> Cathedrals, food and war, probably in that order.
>
>Hm. I doubt the idea that the Cathedral came before the food, but as to
>dedication, yes.
Ah! tongue firmly in cheek I'm afraid, but certainly the cathedrals were
very important at the time and the church spared no expense.
>
>> I believe that the same mechanism was at work in ancient Eygypt, the
society
>> was organised with building of the pyramids and other monuments as a
major
>> priority.
>
>There are other views than that the Great Pyramids were tombs. For example,
they
>look very functional to me: but I have not yet visited them.
>
I think we are looking at physical representations of the Pharoah's ego, an
remarkable
monument yes, but born of a well-recognised character trait of powerful men
(and certain women).
If you and your subjects were all convinced that were a deity incarnate,
what would YOU want to build?
And, who could stop you?
(my own personal choice would be a Mt. Rushmore style depiction of The
Smiths. Johnny, Morrisey (with his daft gegs on)......the other two)
Hmmmmm! again I wonder at what point we would consider the Pyramid
construction impossible by
conventional means? 90 years? 70 years? 50? My view is that the personnel
were available, the finances were available and most importantly, so was the
will of the ruling classes. After that, we are left with what amounts
to a well organised construction project, and that to me is the real miracle
(if any) of the pyramids. Even as small boy I was amazed, not by the fact
that these blocks were cut, moved and lifted, but that will existed to do
this 2 million times and that the organisational skills were marshalled to
make it happen. (No, I wasn't a lonely child before you ask!)
>> It's just that the monument produced would need to be VERY, VERY
important
>> indeed.
>
>Oh, yes. Could such a building be built just as the tomb of a king, however
>divine he was believed to be? I don't know, but I'm not convinced. MInd
you, the
>effort needed to build a pyramid might well have been much more than that
needed
>to build a Cathedral. This could be calculated, taking into account the
effort
>involved in raising exceedingly heavy blocks to considerable heights, with
ramps
>or whatever. I wonder: has this been done?
>
I'm no engineer, I read the work studies done on the building of the
pyramids and it became clear to me that
the task is monumental, (eh? eh? monum......oh please yourself!) but
possible. Possible! what the hell am I saying?
The fact is that the pyramids WERE built, the only question remaining is
HOW?
Conventional means? which require huge quantities of time, effort, money,
people and organisation but no leap
of faith.
Or do we introduce a supposed "lost technology". Remember though, it does
nothing to make the construction more possible but serves only to alter the
timescale and manpower requirements, down to nice manageable levels that our
lazy 20th century expectations correspond with.
The one thought that runs around my head when considering the "lost
technology" of the pyramids is this.
If you are a developing civilisation with skilled though still relatively
crude building techniques and you want to build high, you build a pyramid.
It's (relatively) easy, stable, but it's labour and materials intensive.
Now surprise, surprise, what do we see the world over when we look at such
civilisations? exactly! you were way ahead of me.
If lost technologies had once existed, I would expect to see constructions
of far greater technical difficulty.
After all, if you put an engine in a car you don't continue to scoot it
along like Fred Flintstone do you?
>Regards,
>
>David.
>
>>
>>
>> (SNIP)
Cheerio.................
Derek
David Grayshan
Frank Doerner has explained a theory of how the ROmans shifted the Trilithon
stones at Baalbek. This is what I would call a technology, though not hi-tech.
I would be for more happy with the Pharaoic attribution if there was any
concrete record of their building it. One would think that they would have been
inordinately proud of their achievement, also that the Pharoes themselves would
have proclaimed loudly to the world at large that they had organised these
magnificent and nearly unprecedented monuments. After all, if their egos were so
huge that they wanted this to be their memorial then there should be more
indication.
I know that the external facing stones were covered in hieroglyphics, that would
have been one possible source of more information, now lost forever. But I would
also have expected at least some texts. So far, nothing.
That's why I still see symbolic ????? hanging above the conventional theories.
Regards,
David.
(SNIP)
Petteri Sulonen
<alex...@enterprise.net> wrote:
> Petteri Sulonen wrote in message ...
> >In article <wG1o2.14$c83...@news.enterprise.net>, "Alex Green"
> ><alex...@enterprise.net> wrote:
> >
> >> vilified: reviled with abusive or defamatory language
> >
> >Yes, I know what vilified means. I just don't know what you're referring
> to.
>
>
> Your description of the discoverers of the Mycenaeans and the Hittites as
> 'respected' archaeologists.
>
> Their reception by their peers was rather less effusive than you suggest.
Ah, OK. I wasn't aware of that. Were they vilified _before_ their
discoveries, too, or only _immediately after_ them? Are they vilified
_now_? Have the Mycenaeans and Hittites returned to the realm of myth?
Cheers,
Jiri Mruzek
David Grayshan wrote:
>
> I know that the external facing stones were covered in hieroglyphics, that would
> have been one possible source of more information, now lost forever.
If they were, some of the writing might still be preserved
on stones incorporated into Kahira buildings.
David Grayshan
result?
Regards,
David.
M.C.Harrison
>
> In article <wG1o2.14$c83...@news.enterprise.net>, on Sat, 16 Jan 1999
> 14:47:43 -0000, alex...@enterprise.net said...
> >
> > The nature of this suggested earlier civilisation has been hyped and
> > exaggerated. The only technologies required of them are building large
> > ocean-going boats, ocean navigation, astronomy and building accurately with
> > stone.
> >
> Ok. I'd still expect archaeological evidence from such a sea-faring people.
You would require evidence to support the theory that they achieved
these feats. However, if there was evidence that such a people existed,
the additional technologies that are required are such that they could
have achieved them (ocean-going boats, stone masonry, navigation, etc)
without extraterrestrial help.
Leastways, that was how I read it. ICEBW
Petteri Sulonen
<dgra...@tschan-partner.com> wrote:
[long article snipped to save space; apologies about breach of netiquette]
I. My "calculation"
My calculation was merely to show that a "disproportionate" fraction of
ancient Egyptians would have had to be engaged in production of the
diorite vases. The numbers were entirely off the top of my head, I know
that none of them were correct (except possibly by chance). Therefore it's
sort of spurious to continue the argument any further based on the
example. However, here goes anyway...! :-)
You're not convinced that one vase could fetch the ten-year salary of a
craftsman? Possibly not, but then again maybe the vases could've been
manufactured in one year, or even a few months. However, they easily
_could_ have. For example, suppose the craftsmen were slaves. The owner
would only have to pay for their upkeep. And, trust me on this one, there
are plenty of examples where a single objet d'art (like the Persian rug I
mentioned in my post) would fetch far more than the ten-year or even
100-year upkeep of a slave -- or even a paid craftsman.
Your absolutely correct that we need estimates of the numbers and
techniques involved to more precisely elucidate the 'mystery of the
vases'. However, I'm just demonstrating that they _could_ have been
manufactured with neolithic technology in that society.
And, since there's no evidence of any other kind of technology, I still
find it reasonable to assume that they _were_ so produced.
II. Finland
It's nice to hear that a non-Finn finds Finnish mythology fascinating.
Indeed, the Kalevala holds its own in such company as the Eddas, Hiawatha,
the Popol Vuh etc. And I like Akseli Gallén-Kallela too -- although he's
not quite as original as you might expect...
Also, I'm sorry to deflate your idea of Finns being particularly close to
myths and legends -- apart from a few eccentricities like liking the sauna
and rolling around in the snow, we're just about as prosaic a bunch of
people as you're ever likely to meet. Althoug I do have a
great-grandfather who reputedly sold his sold to the Devil (or Perkele,
the Finnish pagan god the Church identified with him)... :-)
III. Christer's anomalies
Folklore from various parts of the world also contains common elements
like the Flood. In addition, they claim various fantastic things like gods
walking the earth etc. Without supporting evidence, I find it more
reasonable to assume that tales of the sun rising elsewhere etc. belong to
the same realm.
What's more, the question "is it possible that the Earth changed its
rotation etc. within the past, say, 20.000 years" can be examined
scientifically. Carl Sagan does a very enlightening bunch of calculations
in _Broca's Brain_. One of the conclusions is that the energy required to
stop the Earth's rotation is such that at the very least it would cause
all the world's oceans to boil (as a side effect). I highly recommend that
book.
The human population bottleneck -- it's an interesting hypothesis; I won't
comment on it because I don't know enough about the subject. I really
can't see what it has to do with the rest of the subject, though.
IV. Plate tectonics
Bird migration patterns are in no way essential to plate tectonics. Birds
are not automata; their migration patterns can and do change over time.
The fact that some of the stranger migration paths seem to be explainable
by the Pangaea theory provides a small, but intriguing piece of evidence
supporting it.
Re speciation, Australia, and the Pangaea hypothesis -- yes, they do
agree. Read e.g. _Fossils and the history of life_ by George Gaylord
Simpson (Scientific American Library, 1983).
Cheers,
alex...@enterprise.net
dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Doug Weller) wrote:
> In article <wG1o2.14$c83...@news.enterprise.net>, on Sat, 16 Jan 1999
> 14:47:43 -0000, alex...@enterprise.net said...
> >
> > The nature of this suggested earlier civilisation has been hyped and
> > exaggerated. The only technologies required of them are building large
> > ocean-going boats, ocean navigation, astronomy and building accurately with
> > stone.
> >
> >
> Ok. I'd still expect archaeological evidence from such a sea-faring people.
Of course.
It may be that we already have some of this evidence. From very early times
Egyptian art depicts large ocean-going boats (by which I mean comparable to,
say, a viking longship). This is odd because there is no need for boats on
the Nile (or indeed in the Mediterranean) to have such a design. It is,
however a design which appears in other contexts (for example the "soul ship"
in Sumatran religious art and on Lake Titicaca
http://staff.sb.aol.com/gww/FIB/last2.htm).
Sincerely,
Alex Green
Ars artis est celare artem
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Doug Weller
1999 11:48:55 -0800, nos...@spammers.of.the.world.unite.etc said...
> Doug Weller wrote:
> >
> > In article <wG1o2.14$c83...@news.enterprise.net>, on Sat, 16 Jan 1999
> > 14:47:43 -0000, alex...@enterprise.net said...
> > >
> > > The nature of this suggested earlier civilisation has been hyped and
> > > exaggerated. The only technologies required of them are building large
> > > ocean-going boats, ocean navigation, astronomy and building accurately with
> > > stone.
> > >
> > Ok. I'd still expect archaeological evidence from such a sea-faring people.
>
> these feats. However, if there was evidence that such a people existed,
> the additional technologies that are required are such that they could
> have achieved them (ocean-going boats, stone masonry, navigation, etc)
> without extraterrestrial help.
>
Absolutely. I wouldn't disagree with that.
Martin Stower
10:24:18 +0100, dgra...@tschan-partner.com said...
>
> I am thinking of people like Maguirre and Dunn, expert engineers in their
> respective fields, who have taken a look at these and other artifacts and have
> come out with more and less radical explanations of just how the Egyptians
> (Khemitians?) achieved these results.
Miguel Aguirre was arguing against Dunn.
Martin Stower
Petteri Sulonen
> Of course.
>
> It may be that we already have some of this evidence. From very early times
> Egyptian art depicts large ocean-going boats (by which I mean comparable to,
> say, a viking longship). This is odd because there is no need for boats on
> the Nile (or indeed in the Mediterranean) to have such a design. It is,
> however a design which appears in other contexts (for example the "soul ship"
> in Sumatran religious art and on Lake Titicaca
> http://staff.sb.aol.com/gww/FIB/last2.htm).
This is a fascinating surmise. Sort of reminds me of an episode in the
history of China (around the 14th C. I think), where the Emperor banned
all "blue-water" navigation and had all the ocean-going ships in China
destroyed -- just after one of his captains had taken a fleet of 100 ships
all the way to Zanzibar or thereabouts.
This was mentioned in Paul Kennedy's _The Rise and Fall of the Great
Powers_, if my memory doesn't fail me. If I'm mistaken, please set me
straight.
M.C.Harrison
>
> In article <36A246E2...@tschan-partner.com>, David Grayshan
> <dgra...@tschan-partner.com> wrote:
>
> You're not convinced that one vase could fetch the ten-year salary of a
> craftsman? Possibly not, but then again maybe the vases could've been
> manufactured in one year, or even a few months. However, they easily
> _could_ have. For example, suppose the craftsmen were slaves. The owner
> would only have to pay for their upkeep. And, trust me on this one,
The simple answer there is that a vase that takes ten years to make
could come from two places:
1) From a craftsman who spent ten years making it and is suitably
rewarded (i.e. a pharoah bears the cost of supporting the craftsman for
ten years while he makes the jar.
2) From Space Aliens with Advanced Technology, whereupon it is still
worth ten man years of effort but in this case no craftsman is involved
and the vase is valuable due to being a rare artifact.
Or, the vase could be made in a day or so by a craftsman who knows how
to work stone far more efficiently than we are aware on account that we
wouldn't make a jar from stone because of the skill required.
I find it highly unlikely that Space Aliens would use jars, or if they
did, that they would elect to make the necks very fluted and difficult
to manufacture. Space travel is achieved mainly through pragmatic
efficiency rather than artistic preference. If their intention was to
impress, there would have to be more impressive articles available, etc,
etc.
Also, the narrow neck is a property of a jar that is intended to lose a
small percentage of it's liquid content due to the evaporation in the
dry desert conditions. This is quite appropriate as an aim for jar
makers who are short of water and live in a desert, one would imagine
the aliens had the means of obtaining plenty of water, and would have
jars with lids.