Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Greg Symons <gsymons@******.TEMPLE.EDU>
Subject: Ancient Civilization (was Re: Physical Laws)
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 09:38:05 -0400
At 6:00 PM -0400 8/24/98, Adam Getchell wrote:

>>They didn't NEED Edisons Tungsten filament.
>>Just think. Maybe they had the capability of producing a partial vacuum.
>>If that's the case, they MIGHT have actually had electric lighting....
>
>Er ... partial vacuum does not a lightbulb make. Edison tried over 1,000
>combinations before settling on the right one.
>
>>Just 'cos there's no archeological evidence.....
>
>Doesn't mean they did, either. It means we don't know conclusively, but
>probably not, and in any event, such important information has not been
>found, if it were ever recorded.

This kind of makes me think of a special I recently saw on The Learning
Channel. Apparently, there is a lot of (not so conclusive:) evidence that
points to a worldwide civilization existing around 10,500 BC. Basically,
this guy and some others looked at how certain sites (the Pyramids of Giza,
Ankor Wat (sp?) in Cambodia, La Venta in Mexico, and the Nazca Lines) all
line up with constellations. Giza, La Venta, and Nazca all lined up with
Orion, and Ankor Wat lined up with Draco. The interesting thing, though, is
that they all only line up perfectly in 10,500 BC. Also studies done by
geologists on the Sphinx indicate that it probably is a lot older than
originally believed, due to the fact that it shows evidence of water based
erosion from rain. On top of that, the Sphinx lines up with Leo at sunrise.
When? You guessed it, 10,500 BC. Also, a structure has been discovered in
the waters off of Japan which appears man-made, again tentatively dated to
10,500 BC.

So, while there is no _conclusive_ (i.e. recorded) evidence of this
civilization, the evidence is very compelling that at the very least the
builders of these sites not only had a knowledge of precession, but also
had strong enough mathematics to work it back to the beginning of the
current cycle (10,500 BC, coincidentally:)

I personally am kind of curious what 10,500 looks like on the Mayan
calendar... could this be more evidence that FASA is really run by IEs
preparing the world for the return of magic?:) BTW, just for coincidence's
sake, 2011 will put us about half-way through the precession cycle (26,000
years long).

Greg
Eagerly awaiting the Awakening:).

***********************************************************************
* *
* \ (__) Greg Symons <gsymons@******.temple.edu> *
* \\(oo) Seanchai/ and Follower of Bri\de *
* /-----\\\/ *
* / | (##) "Hearken closely and you shall hear the *
* * ||----||" sound of cows and bagpipes upon the heath" *
* ^^ ^^ *
* *
* PGP Fingerprint: 694E 3B0B 4834 7831 BBCA C9E8 4299 0765 15F5 E599 *
* *
***********************************************************************


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv

iQA/AwUBNeMPt0KZB2UV9eWZEQICTgCg+5pUPDwxr/mQqOlFevbejLQkm/cAoLNY
2/lLXUcWtyCPuMMVf77Vlb4M
=Pbif
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Message no. 2
From: Steve Eley <sfeley@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Ancient Civilization (was Re: Physical Laws)
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 16:21:28 -0400
Greg Symons wrote:
> BTW, just for coincidence's
> sake, 2011 will put us about half-way through the precession cycle (26,000
> years long).

Which means that next Tuesday will also put us "about halfway" through the
precession cycle. At those scales, how much does it really mean?

BTW, anyone who does their own bit of research on the Mayan Calendar will
know that FASA missed it by about a year. By the most widely accepted
theory, the first day of the new 13-baktun Mayan great cycle is December
22, 2012. (There's some controversy about the correlation between the
stable Mayan calendar and our own frequently changing one, but the other
proposals put it off within 60 days or so, not by a year.)


Have Fun,
- Steve Eley
sfeley@***.net
Message no. 3
From: Greg Symons <gsymons@******.TEMPLE.EDU>
Subject: Re: Ancient Civilization (was Re: Physical Laws)
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 18:06:41 -0400
At 4:21 PM -0400 8/25/98, Steve Eley wrote:

>Greg Symons wrote:
>> BTW, just for coincidence's
>> sake, 2011 will put us about half-way through the precession cycle (26,000
>> years long).
>
>Which means that next Tuesday will also put us "about halfway" through the
>precession cycle. At those scales, how much does it really mean?

Nothing and everything:) If the middle of the precession cycle is some kind
of significant event based on astronomical predictions, then it could
conceiveably make a difference down to second and beyond, as astronomical
predictions are obnoxiously precise. If it's just a historical landmark,
then you're right, at these scales it is utterly meaningless. I said about
halfway simply because I don't have access (as in I'd have to find it:) to
the data, nor the motivation to make the calculations exactly:) For all I
know, 12:00 AM GMT on December 24th, 2011 could very well be the precise
middle of the precession. Which would make the whole Mayan calendar thing
_extremely_ interesting:)

>
>BTW, anyone who does their own bit of research on the Mayan Calendar will
>know that FASA missed it by about a year. By the most widely accepted
>theory, the first day of the new 13-baktun Mayan great cycle is December
>22, 2012. (There's some controversy about the correlation between the
>stable Mayan calendar and our own frequently changing one, but the other
>proposals put it off within 60 days or so, not by a year.)

Hmmm... that's interesting. But even if FASA's date _is_ off by a year, I'm
still interested in what's gonna happen. The next 20 years or so are gonna
be very interesting, as the end of the world is predicted in several
different prophecies. I personally would be very disappointed if they're
right... I won't be out of school until _after_ the first predicted ones
(1/1/2000 and 5/5/2000) so the world ending then would definitely put a
damper on my career:)

Greg
Not neccesarily hoping for the end of the world, though a new one _would_
be interesting if nothing else:)

***********************************************************************
* *
* \ (__) Greg Symons <gsymons@******.temple.edu> *
* \\(oo) Seanchai/ and Follower of Bri\de *
* /-----\\\/ *
* / | (##) "Hearken closely and you shall hear the *
* * ||----||" sound of cows and bagpipes upon the heath" *
* ^^ ^^ *
* *
* PGP Fingerprint: 694E 3B0B 4834 7831 BBCA C9E8 4299 0765 15F5 E599 *
* *
***********************************************************************


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv

iQA/AwUBNeM2YUKZB2UV9eWZEQLhjACg0dDy53STUDKYnT4Bb2OVGoTBB14AoJNc
ZIlrahA2Z1/mHmyp0HUb7uj5
=F+Qu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Message no. 4
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Ancient Civilization (was Re: Physical Laws)
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 18:48:41 -0400
At 09:38 AM 8/25/98 -0400, you wrote:

>This kind of makes me think of a special I recently saw on The Learning
>Channel. Apparently, there is a lot of (not so conclusive:) evidence that
>points to a worldwide civilization existing around 10,500 BC.

I remember seeing this. And I remember getting into a rather heated
argument versus my father and my brother.

>So, while there is no _conclusive_ (i.e. recorded) evidence of this
>civilization, the evidence is very compelling that at the very least the
>builders of these sites not only had a knowledge of precession, but also
>had strong enough mathematics to work it back to the beginning of the
>current cycle (10,500 BC, coincidentally:)

Compelling? What, that some rocks line up in a certain direction? That's
not compelling evidence. There is little to no real evidence that this
purported civilization really did exist. What these yayhoos did was decide
that there was something in common between these structures (more
specifically, that there had to be some meaning to the way the pyramids
lined up) and search for "evidence" to support their claim. If you watch
that program again, you'll see what I mean.

The entire thing smacks of "knowledge passed down from Atlantis" or "Alien
knowledge and technology" or somesuch thing. And while this is very fun to
discuss in a fictional environment (aka Shadowrun), it's nothing but
psuedo-scientific babble.

About the only thing that was believable, and I believe has gained some
acceptance, is that the Sphinx is older than previously thought. The
problem with that artifact is that it has actually been fixed and rebuilt
numerous times in it's history. Archeology, to my knowledge, now accepts
an earlier date for the original structure than what was currently believed.

Oh, and nothing personal, really. I entered my alumnus as a declared
anthropology major; only stayed with that major for a year, but it was
enough for me to develop an intense distaste for theories like this (such
as aliens building things). Give me hard archeological evidence or go away
is my general philosophy on this matter.

I just recently saw a program on TLC or Discovery about Stonehenge. Had a
bunch of white professors supposing and whatnot. They all lacked
credibility. Who was the most credible? A professor from Madagascar,
who's own people's thousands of years old rituals and buildings are highly
suggestive of Stonehenge and other standing stones. Why? Because he could
draw direct links, present real evidence, even if it was only highly
suggestive. Which is something all those sorry Englishmen failed to do;
all they did was prattle on, pulling theories out of their asses.

Sorry for the mini-rant. Yet another sore subject of mine.

Erik J.
Message no. 5
From: Wordman <wordman@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Ancient Civilization (was Re: Physical Laws)
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 20:58:53 -0400
Greg wrote:
>I personally am kind of curious what 10,500 looks like on the Mayan
>calendar...

According to MacMaya, a date conversion utility for the Mac, the long count
of 0,0,0,0,0 only goes back to September 6, 3113 B.C.

Wordman
Message no. 6
From: Greg Symons <gsymons@******.TEMPLE.EDU>
Subject: Re: Ancient Civilization (was Re: Physical Laws)
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 22:06:52 -0400
At 6:48 PM -0400 8/25/98, Erik Jameson wrote:

[snip]
>>So, while there is no _conclusive_ (i.e. recorded) evidence of this
>>civilization, the evidence is very compelling that at the very least the
>>builders of these sites not only had a knowledge of precession, but also
>>had strong enough mathematics to work it back to the beginning of the
>>current cycle (10,500 BC, coincidentally:)
>
>Compelling? What, that some rocks line up in a certain direction? That's
>not compelling evidence. There is little to no real evidence that this
>purported civilization really did exist. What these yayhoos did was decide
>that there was something in common between these structures (more
>specifically, that there had to be some meaning to the way the pyramids
>lined up) and search for "evidence" to support their claim. If you watch
>that program again, you'll see what I mean.

Actually, I did get somewhat of the same opinion. as far as it being
evidence for a highly advanced "ancestor" civilization... there wasn't
enough evidence for anything more than interesting speculation. I did,
however find the astronomical stuff to be compelling evidence for more
sophisticated mathematics and astronomical measurement than was previously
believed. It _is_ entirely possible that each of these cultures
independently discovered precession and the math required to work it back.
Of course then again, 10,500 BCE seems to be an arbitrary starting point
(other than its proximity to the end of the last Ice Age, that is... but
there is _no_ evidence that this would be known).

>The entire thing smacks of "knowledge passed down from Atlantis" or
"Alien
>knowledge and technology" or somesuch thing. And while this is very fun to

I don't necessarily agree. To me it sounds more like we're being put in our
place... humanity has been at this level before, and we screwed it up.
Let's not do it again. Even if it _is_ purely speculation, it's something
to keep in mind.

>discuss in a fictional environment (aka Shadowrun), it's nothing but
>psuedo-scientific babble.

A hundred years ago relativity was considered pseudo-scientific babble.
Fifty years ago plate tectonics was pseudo-scientific babble. I'm not
necessarily saying this is the same thing, but more often than not, it's
the fringes of the scientific community that make the real discoveries,
rather than the mainstream. Why? Because they look at the known data in
ways no one else has. So while I don't necessarily believe in the "ancient
civilization" theory on any more than a primitive gut-level (I really like
the idea:) I wouldn't totally discount it. After all, theories are called
theories because they don't have any proof:)


>About the only thing that was believable, and I believe has gained some
>acceptance, is that the Sphinx is older than previously thought. The

I agree. This was really the only thing for which they had hard evidence
that wasn't purely speculation. Water erosion just _doesn't_ happen in the
desert. Interesting note (assuming I'm remembering this correctly:): When
was the last time that Egypt wasn't a desert? Approximately 10,000 years
ago, approximately 5,000 years ago. On a geological timescale, a give and
take of 2,000 years isn't _that_ much.

>problem with that artifact is that it has actually been fixed and rebuilt
>numerous times in it's history. Archeology, to my knowledge, now accepts
>an earlier date for the original structure than what was currently believed.

Tell that to the curator of the Sphinx:)

>Oh, and nothing personal, really. I entered my alumnus as a declared
>anthropology major; only stayed with that major for a year, but it was
>enough for me to develop an intense distaste for theories like this (such
>as aliens building things). Give me hard archeological evidence or go away
>is my general philosophy on this matter.

I understand completely with this stance. In fact as I've said, I
completely agree that the theory needs more evidence. The point where I
would disagree, however, is that this is an "aliens built this" theory. It
merely postulates that man's history goes back much farther than we
thought. As far as hard archeological evidence, I doubt there ever will be
any, as it is very unlikely that any material evidence from an unrecorded
civilization from 12,000 years ago still exists. Which, unfortunately
condemns it to remain just a theory (though IMHO it's very interesting:).

[snip]


>Sorry for the mini-rant. Yet another sore subject of mine.

No need to apologize. You made some very valid points, that I very much
agree with. It's just our interpretation of the nature of the theory that
differs. But that's to be expected, no? After all, we're not the same
person:)

Greg

***********************************************************************
* *
* \ (__) Greg Symons <gsymons@******.temple.edu> *
* \\(oo) Seanchai/ and Follower of Bri\de *
* /-----\\\/ *
* / | (##) "Hearken closely and you shall hear the *
* * ||----||" sound of cows and bagpipes upon the heath" *
* ^^ ^^ *
* *
* PGP Fingerprint: 694E 3B0B 4834 7831 BBCA C9E8 4299 0765 15F5 E599 *
* *
***********************************************************************


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv

iQA/AwUBNeNufkKZB2UV9eWZEQJKTgCfQVFHroDV759i3SVkYWepyqEv678AoLbS
lalm0NR9YtPtQp/9/7Xr0Jqa
=2mxH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Message no. 7
From: Greg Symons <gsymons@******.TEMPLE.EDU>
Subject: Re: Ancient Civilization (was Re: Physical Laws)
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 23:09:37 -0400
At 8:58 PM -0400 8/25/98, Wordman wrote:

>Greg wrote:
>>I personally am kind of curious what 10,500 looks like on the Mayan
>>calendar...
>
>According to MacMaya, a date conversion utility for the Mac, the long count
>of 0,0,0,0,0 only goes back to September 6, 3113 B.C.

Well, that's disappointing:) Darn Maya... why couldn't they make their
calendar fit my neat little fantasy theory:)

Although, after doing a little research, the Mayan Age is approximately
5125 years long, which would put 10500 BCE right in the middle of the 2nd
Age. Hmmm... that blows my fantasy, too.

Greg
Pouting over shattered dreams of magical power


***********************************************************************
* *
* \ (__) Greg Symons <gsymons@******.temple.edu> *
* \\(oo) Seanchai/ and Follower of Bri\de *
* /-----\\\/ *
* / | (##) "Hearken closely and you shall hear the *
* * ||----||" sound of cows and bagpipes upon the heath" *
* ^^ ^^ *
* *
* PGP Fingerprint: 694E 3B0B 4834 7831 BBCA C9E8 4299 0765 15F5 E599 *
* *
***********************************************************************


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv

iQA/AwUBNeOGOEKZB2UV9eWZEQLI0ACfbrTBVh1FRm5hT1ZqxraV8/rroiEAn2G2
SY8mcLKYgnVBExHCeyHAlrkh
=miT4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Message no. 8
From: Gabriel Birke <GorbiMail@********.DE>
Subject: Re: Ancient Civilization (was Re: Physical Laws)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 09:38:30 +0200
Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM> wrote:


>>So, while there is no _conclusive_ (i.e. recorded) evidence of this
>>civilization, the evidence is very compelling that at the very least the
>>builders of these sites not only had a knowledge of precession, but also
>>had strong enough mathematics to work it back to the beginning of the
>>current cycle (10,500 BC, coincidentally:)
>
>Compelling? What, that some rocks line up in a certain direction? That's
>not compelling evidence. There is little to no real evidence that this
>purported civilization really did exist. What these yayhoos did was decide
>that there was something in common between these structures (more
>specifically, that there had to be some meaning to the way the pyramids
>lined up) and search for "evidence" to support their claim. If you watch
>that program again, you'll see what I mean.


There is a method to get a "proof" but since not everyone believes in
re-incarnation it is no real proof: If you regress people into their former
lives via hypnosis it is no problem for them to go 10,500 BC and tell what
the live and culture was like. They even can speak the language the people
spoke.

Gorbi

"Gorbi Airlines - you'll LEAVE the way we fly!"
Message no. 9
From: Danyel N Woods <9604801@********.AC.NZ>
Subject: Re: Ancient Civilization (was Re: Physical Laws)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 19:40:13 +1200
Quoth Gabriel Birke (1939 26-8-98 NZT):

>There is a method to get a "proof" but since not everyone believes in
>re-incarnation it is no real proof: If you regress people into their
former
>lives via hypnosis it is no problem for them to go 10,500 BC and tell
what
>the live and culture was like. They even can speak the language the
people
>spoke.

I'll take your word for that. I'm sure there's some validity to
regression treatment, but much of this 'past-life' stuff is apparently
easily skewed by outside influences: I saw a TV special where a woman
thought she was a Roman slave in a race because the hypnotist was
projecting the chariot sequence from _Ben Hur_ onto the wall opposite
her. (The subject was completely 'under' when the film started rolling
- closed eyes, no soundtrack, what have you.)

Danyel Woods - 9604801@********.ac.nz
'No, I'm Chaos and he's Mayhem. We're a double act.'
Message no. 10
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Ancient Civilization (was Re: Physical Laws)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 03:54:39 EDT
In a message dated 8/25/1998 10:43:53 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
gsymons@******.ocis.temple.edu writes:

> According to MacMaya, a date conversion utility for the Mac, the long count
> >of 0,0,0,0,0 only goes back to September 6, 3113 B.C.
>
> Well, that's disappointing:) Darn Maya... why couldn't they make their
> calendar fit my neat little fantasy theory:)
>
> Although, after doing a little research, the Mayan Age is approximately
> 5125 years long, which would put 10500 BCE right in the middle of the 2nd
> Age. Hmmm... that blows my fantasy, too.

No Greg it doesn't, it points out the reflection of the cycles of power, and
their time spike occurrences. Keep doing your research guy, you are doing
good here :)

-K
Message no. 11
From: Greg Symons <gsymons@******.TEMPLE.EDU>
Subject: Re: Ancient Civilization (was Re: Physical Laws)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 11:26:28 -0400
At 3:54 AM -0400 8/26/98, K is the Symbol wrote:

>In a message dated 8/25/1998 10:43:53 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
>gsymons@******.ocis.temple.edu writes:
>
>> According to MacMaya, a date conversion utility for the Mac, the long count
>> >of 0,0,0,0,0 only goes back to September 6, 3113 B.C.
>>
>> Well, that's disappointing:) Darn Maya... why couldn't they make their
>> calendar fit my neat little fantasy theory:)
>>
>> Although, after doing a little research, the Mayan Age is approximately
>> 5125 years long, which would put 10500 BCE right in the middle of the 2nd
>> Age. Hmmm... that blows my fantasy, too.
>
>No Greg it doesn't, it points out the reflection of the cycles of power, and
>their time spike occurrences. Keep doing your research guy, you are doing
>good here :)

In fact, I did, and discovered an essay which puts forth a theory on why
the Mayan's chose the solstice of 2012 as the end of the current age. At
dawn on December 24th, 2012, The sun is in conjunction with the Galactic
equator and the ecliptic (along with some insignicant little star named
Sg4... although, if we really are originally from another planet, maybe Sg4
is our home system... ok, that one's a bit out there:) at a point known in
Mayan astrology as the World Tree. This is a once in a precession
occurrence (i.e. it only happens once every 26,000 years).

Of course this all depends on the correlation number used. This was
calculated using the Thompson correlation, which is the most widely
accepted one. However, there is another one (I forget the name of it:)
based on the fact that in the highlands of Guatemala there is a Mayan tribe
which still uses the 260 day haab (is that the right one? I'm not looking
at the article right now:) calendar. This correlation pushes the date of
the beginning of the next age back two days, missing the solstice (though
two days in the scheme of astronomical matters isn't much, I think missing
the solstice is significant). However there is another scholar who believes
that at the time of the Spanish conquest, the calendar was adjusted by two
days, so who knows? Other correlations vary by hundreds of thousands of
days, however, which is a significant amount of time, at least as far as
the conjunction is concerned.

However, as the plane of the ecliptic only moves 1 degree every 72 years,
the conjunction is already very close, and will remain close for
approximately 360 years after its occurrence (in astronomy, objects within
5 degrees of each other are considered to be in conjunction).

Now, to relate this to Shadowrun:

For the next 360 years, mana levels will continue to rise. After 360 years,
mana levels will be at their peak, and will remain steady for approximately
4765 years, at which time they will again wane until the finally reach 0 in
approximately 7137 CE, at which point the great dragons and IEs will return
to their slumber to await the next rise of magic in approximately 28k CE.
In this time, two Mayan ages will pass, putting the next rise of magic in
the 8th Age. Assuming the sun doesn't burn out before then:)

Greg

***********************************************************************
* *
* \ (__) Greg Symons <gsymons@******.temple.edu> *
* \\(oo) Seanchai/ and Follower of Bri\de *
* /-----\\\/ *
* / | (##) "Hearken closely and you shall hear the *
* * ||----||" sound of cows and bagpipes upon the heath" *
* ^^ ^^ *
* *
* PGP Fingerprint: 694E 3B0B 4834 7831 BBCA C9E8 4299 0765 15F5 E599 *
* *
***********************************************************************


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv

iQA/AwUBNeQpkEKZB2UV9eWZEQK10wCfX5DJ6P8G06g+wGhXKvadMuNxS+MAmgKq
KF9i1Ze0C5HDnO2L9S59PCbT
=Anzf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Message no. 12
From: Steve Eley <sfeley@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Ancient Civilization (was Re: Physical Laws)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 11:52:39 -0400
Greg Symons wrote:
>
> In fact, I did, and discovered an essay which puts forth a theory on why
> the Mayan's chose the solstice of 2012 as the end of the current age. At
> dawn on December 24th, 2012, The sun is in conjunction with the Galactic
> equator and the ecliptic (along with some insignicant little star named
> Sg4... although, if we really are originally from another planet, maybe Sg4
> is our home system... ok, that one's a bit out there:) at a point known in
> Mayan astrology as the World Tree. This is a once in a precession
> occurrence (i.e. it only happens once every 26,000 years).

Almost right, except that the solstice and the conjuction happen on
December 21, not December 24. That's also the Mayan Cycle end date,
13.0.0.0.0, by the Thompson correlation. (The other correlation you're
talking about pushes it to December 23.)


Have Fun,
- Steve Eley
sfeley@***.net
Message no. 13
From: Adam Getchell <acgetchell@*******.EDU>
Subject: Re: Ancient Civilization (was Re: Physical Laws)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 10:00:12 -0700
>In this time, two Mayan ages will pass, putting the next rise of magic in
>the 8th Age. Assuming the sun doesn't burn out before then:)

No fear of that. Sol is a main sequence G 4 star with about 5 billion years
to go before it swells into a red giant, engulfs Venus and burns Earth into
a cinder.

Long before then we'll have troubles as the moon reaches it maximum orbit
size (at which time the day and lunar month will coincide) at which point
the Moon will spiral back in to be ripped up by Earth's gravity,
incidentally causing havoc here.

But perhaps somewhere in the intervening time we'll get hit by a comet.


>Greg
--Adam

acgetchell@*******.edu
"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu
Message no. 14
From: Patrick Goodman <remo@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Ancient Civilization (was Re: Physical Laws)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 12:18:35 -0500
>But perhaps somewhere in the intervening time we'll get hit by a comet.

Oh, you're a great help.... <g>

---
(>) Texas 2-Step
El Paso: Never surrender. Never forget. Never forgive.
Message no. 15
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Ancient Civilization (was Re: Physical Laws)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 14:22:29 -0400
At 09:38 AM 8/26/98 +0200, you wrote:

>There is a method to get a "proof" but since not everyone believes in
>re-incarnation it is no real proof: If you regress people into their former
>lives via hypnosis it is no problem for them to go 10,500 BC and tell what
>the live and culture was like. They even can speak the language the people
>spoke.

I'm not even going to get into this one...
Message no. 16
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Ancient Civilization (was Re: Physical Laws)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 14:23:42 -0400
At 10:06 PM 8/25/98 -0400, you wrote:

>Actually, I did get somewhat of the same opinion. as far as it being
>evidence for a highly advanced "ancestor" civilization... there wasn't
>enough evidence for anything more than interesting speculation. I did,
>however find the astronomical stuff to be compelling evidence for more
>sophisticated mathematics and astronomical measurement than was previously
>believed.

It is also very possible that they *didn't* have any of the complex
astronomics and mathematics. They simply built. It's well known that the
process of building pyramids was learned not through math, but through
trial and error.

It's like this electricity bit. That's a science experiment any kid can do
at home almost. But does the child have enough grasp of what's going on to
do anything constructive with it? Almost certainly not. Which is probably
the same case with the various ancient civilizations that had it. It was
probably a novelty, something that was weird and a bit goofy, but had
little practical application.

It _is_ entirely possible that each of these cultures
>independently discovered precession and the math required to work it back.
>Of course then again, 10,500 BCE seems to be an arbitrary starting point
>(other than its proximity to the end of the last Ice Age, that is... but
>there is _no_ evidence that this would be known).

Now, if there was evidence of a civilization from that time period, then I
might be more inclined to believe the allusions made by these folks.

>I don't necessarily agree. To me it sounds more like we're being put in our
>place... humanity has been at this level before, and we screwed it up.
>Let's not do it again. Even if it _is_ purely speculation, it's something
>to keep in mind.

Possibly, but to say "we've been at this level before" not only smacks of
Atlantis theories, but also of historical revisionism, a lack of belief in
the capabilities of modern man and most importantly, lacks a shred of
evidence.

>A hundred years ago relativity was considered pseudo-scientific babble.
>Fifty years ago plate tectonics was pseudo-scientific babble. I'm not
>necessarily saying this is the same thing, but more often than not, it's

But you allude to it.

>the fringes of the scientific community that make the real discoveries,
>rather than the mainstream. Why? Because they look at the known data in
>ways no one else has. So while I don't necessarily believe in the "ancient
>civilization" theory on any more than a primitive gut-level (I really like
>the idea:) I wouldn't totally discount it. After all, theories are called
>theories because they don't have any proof:)

With the increasing level of cross pollination of ideas and disciplines,
expect the fringes to decrease as the mainstream expands. But yes,
sometimes brilliant ideas are born from the fringes. I would characterize
this whole 10,500BC theory as being from the lunatic fringes however.

>>problem with that artifact is that it has actually been fixed and rebuilt
>>numerous times in it's history. Archeology, to my knowledge, now accepts
>>an earlier date for the original structure than what was currently believed.
>
>Tell that to the curator of the Sphinx:)

The theory does have much more widespread acceptance than even a decade ago.

>I understand completely with this stance. In fact as I've said, I
>completely agree that the theory needs more evidence. The point where I
>would disagree, however, is that this is an "aliens built this" theory. It
>merely postulates that man's history goes back much farther than we
>thought.

Grrr. You've heard of crop circles, right? Supposedly they are so complex
and strange that is is impossible for a mere mortal to create them, they
must be made by aliens.

Turns out a bunch of odd sods, often British university geeks, DO make crop
circles, it's a sort of ultra-geek sport. A couple of twonks with some
rope and a few boards can make incredibly complex crop circles in a few hours.

What this tells me is that we very often underestimate what a mere mortal
can do. The Egyptians didn't need aliens of knowledge handed down from
10,500BC to build their pyramids as they did, they were clever enough to
figure it out for themselves.

On the one hand, humanity is capable of amazing depths of depravity and
blatant stupidity. But I think sometimes we forget just how smart and
clever we can be also.

>As far as hard archeological evidence, I doubt there ever will be
>any, as it is very unlikely that any material evidence from an unrecorded
>civilization from 12,000 years ago still exists. Which, unfortunately
>condemns it to remain just a theory (though IMHO it's very interesting:).

If they were as advanced as is purported, they had to have left *some* kind
of physical evidence, be it tools, ruins, artifacts. Cripes, we can dig up
Troy and look at not only each individual city, but also look at what the
city was probably like; a city has been on this particular mound at
Hisarlik since about 3,500BC. And we can make strong, educated guesses
about nearly every stage of civilization that existed there; wide roads
here, trash there, soot over that way, all on different strata. Given that
capability in modern archeology, I fail to see why we shouldn't be able to
find evidence of this 10,500BC civilization if it really existed.

Erik J.
Message no. 17
From: "Droopy ." <mmanhardt@*****.NET>
Subject: Re: Ancient Civilization (was Re: Physical Laws)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 15:40:36 -0400
From: Greg Symons <gsymons@******.ocis.temple.edu>
Subject: Re: Ancient Civilization (was Re: Physical Laws)

> finally reach 0 in approximately 7137 CE, at which point the great dragons
> and IEs will return to their slumber to await the next rise of magic in

The IE's hardly slumbered. :)


--Droopy
Message no. 18
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Ancient Civilization (was Re: Physical Laws)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 15:52:57 EDT
In a message dated 8/26/1998 10:21:22 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
gsymons@******.ocis.temple.edu writes:



> For the next 360 years, mana levels will continue to rise. After 360 years,
> mana levels will be at their peak, and will remain steady for approximately
> 4765 years, at which time they will again wane until the finally reach 0 in
> approximately 7137 CE, at which point the great dragons and IEs will return
> to their slumber to await the next rise of magic in approximately 28k CE.
> In this time, two Mayan ages will pass, putting the next rise of magic in
> the 8th Age. Assuming the sun doesn't burn out before then:)
>
<hoots and cheers from Lafalot Indiana>

now THAT is what I was hoping to hear. Granted, I do NOT remember the
"Thompson Theory" thing you mentioned, but overall, very good. Now go talk to
the original creators of SR (a list of their names can be found in the SR3
credits). They would applaud you on an excellent job of reverse engineering
the entire magocentric timeline.

-K (who isn't kidding btw)
Message no. 19
From: Gabriel Birke <GorbiMail@********.DE>
Subject: Re: Ancient Civilization (was Re: Physical Laws)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 00:21:04 +0200
Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM> wrote:


>>There is a method to get a "proof" but since not everyone believes in
>>re-incarnation it is no real proof: If you regress people into their
former
>>lives via hypnosis it is no problem for them to go 10,500 BC and tell what
>>the live and culture was like. They even can speak the language the people
>>spoke.
>
>I'm not even going to get into this one...

Sorry but due to English not being my mother tongue I don't get you: Are you
not going to believe (then I may give some arguments) or are you not going
to discuss?

Gorbi

"- What's the worst thing you learnt in regression therapy?
- The thoughts I had when I was born: 'Oh no, not AGAIN!'"
Message no. 20
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Ancient Civilization (was Re: Physical Laws)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 00:15:34 +0100
And verily, did Gabriel Birke hastily scribble thusly...
|>I'm not even going to get into this one...
|
|Sorry but due to English not being my mother tongue I don't get you: Are you
|not going to believe (then I may give some arguments) or are you not going
|to discuss?

Discuss.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
| Andrew Halliwell | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| Finalist in:- |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
Message no. 21
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Ancient Civilization (was Re: Physical Laws)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 20:20:40 -0400
At 12:21 AM 8/27/98 +0200, you wrote:

>>I'm not even going to get into this one...
>
>Sorry but due to English not being my mother tongue I don't get you: Are you
>not going to believe (then I may give some arguments) or are you not going
>to discuss?

It means I'm not going to discuss a nonsense theory.
Message no. 22
From: Nexx <nexx@********.NET>
Subject: Re: Ancient Civilization (was Re: Physical Laws)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 19:29:54 -0500
----------
> From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
> >>I'm not even going to get into this one...
> >
> >Sorry but due to English not being my mother tongue I don't get you:
Are you
> >not going to believe (then I may give some arguments) or are you not
going
> >to discuss?
>
> It means I'm not going to discuss a nonsense theory.

Erik, please tell me you aren't insulting the religious beliefs of very
many people I know, including myself. That would be a bad thing.
Message no. 23
From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Ancient Civilization (was Re: Physical Laws)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 11:37:15 +1000
> > It means I'm not going to discuss a nonsense theory.
>
> Erik, please tell me you aren't insulting the religious beliefs of very
> many people I know, including myself. That would be a bad thing.

Nexx... Erik is entitled to hold the belief that hypnotic regression of past
lives is a load of bull (which is different, I should note, to believing
that re-incarnation is a load of bull). He is entitled to express that
opinion. He has already indicated that he's not going to discuss this. He is
in fact being very restrained about it, seeing that his first impulse on
seeing the post of proving the ancient civilisation theory using hypnotic
regression was likely to be a lot like mine, which was "Gee, this guy is a
total looney".

Oh, and before you go too far into this, Nexx... if you or anyone else goes
around saying that hypnotic regression of past lives is capable of proving
anything, then you're insulting the religious beliefs of a lot of people I
know, including myself.

--
Duct tape is like the Force: There's a Light side, a Dark side, and it
binds the Universe together.
Robert Watkins -- robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 24
From: Nexx <nexx@********.NET>
Subject: Re: Ancient Civilization (was Re: Physical Laws)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 21:56:31 -0500
----------
> From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
> > > It means I'm not going to discuss a nonsense theory.
> >
> > Erik, please tell me you aren't insulting the religious beliefs of
very
> > many people I know, including myself. That would be a bad thing.
>
> Nexx... Erik is entitled to hold the belief that hypnotic regression of
past
> lives is a load of bull (which is different, I should note, to believing
> that re-incarnation is a load of bull)

Actually, I thought he was saying the idea of reincarnation was a nonsense
theory, not hypnotic regression. If I misinterpreted that, I'm sorry,
Erik. I was wrong.

***************
Rev. Mark Hall, Bard to the Lady Mari
aka Pope Nexx Many-Scars
"The Kelti said of themselves that they did not lie, but they sometimes
took a very long way around in getting to the truth, with frequent stops
at interesting spots along the way."
-Morgan Llywelyn "The Horse Goddess"
Message no. 25
From: "M. Sean Martinez" <ElBandit@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Ancient Civilization (was Re: Physical Laws)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 08:23:28 EDT
In a message dated 8/26/98 9:40:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
robert.watkins@******.COM writes:

> Oh, and before you go too far into this, Nexx... if you or anyone else goes
> around saying that hypnotic regression of past lives is capable of proving
> anything, then you're insulting the religious beliefs of a lot of people I
> know, including myself.

I saw a program on A&E about hypnotic progression for future lives. Same basic
set up as the past life regression, but it shows your future lives.

-Bandit
Message no. 26
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Ancient Civilization (was Re: Physical Laws)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 12:45:42 -0400
At 07:29 PM 8/26/98 -0500, you wrote:

>> It means I'm not going to discuss a nonsense theory.
>
>Erik, please tell me you aren't insulting the religious beliefs of very
>many people I know, including myself. That would be a bad thing.

Please note I said "theory" and not "belief."

While I don't personally believe in reincarnation, I understand that
millions of people across the globe do. I am not impinging or otherwise
attempting to denigrate that belief.

As a pseudoscientific theory of "past life regression" I have major
problems with the entire concept. Here, we cross from religion into the
arena of science. And hence a "theory."

So no, Nexx, I'm just being an asshole, but I'm not attempting to insult
you or anyone's religious beliefs.

And I'm still going to enter into a discussion on the matter itself.

Erik J.
Message no. 27
From: Greg Symons <gsymons@******.TEMPLE.EDU>
Subject: Re: Ancient Civilization (was Re: Physical Laws)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 01:28:15 -0400
At 2:23 PM -0400 8/26/98, Erik Jameson wrote:

>At 10:06 PM 8/25/98 -0400, you wrote:
>
>>Actually, I did get somewhat of the same opinion. as far as it being
>>evidence for a highly advanced "ancestor" civilization... there wasn't
>>enough evidence for anything more than interesting speculation. I did,
>>however find the astronomical stuff to be compelling evidence for more
>>sophisticated mathematics and astronomical measurement than was previously
>>believed.
>
>It is also very possible that they *didn't* have any of the complex
>astronomics and mathematics. They simply built. It's well known that the
>process of building pyramids was learned not through math, but through
>trial and error.

But we also know that the Maya were able to predict a once-in-a-precession
conjunction occurring on the same day as the winter solstice. While some
further reading I've done shows that precession isn't as difficult to
figure out as I thought (you only need written records of about a hundred
to two hundred years... or you can just use the same sighting stone for
about the same time... either way, a 1-2 degree difference is going to be
noticeable), the math needed to predict the solstice (and those more
knowledgeable in physics can correct me if I'm wrong:) requires knowledge
of orbital mechanics, and to be able to plot that in respect to a
once-in-a-precession conjunction is _very_ compelling evidence for advanced
mathematics.

>It's like this electricity bit. That's a science experiment any kid can do
>at home almost. But does the child have enough grasp of what's going on to
>do anything constructive with it? Almost certainly not. Which is probably
>the same case with the various ancient civilizations that had it. It was
>probably a novelty, something that was weird and a bit goofy, but had
>little practical application.

To tell you the truth, from the little bit of electrical engineering I've
had (a general course on the history of electronic systems) I find it hard
to believe that any society that actually took the time to look at
electricity _wouldn't_ figure out the same things we have. After all, most
of the important discoveries (Faraday's laws, for one... I'd list more
examples, but I can't remember them; I _am_ a theatre major after all:)
occurred within the span of approximately 100-200 years. Egyptian
civilization lasted what, several _thousand_ years? I think we tend to give
our ancestors less credit than is due them... because we don't know.

> It _is_ entirely possible that each of these cultures
>>independently discovered precession and the math required to work it back.
>>Of course then again, 10,500 BCE seems to be an arbitrary starting point
>>(other than its proximity to the end of the last Ice Age, that is... but
>>there is _no_ evidence that this would be known).
>
>Now, if there was evidence of a civilization from that time period, then I
>might be more inclined to believe the allusions made by these folks.

Often evidence of something will stare you in the face, but if you aren't
looking for it, you'll never find it. But you're right, without material
evidence, we can't do anything other than speculate. And in regards to the
show, we have to remember that it _is_ aimed at the masses, most of whom
don't really care for the nit-picky (in the mass mind, that is;) details
like that. They're just looking for their conspiracy opium:) I think these
guys are simply trying to make people think. And if people think there's a
_possibility_ of a civilization in that time period, they might actually
look. Remember, no one _seriously_ thought Troy existed anywhere but
mythology until about 50 years ago.

>
>>I don't necessarily agree. To me it sounds more like we're being put in our
>>place... humanity has been at this level before, and we screwed it up.
>>Let's not do it again. Even if it _is_ purely speculation, it's something
>>to keep in mind.
>
>Possibly, but to say "we've been at this level before" not only smacks of
>Atlantis theories, but also of historical revisionism, a lack of belief in
>the capabilities of modern man and most importantly, lacks a shred of
>evidence.

Again, as I said, this is why i'd _like_ it to be true. I won't accept it
blindly without proof either. And yes, I do have a lack of belief in the
capabilities of modern man... as a _whole_. At no other time (that we know
of:) has man been so capable of destroying himself. Not only that, but
current political situations make the threat of obliteration all too real.
How many nuclear weapons have been "misplaced" in the former Soviet Union?
How many unstable nations have the capability to manufacture and deploy
biological and chemical weapons or even nuclear weapons? _Nobody_ knows.
While I think we might be able to pull through without destroying
ourselves, our britches are getting dangerously tight.

>
>>A hundred years ago relativity was considered pseudo-scientific babble.
>>Fifty years ago plate tectonics was pseudo-scientific babble. I'm not
>>necessarily saying this is the same thing, but more often than not, it's
>
>But you allude to it.

I enjoy playing devil's advocate. I often support something simply because
no one else does. I find that by finding support for something, it is far
easier to find it's weaknesses than by attacking it.

>>the fringes of the scientific community that make the real discoveries,
>>rather than the mainstream. Why? Because they look at the known data in
>>ways no one else has. So while I don't necessarily believe in the "ancient
>>civilization" theory on any more than a primitive gut-level (I really like
>>the idea:) I wouldn't totally discount it. After all, theories are called
>>theories because they don't have any proof:)
>
>With the increasing level of cross pollination of ideas and disciplines,
>expect the fringes to decrease as the mainstream expands. But yes,
>sometimes brilliant ideas are born from the fringes. I would characterize
>this whole 10,500BC theory as being from the lunatic fringes however.

Whereas I see it as the result of the cross-pollination of ideas and
disciplines (astronomy, geology, and archaeology). I actually got the
impression that they all stumbled on this idea somewhat independently.

[snip]

>>I understand completely with this stance. In fact as I've said, I
>>completely agree that the theory needs more evidence. The point where I
>>would disagree, however, is that this is an "aliens built this" theory.
It
>>merely postulates that man's history goes back much farther than we
>>thought.

[snip]

>What this tells me is that we very often underestimate what a mere mortal
>can do. The Egyptians didn't need aliens of knowledge handed down from
>10,500BC to build their pyramids as they did, they were clever enough to
>figure it out for themselves.

Point taken, but not entirely opposed to what I'm saying either. It is
possible that the Egyptians knew of the _existence_ of an older
civilization, and built its temples and pyramids to honor it. Which would
require (re?)discovery of precession and the math needed to predict it.
Doesn't necessarily mean they had "knowledge passed down from Atlantis;"
simply that they knew of its existence. Kind of like how we honor
Greco-Roman civilization in our architecture.

>>As far as hard archeological evidence, I doubt there ever will be
>>any, as it is very unlikely that any material evidence from an unrecorded
>>civilization from 12,000 years ago still exists. Which, unfortunately
>>condemns it to remain just a theory (though IMHO it's very interesting:).
>
>If they were as advanced as is purported, they had to have left *some* kind
>of physical evidence, be it tools, ruins, artifacts. Cripes, we can dig up
>Troy and look at not only each individual city, but also look at what the
>city was probably like; a city has been on this particular mound at
>Hisarlik since about 3,500BC. And we can make strong, educated guesses
>about nearly every stage of civilization that existed there; wide roads
>here, trash there, soot over that way, all on different strata. Given that
>capability in modern archeology, I fail to see why we shouldn't be able to
>find evidence of this 10,500BC civilization if it really existed.

Possibly. Assuming their material culture was resilient enough to _last_
12,000 years. 5000 years is quite a bit shorter than 12000:) But there are
other reasons, as well. The last Great Ice Age ended about 10,000 years
ago, so a site from 10500 BCE could very possibly be underwater. Also, no
one's been _looking_ for a a civilization in 10500 BCE... as I said before,
it's very difficult to find something you're not even looking for:)

Greg


***********************************************************************
* *
* \ (__) Greg Symons <gsymons@******.temple.edu> *
* \\(oo) Seanchai/ and Follower of Bri\de *
* /-----\\\/ *
* / | (##) "Hearken closely and you shall hear the *
* * ||----||" sound of cows and bagpipes upon the heath" *
* ^^ ^^ *
* *
* PGP Fingerprint: 694E 3B0B 4834 7831 BBCA C9E8 4299 0765 15F5 E599 *
* *
***********************************************************************


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv

iQA/AwUBNeWqSUKZB2UV9eWZEQKwEwCffQFrNRlh97F8F+mvsQZqL55zMXIAoNzy
xV39LJh1hl85RuHphnK8AA9x
=2kkN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Message no. 28
From: Adam Getchell <acgetchell@*******.EDU>
Subject: Re: Ancient Civilization (was Re: Physical Laws)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 12:01:49 -0700
>But we also know that the Maya were able to predict a once-in-a-precession
>conjunction occurring on the same day as the winter solstice. While some
>further reading I've done shows that precession isn't as difficult to
>figure out as I thought (you only need written records of about a hundred
>to two hundred years... or you can just use the same sighting stone for
>about the same time... either way, a 1-2 degree difference is going to be
>noticeable), the math needed to predict the solstice (and those more
>knowledgeable in physics can correct me if I'm wrong:) requires knowledge
>of orbital mechanics, and to be able to plot that in respect to a
>once-in-a-precession conjunction is _very_ compelling evidence for advanced
>mathematics.

Trigonometry. That is all that is required. (Trust me, I did quite a few
trig calculations for my undergraduate astronomy classes)

It is very tedious, though. However, it certainly would not require
Lagrangian dynamics (which would require, in order, differential calculus,
vector/tensor analysis, and variational calculus). Each of these
disciplines are rather significant leaps.

>>It's like this electricity bit. That's a science experiment any kid can do
>>at home almost. But does the child have enough grasp of what's going on to
>>do anything constructive with it? Almost certainly not. Which is probably
>>the same case with the various ancient civilizations that had it. It was
>>probably a novelty, something that was weird and a bit goofy, but had
>>little practical application.

I agree.

>Greg
--Adam

acgetchell@*******.edu
"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu
Message no. 29
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Ancient Civilization (was Re: Physical Laws)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 15:22:53 -0400
Well, first of all, it looks like we are going to have to agree to disagree
on this one. We agree on certain points, but others we are unlikely to do
so. But...

At 01:28 AM 8/27/98 -0400, you wrote:

>look. Remember, no one _seriously_ thought Troy existed anywhere but
>mythology until about 50 years ago.

BZZZZT! Sorry wrong answer, thanks for playing. Why don't you tell them
what nice parting gifts we have for them!

Now you're treading on *my* ground; my entire intent on going into
archeology/anthropology was to finish digging up Troy...

Heinrich Schlieman began the first excavations of Troy in the plains and
hills of Hisarlik in northern coastal Turkei in the 19th Century. *Well*
over one hundred years ago.

Karl Dorpfeld, his assistant in later digs and the man responsible for the
amazing excavations at locations such as Tiryns, continued the excavations.
Without Dorpfeld, Schlieman would have destroyed much of Mycenae as he
unfortunately did to Troy; Dorpfeld was an amazing archeologist.

Several Americans who's names escape me right now also dug up Troy. Of
them all, only Dorpfeld really dug up and focused on what is considered to
be the Troy of the Trojan War.

The existence of Troy as an archeological fact has been free from major
dispute for much longer than 50 years. The primary dispute, and one that
is still revisited today, is *which* Troy is the one of the Trojan War. I,
and this seems to now be the majority opinion, believe it is the Troy of
Dorpfelds excavations, which places the Trojan war around 1170BC or so.

Been a bit since I reviewed my Mycenean Greece materials, so I may be off
on some minor details.

To bring this back to SR, I see Greece as shattering into the old system of
city-states. Unfortunately, as much as would like otherwise, I see it
probably going more towards the Classical Greek alignments (since that's
where the people live now) as opposed to Bronze Age/Mycenean Greek
alignments, which is what *I* would personally prefer. All Greek Olympics.
A higher percentage of adepts and a lower percentage of spellcasting
types. A resurgence of the old religous pantheistic cults, but not
something that would supplant or replace Greek Orthodox Christianity. I
don't think we'd have as radical a differences between City States as you
had between Classical Athens and Sparta, but certainly very clear
differences; might even have a corporate city state or two.

Erik J.
Message no. 30
From: Kama <kama@*******.NET>
Subject: Re: Ancient Civilization (was Re: Physical Laws)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 15:46:00 -0400
On Thu, 27 Aug 1998, Erik Jameson wrote:

> Well, first of all, it looks like we are going to have to agree to disagree
> on this one. We agree on certain points, but others we are unlikely to do
> so. But...
>
> At 01:28 AM 8/27/98 -0400, you wrote:
>
> >look. Remember, no one _seriously_ thought Troy existed anywhere but
> >mythology until about 50 years ago.
>
> BZZZZT! Sorry wrong answer, thanks for playing. Why don't you tell them
> what nice parting gifts we have for them!
>
> Now you're treading on *my* ground; my entire intent on going into
> archeology/anthropology was to finish digging up Troy...

My ground as well. B.A. in Classics, coursework for an M.A. [before I
decided to get a degree that would let me earn a living] and some
experience with the digs at Knossos and Troy. (One of the coolest
experiences of my life was getting to sit in the throne of the snake
goddess under the publically accessable ruins of Knossos)

>
> Heinrich Schlieman began the first excavations of Troy in the plains and
> hills of Hisarlik in northern coastal Turkei in the 19th Century. *Well*
> over one hundred years ago.

Hold on a sec. I agree that the date was wrong but the principle he was
trying to illustrate isn't. Until Schlieman went against conventional
wisdom (which held Troy a myth) and started looking for the city, no one
found it. Not because it was difficult to find, but because noone was
looking because it was "obvious fiction".
>
> Karl Dorpfeld, his assistant in later digs and the man responsible for the
> amazing excavations at locations such as Tiryns, continued the excavations.
> Without Dorpfeld, Schlieman would have destroyed much of Mycenae as he
> unfortunately did to Troy; Dorpfeld was an amazing archeologist.
>
> Several Americans who's names escape me right now also dug up Troy. Of
> them all, only Dorpfeld really dug up and focused on what is considered to
> be the Troy of the Trojan War.
>
> The existence of Troy as an archeological fact has been free from major
> dispute for much longer than 50 years. The primary dispute, and one that
> is still revisited today, is *which* Troy is the one of the Trojan War. I,
> and this seems to now be the majority opinion, believe it is the Troy of
> Dorpfelds excavations, which places the Trojan war around 1170BC or so.
>
> Been a bit since I reviewed my Mycenean Greece materials, so I may be off
> on some minor details.

Yes, but I don't think that it is useful to pick on minor detail such as
specific dates when the example was meant as an illustration, and the date
is not central to the point.

>
> To bring this back to SR, I see Greece as shattering into the old system of
> city-states. Unfortunately, as much as would like otherwise, I see it
> probably going more towards the Classical Greek alignments (since that's
> where the people live now) as opposed to Bronze Age/Mycenean Greek
> alignments, which is what *I* would personally prefer. All Greek Olympics.
> A higher percentage of adepts and a lower percentage of spellcasting
> types. A resurgence of the old religous pantheistic cults, but not
> something that would supplant or replace Greek Orthodox Christianity. I
> don't think we'd have as radical a differences between City States as you
> had between Classical Athens and Sparta, but certainly very clear
> differences; might even have a corporate city state or two.

I also agree with you that Greece would be likely to split up into
City-States: more so than Germany which was also discussed in this
thread IIRC. After all, Greeks do seem to identify themselves by region
rather than national identity (Yes, I lived there). IIRC from the time
I spent in Italy that was also a tendancy among the Italians.

However, I would argue that depending on the event in neighboring
countries, Greece and Italy might be able to hold themselves together.
(The us against them thing) After all, if nothing else the Greeks do seem
to agree in thier opinion of Turkey!

>
> Erik J.
>

- Kama
Message no. 31
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Ancient Civilization (was Re: Physical Laws)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 16:44:09 -0400
At 03:46 PM 8/27/98 -0400, you wrote:

>> Now you're treading on *my* ground; my entire intent on going into
>> archeology/anthropology was to finish digging up Troy...
>
>My ground as well. B.A. in Classics, coursework for an M.A. [before I
>decided to get a degree that would let me earn a living] and some
>experience with the digs at Knossos and Troy. (One of the coolest
>experiences of my life was getting to sit in the throne of the snake
>goddess under the publically accessable ruins of Knossos)

Cool.

>>
>> Heinrich Schlieman began the first excavations of Troy in the plains and
>> hills of Hisarlik in northern coastal Turkei in the 19th Century. *Well*
>> over one hundred years ago.
>
>Hold on a sec. I agree that the date was wrong but the principle he was
>trying to illustrate isn't. Until Schlieman went against conventional
>wisdom (which held Troy a myth) and started looking for the city, no one
>found it. Not because it was difficult to find, but because noone was
>looking because it was "obvious fiction".

Okay, I'll buy that.

But people *had* been looking for Troy for centuries. Weird thing was, the
Hisarlik locals knew about the old city and Heinrich just happened upon one
of them, asked the right questions and believed them.

As I recall, there's some thought that an American may have been the first
Westerner to find Troy, but he hadn't the money or the backing to do
anything about it. I'm very fuzzy here.

The primary problem is that the famed bay that Troy was supposed to
overlook had silted in very badly. Which meant that the ruins were far to
inland to possibly be what Homer was writing about.

>Yes, but I don't think that it is useful to pick on minor detail such as
>specific dates when the example was meant as an illustration, and the date
>is not central to the point.

Sorry, didn't mean to pick on anyone. But the example was incorrect, but a
decent enough illustration if you back the dates up enough.

>I also agree with you that Greece would be likely to split up into
>City-States: more so than Germany which was also discussed in this
>thread IIRC. After all, Greeks do seem to identify themselves by region
>rather than national identity (Yes, I lived there). IIRC from the time
>I spent in Italy that was also a tendancy among the Italians.

The two Paolos that either are or used to be here both believed that Italy
would fracture; I think they both did some stuff on NERPS to this affect.

>However, I would argue that depending on the event in neighboring
>countries, Greece and Italy might be able to hold themselves together.

True enough. I would argue that there would need to be a strong enough
outside force to keep them unified though; lacking that opposing power,
they would likely break up into squabbling city states.

Aside from Turkei (which I agree the Greeks all dislike), what other
external forces might keep Greece unified? And speaking of Turkei, what
might that old and proud nation be like itself in 2060? Would it revert to
the Ottoman Empire, the ancient Hittite Empire, or stay the course as it is
now? Something different? And *might* the Turks and the Greeks finally
learn to live with each other?

To modify/clarify my earlier statements, I would think there would probably
be some sort of League or Congress that would act as a sort of semi-unified
front for Greece. Imagine the United States *before* the Constitution.
Each state did their own treaties, their own laws, their own money and the
Federation Congress was without much power at all. I could easily see this
as a model for 2060 Greece. And much like ancient Greece, during times of
war you'd have most of the Greek city states putting aside their
differences to repel outside enemies.

Erik J.

Who really likes discussing these sorts of things; physics is too hard...
;-(
Message no. 32
From: GRANITE <granite@**.NET>
Subject: Re: Ancient Civilization (was Re: Physical Laws)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 14:58:08 -0700
> Erik, please tell me you aren't insulting the religious beliefs of very
> many people I know, including myself. That would be a bad thing.

That is precisely why we do not discuss religion here on the SR
list..this is neither the time nor the place..nor will it ever be..

--------------------------------GRANITE
"Rock Steady"
===============================================
Lord, Grant Me The Serenity To Accept The Things I Cannot Change,
The Courage To Change The Things I Can,
And The Wisdom To Hide The Bodies Of Those People I Had To Kill
Because They Pissed Me Off.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ShadowRunner's Serenity Prayer
===============================================
Understanding is a three edged sword. - Kosh
What is best in life?
To Crush Your Enemies,
See Them Driven Before You,
And To Hear The Lamentation Of Their Women. -Conan
I Am The LAW! -JD
Jamais Arriere

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Ancient Civilization (was Re: Physical Laws), you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!