Re: SV: SV: Mitanni, Hurrians, etc.

OK, then you also know its weaknesses better than I would. Just goes to
show what I wrote before, one hardly knows other people's areas of
expertise. Like most everything I know about the best one can have is a
best estimate, never certainty :-) Next to this dating the artefacts does
not reveal the date of the recipe or method, do it? Moreover such methods
change in time as well. Thus I ha me doobts about the value of material
dating of artefects as it does not show too well how the method may have
been evolved or transmitted. Take one example, the Gundestrup Cauldron,
written on in the SCI Am, years ago now. It appears one smith came from
India, I bet they talked shop too. Now how could that be traced until we
knew this happened, archeologically recent. Thus history rewrites our
history. Another, in England, 1952 to 1957 the postage stamp paper &
printing was radically changed and they played around with luminescent dyes
to find the best way. Unless one is a researching philatelist, that's hardly
known either. Another one was a bone carved head, writ up in the Nat Geo,
which was dated at 25,000 BCE by the lime settled in the cracks. I gathered
C14 dating was nearabouts discarded and ice cores made to better validate
datings. Thus I got in the habit to take things with a grain of salt.
Hermann Melville reckoned it's not that easy to live with doubt, and I
agree. But as I was betimes asked to be reviewed on the media I there stuck
to keeping it simple and drowned my guilty conscience with alcolhol later.
One of my hobbies is epistemology, the real stuff, not what's written up on
Internet. One of my sad surmises, very tough to validate, is that many a
"scientist" knows their method rather well, but not much else. Should one
venture forth into peer reviews in learned journals they're not very nice to
each other, are they? I have a theory about that one too, but won't express
it.

I also know quite well that lecturers have to pour out the stuff in measured
doses to not too well equipped students and thus are forced into using
'discourse' by way of limiting with definitions used, quite practical unto
the purpose, but hardly imagined I'd get doused in that on this list. Hence
it is rarely that one enters the dubiosity of it all at well past post
graduate work. The really tough cookies who do some original work, if lucky,
may gain a Nobel Prize. They also have to earn a living and enough said
about that lot. What I find totally objectionable is that if one cannot
forthwith show one knows a specialist's jargon one gets put down some.
Works to keep closed enclaves closed, it do. I have a good friend,
scientist, runs a business, has many patents to his name who insists one
uses no jargon. His coinage BBGB, means Bit by grinding bit, one step at a
time. It is not that he does not know the jargon, he simply refuses to use
it. If a given list is only for the experts, then keep it closed, not open
to anybody. I maybe new here, but not new to the game. Szilard was expert
in 17 disciplines and rarely if ever used jargon. He once wrote an article
that changed all 17 of them.

The villages came through the News and I've looked but, of course, a few
years ago in Russia, and I doubt they can organise a party or expedition to
do it Just takes time, you would know too. We've got some Russians, very
able cookies, on one List, scientists, and their English is rather poor. One
text, still in Russian not translated, is apparently crucial, so we're told
and the man knows his stuff, but we have to wait. I dropped this in the
hope somebody might know, and until I sight a paper, judgment reserved, but
not ignored. All I know it was on a Building site, under 12 feet of clay.
Very informative, the News. A while back, in London, an early site was found
and the things that had to be done to save it were gruesome. Still have not
come across a paper on it. I've got a head full of stuff I'm surfing for.
Maybe, should you know him, <G> I might be a close cousin of Charles Fort,
published around the twenties, spend a lifetime collecting anomalies of all
sorts. He wrote that since 1850 AD none of that stuff is published. An
instance on NASA, there was a rumour that a meteor, planet, lord knows
what, is coming our way at great speed. They've turned all their telescopes
and what have you away from that location. hhmmm, funny peculiar. If one
sticks with only what one can be certain of there's not a great deal to
find. so much the same old stuff gets re-plowed often. I've also found
that, betimes the footputting method yields surprising and plesaunt results.
I can now ask you, in person, exactly how uncertain is this dating? What I
know comes from a few critiques of it, which Lord knows, might well have a
"political" motives, one can only find out by being right inside the game as
outsiders get told rather little.

The nuclear tectites was in a funny book by one Maurice Chatelain, worked on
the space venture, has several patents and made contributions to the
innovations going on. It's probably out of print, a paperback Title Our
ancestors came from outer space" Yeah. I know, I read ripe and green. Just
got curious about the background qualifications. You're lucky that one is in
one of my bibliographies. One thing he also mentioned is the Niniveh
constant, on a Sumerian Tablet, humangous number. He worked out it used the
HCF and LCF, with that as the second, to render all planetary conjunctions
of our solar system calculable in whole numbers. From a minor error in one
place he worked out that it could only have been compiled or composed in
86,000 BC, because that is the only time slot and he knows his astronomy
when that error was indetectable. Rather unbelievable, not impossible
either. The other values and there's a lot of them were dead accurate.

You probably also know the crystal skull, S America, now as I am also both
an optician, jeweller and all that it is quite obvious to me that no
primitive tools of any kind can have made that one. Can it be dated, no it
cannot, of course. The antikitheros clock, underwater and encrusted, dated
2500 BCE, greek ship, was, one or other de Santillana got his teeth into,
kept time for several planets, and used step down gears also at a time where
one has to stretch one's imagination somewhat as to how it could have been
made at all. An anomalous skull, peddled on Inet, was examined by experts
who called it anomalous, end of discussion. I saw it and immediately
recognised the eyes could not have been movable, as ours are, besides there
were two holes in the skull for the nerves to pass through, where we have
but one. so it had to be compound, sort of insectoid eyes. Any of this
mentioned in the Kosher literathure, nah. Wrote the guy about it, he had it
checked out by an optometrist as they now call them and he agreed with my
interpretation, but did he acknowledge me in its public talks, Nah too. I
worked in a museum for a while and you'd be surprised what can be found in
some cupboards, never on display. There was also a botanist and a
conchologist, was given his Ph D, and the conversations we had about what's
better not mentioned were very instructive. I voiced a misgiving about
shellfish, not in their right place in the tree. He agreed they are a
degenerate form of something we ain't got around. Did he publish that, of
course not. At its simplest most lecturers are kept too busy. Since I don't
sleep much, rapid read and have a flypaper memory, as well as infernally
curious, etc. I'm also 70, live rurally and Uni Libraries here don't accord
"privileges", not even post graduates, Bummer. My son forked out 5000 bucks
for his last years's courses. Costs me between 5 & 7 bucks for an interloan
I cannot afford at the rate I read, IFF that is they have the books I'd read
or loan it to me. My favorite fantasy is a little garrett near the Brit
Museum, Washington would do too, in another life. Found a fantastic text,
on I-net, the Gorakh, 1500 BCE, Tantric, crucial in terms of language
development, not in print, ever. Dated it, on the spot, at 1500 BC, to get
agreed with. He translated it himself I gather. Had my system nor crashed a
few months ago, thanks to Billy Gates, I'd still have a copy of it. { NO,
checked not on my 8 gigabytes] In didactic ? and answer by teacher and
pupil, the pupil constantly asks where is it in time and space, the T
replies monotonously, not here, not there. Right now some scientists are,
once more, into the aether, which is also not here, not there but everywhere
as vacuum fluctuations, zero point energy and a few other labels. You can
find it if you go hunting on Tantric sites, yuk, I agree. Now how could its
writer know just that, certainly not by using his eyes. So, for lack of
being able to do some solid work I amuse myself by doing what D'Isreali did
with his curiosities. Look for rabbit holes I lacked the time to do before.
If I don't feed that garbage can between the ears with data it starts
fantasising. Been there, done that. So I surfed into cybalist, and mebbe
I''ll surf out again. Just depends. If you have some 'feet' into Russia,
maybe you might get lucky. Chalelain had another one. 13 Temples sites on
islands in the Mediterranean, in the form of a Maltese Cross, several
islands under water, checked it on a french map, and yes, it's there.
Random, accident, I doubt it, but can hardly verify. I don't judge kooks,
loons and mavericks, I check it out. Like everything else, about 5 to 10 %
is valid or useful. Formulating some rules to sniff out the rubbish
peddlers, interesting exercise. One guy sent me some stuff on neutrinoes, I
happen to know some about, highly dubious virtual particles there's a hunt
out for. That's nonsense, forthwith. Offered to teach me, just laughed.
Now I've got to get rid of him. OH well, cannot win them all. On the other
hand I'm getting posted a Russian text by its translator, yummy. Not in
print yet. Do I "believe" any of it? Of course not. But I'm learning
something about babies and bathwater. Sorry for the long sermon, but I felt
you deserved it. You can always delete.

Adrian.

Subject: [cybalist] Re: SV: SV: Mitanni, Hurrians, etc.

> Dear Adrian
>
> It so happens I have been working a great deal with both C14 and other
> forms of dating so I´m fully conversant with both their strengths and
> weaknesses. As for the "nuclear Tectites" and 120,000 year old villages I
> would greatly appreciate some references please!
>
> Tommy Tyrberg
>
> ----------
> > Från: Adrian <afme@...>
> > Till: cybalist@egroups.com
> > Ämne: [cybalist] Re: SV: Mitanni, Hurrians, etc.
> > Datum: den 16 december 1999 00:52
> >
> > Subject: [cybalist] Re: SV: Mitanni, Hurrians, etc.
> >
> > > > === Dating is a very vexed issue. Feynmann, the scientist, once
> > commented
> >
> > > *** Actually while historical dating isn't really firm before the
> oldest
> > > Assyrian limmu-lists (911 BCE) geophysical dating within the Holocene
> is
> > > rather tightly constrained by C14-dating, dendrochronology and

rhytmite

> > > (varved clay) dating. These three quite independent dating methods
> agree
> > > that the Holocene began slightly over 11,000 calendar years ago, with
> an
> > > uncertainty of a few centuries at the most. Since the Cultural

sequence

> > > (and initial neolithization) in the Near East can be stratigraphically
> and
> > > climatologically tied to the immediately preceding Younger Dryas
> stadial
> > > the starting point of Near East farming cultures (Pre Pottery

Neolithic

> A)
> > > is pretty well tied down to approx. 10,000 BCE.
> > > Admittedly there are areas that have not been too well surveyed
> > > archaeologically yet, but it seems to me that the chances of finding a
> > > major center of neolithization older than the Near East one somewhere
> else
> > > are very slim. For one thing there doesn't seem to be any important
> > > cultivars left whose origin hasn't been at least approximately
> determined.
> >
> > Hi Tommy, being one trusting fellow, refuse to call myself a sceptic,

for

> > obvious reasons, I did some looking into C14 Dating. It is VERY error
> prone,
> > mainly because it assumes uniformity, and science has just thrown out

the

> > ultimate constant, the speed of light. If one reads what the pundits
> tell
> > each other it makes a different story, but one hidden rule of
> specialisation
> > is "No poaching in other's territory" thus one cites the authority in

the

> > field who is seldom agreed with by his peers. They went into counting
> tree
> > rings and ice cores to rectify this and only found more anomalies. One
> > happening right now for the solar system.
> >
> > The Russians reported several villages, dated between 13 - 18,000 BC,
> with
> > factories and an organised layout. A more recent report found, in
> building,
> > under 12 foot of clay, date some 120,000, more signs of vivilisation,
> we'll
> > have to wait for more detail, of course. Next there are some six centres
> of
> > civilisation I stand told, covered by sheets of tectites, which, I stand
> > told, can have only come about from nuclear stuff, redolent of the
> > Mahabharata, quoted
> > by Oppenheimer at the Wite Sands test :"Brighter than A 1000 suns". Read
> > Charles Fort, for one example. Our history is actually the most untidy
> mess
> > ever, taking all into consideration, but if one reads the books it's
> > somewhat orderly.
> >
> > Next, I tend to poach abroad and outside what English scholars keep on
> > re-assurring one another about and that turns up several kinds of

anomaly

> > and misfits. Besides, antiquity did date by astrological planetary
> > conjunctions, if one can recognise the signs. Next to take ONLY as
> evidence
> > what's written down I find a somewhat objectionable procedure, for many
> > tedious reasons. I agree on the sparsity of the evidence, but to then
> > confine oneself to ONLY that and exclude the rest, hhhmmm., enough said.
> > I've done a reconstruction from myths,, epics and 'evidence" which in

the

> > altogether, hangs together in a consistent patterrn, the sine qua non of
> > acceptability to call it logical. What happens, one is contradicted by
> the
> > already known, mainly as constituted by some or other authority, if not
> > simply propounded from a lectern. I say soemthing, get flattened by a
> given
> > 'meme" to which academics seem more virus prone than common folk, a

joke.

> > Next as for science r any thoery, knock over one assumption and the

whole

> > cardboard construction collapses. But that is taboo, the theory is taken
> for
> > granted and the facts thereby produced are quoted. Yes, I know what I am
> > saying, a fact IS a product of a theory which packs it together as a
> pattern
> > to filter data with and NOT the other way around. The red Shift makes a
> good
> > example, I can provide dozens more.
> >
> > Next one gets apodictic utterances in reply, no quotes from authority,
> > reasoned argument, use of logic or any such thing. Nor, for that matter
> > much understanding of whatever is poached from outside a given

speciality

> > that makes one's podium. Cavil, quibble, question, put up more data and
> > replies fail, hhmmm. We're supposed to be scholars not quoters from
> books
> > , researchers not armchair philosophers. I did my degree in the early
> > sixties, I get here what" Exactly the same stuff I left behind as if

time

> > has not passed, knowledge not changed, the METHOD has not changed and if
> the
> > method fails, drop it, no dice one is shown.
> >
> > The depth psychology beneath it all is that man tends to want to be
> > understood and is not very good in under=standing others. One should
> take
> > in a WHOLE pattern, thema, topoi, theory, ideas, not cavill at the bits.
> > Does not happen. Dating is not just not very firm it's exceedingly
> sloppy.
> > And to add Newton's retort, I've read upon it, have you? Our calendar
> does
> > not even fit in with actual solar events, which is why antiquity dated
> major
> > events by that lot, and I find rather few academics even familiar with

it

> > enough to recognise it when one reads an allusion of it. Sanscrit, for
> > example, is a very punny, ambiguous language but one is given in
> translation
> > only the Kosher meaning resident in the mind of translator. One Vedic
> > example, "From Between her legs" came whatever. Translated without the
> > sexual allusion. I for instance would love to jump in feet first in

this

> > stream about salt and salt the conversation with a few other details but
> > heroically refrain, too busy.
> >
> > Next to this the association of artefactual material to culturally
> > traditional material is also rather sloppy. Gilgamesh goes north in
> search
> > of the secret of Antiquity, dated 3,000 BCE, BUT IFF it actually
> happened,
> > which it did, then the event would have occurred nearer 11,000 BCE, date
> > uncertain. The attendant geographical details fit the trip. BUT because
> we
> > cannot trace evidential written records, should I put this in a

student's

> > essay, I'd get worse than a D. Something funny going on here. IMHO Too
> > many naive assumptions.
> >
> > Adrian.
> >
> > >
> > > ***Tommy Tyrberg
> > > >
> > > > > The demotic Egyptian script later still.
> > > > >
> > > > > >in the conversion from Harappan script - stone age glyphs, I
> believe
> > > > >
> > > > > -- Bronze Age, actually; 3rd-2nd millenium BCE.
> > > >
> > > > === That's OUR dating and specialist confined as well, Indian
> scholars
> > > date
> > > > otherwise, now who's right? They were orally transmitted long

before,

> so
> > > now
> > > > what? Take the Sepher Yetsirah, published 1613 AD Mantua, Spain,
> > > Elsevir,
> > > > I think.. Rabbinic scholarship, on the basis of phrases and words in
> > > common
> > > > with the Talmud, dates at 200 BC, and as a geometric contrivance its
> > > > conventions are much older. So it just depends as to which "unique
> > > Feature"
> > > > one elects and names as to how it comes up. Whoever 'composed' it
> date
> > > > unknown, was assuredly not thinking in or with words, so now how old
> is
> > > it?
> > > > I could "teach" it in ten minutes with a tray of sand, so what now
> about
> > > > communicable? IN words it's nearly incomprehensible unless one
> already
> > > knows
> > > > its conventions which were not that of word language.
> > > >
> > > > > The Harappan script vanished with the civilization and when
> literacy
> > > > returned to India, it was using scripts derived from further west;
> > > > ultimately from the Semitic alphabets.
> > > >
> > > > === And because conceivably mildly misnamed and possibly somewhat
> > > mislocated
> > > > the whole argument falls flat? I've known the odd case of several
> > > sequences
> > > > in changes of mind on several matters.
> > > >
> > > > > >whereas Western conventions date that as around 1500 BC, as the
> > > emergence
> > > > of
> > > > > the Vedas in written form.
> > > > >
> > > > > -- no, the Vedas were not written down until much later and in a
> > script
> > > > > ultimately derived from Aramaic. They were probably _composed_
> some
> > > time
> > > > in the 1000's BCE. Transmission was oral.
> > > >
> > > > === Again, opinions differ and depends on whom one reads.
> > >
> > > *** Indic alphabetic scripts can't be much older since they couldn't
> very
> > > well be older than the script they were derived from.
> > >
> > > ***Tommy Tyrberg
> > > >
> > > > > >Hmm, and by what means did such a vocab grow?
> > > > >
> > > > > -- people invent words as needed.
> > > > === Really, I've invented the odd words and OED editors say of

1000s

> > > > invented barely a 100 er annum make it. Are all words so invented,
> and
> > > > there's no odd wrinkly uncertainties about it? I've got a private
> label
> > > for
> > > > this but won't use it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > >Which languages?
> > > > >
> > > > > -- all languages are of roughly equivalent semantic efficiency.
> > > > Vocabulary
> > > > > aside, there's nothing that can be said in one that can't be said
> in
> > > > another.
> > > >
> > > > === Now quite by what means and basis and method was that conclusion
> > > arrived
> > > > at? And as to 'roughly" how roughly or merely by apodictic

utterance?

> > > > Haven't used that word for about 45 years but it seems to fit.
> > > >
> > > > > >Thus one has to read the entire textus and decide from context
> which
> > > is
> > > > > meant.
> > > > >
> > > > > -- you're confusing the script and the language. The first

writing

> > > > systems
> > > > > were less efficient than alphabetic scripts; but that does not
> apply
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > languages themselves.
> > > >
> > > > === I'm sorry but that's mind reading of a kind. Or, more mildly,
> > > replaces
> > > > one opinion with another. I've seen a Chinese Mandarin scholar DO
> it,
> > > Took
> > > > him ten minutes and I asked why. It does not really do to pick a
> > sentence
> > > > from a paragraph and context to "refute" it. Quite explicate,

pleae,

> > > what
> > > > is intended to be converyed by "does not apply to the languages
> > > thmselves,
> > > > is that relevant to reading a language and if so, in quite what way?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > Sign up for Brodia's free online shopping service, you can find
> > > > products, locate the lowest prices, and check out with a single
> > > > click. Enjoy special offers valued over $1,000.
> > > > http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/2195
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/cybalist
> > > > http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > GRAB THE GATOR! FREE SOFTWARE DOES ALL THE TYPING FOR YOU!
> > > Gator fills in forms and remembers passwords with NO TYPING at over
> > > 100,000 web sites! Get $100 in coupons for trying Gator!
> > > http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/2092
> > >
> > >
> > > eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/cybalist
> > > http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > GET $100 IN COUPONS FOR TRYING GATOR!
> > Grab the Gator! Free software does all the typing for you!
> > Gator fills in forms and remembers passwords with NO TYPING at over
> > 100,000 web sites! http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/2093
> >
> > eGroups.com Home: http://www.egroups.com/group/cybalist/
> > http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Want to send money instantly to anyone, anywhere, anytime?
> You can today at X.com - and we'll give you $20 to try it! Sign
> up today at http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/2227. It's quick,
> free, & there's no obligation!
>
>
>
> eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/cybalist
> http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
>
>
>
>
>