Re: India archaeological measurments [was: Re: temple/pyramid plans]

On 29 Dec 2006 15:16:12 -0800, in sci.archaeology, Tom McDonald wrote:


Chris wrote:

<snip>

Could you say something more about mytho-geographical and
mytho-cultural centers? For instance, would you call the entire site of
the city of Teotihuacan a 'm-g' or an 'm-c' center? Or just the area
around the great pyramids and the Street of the Dead?

That is an interesting question. In my opinion, the entire area of
Teotihuacan is a loose mytho-geographical center, in the same way that
Vatican City is a mytho-geographical center for Catholics (Jerusalem,
naturally, would be another).

I'm still not certain what you mean by those two new-to-me terms. Could
you define them more closely for me?

Mytho-geographical seems to be a word used to both bodies of knowledge,
praxis, and a way of mapping. And places. I don't see any requirement for
a center though. Or any reason to think that any such concept today
relates to what people were thinking 2 thousand years ago.

http://www.johndavies.org/articles/article_04_07_06.html



But what is the center of the Vatican
itself (i.e. St. Peter's specifically)? Many would argue it is the
Baldachin below which lies the altar. So in Teotihuacan, is there a
corresonding center? I am not sure but feel that the altar before
Quetzacoatal pyramid is worth investigating.

Thinking about it, I think that if anything could be considered the
'center' of Teotihuacan, mythologically/religiously, it might well be
the cavern below (IIRC) the Pyramid of the Moon.

With places like Teotihuacan, one must resist the temptation to rely
too much on names and ideas of importance that may or may not have had
relevance to the folks who built them. Think 'emic' vs. 'etic'.

<snip>

Your original query now makes sense to me. Whose name do you want to
remove?

Tompkins, whose name I should have been more careful with when posting
here. Ah, scholars. What a crotchedy bunch.

Scholars? Well, some. Crotchety? more than a few. Many of us have
posted in s.a. for a long time, and have developed the sorts of
preferences, expectations, bitches and gripes one might expect in such
an odd community. When someone comes here for the first time, and
writes something that sounds as though it may be the beginning of a
familiar time-waster, such as the True Location of Atlantis, or the
Site of the Ark (either one), one or more of the regulars may get testy
in anticipation. That's what happened to you.

Cheers.

ps-can i conclude i have snipped

You did snip, but you did not mark your snips. One out of two ain't
bad.

and not top-posted this time?

Yes, you did not top-post this time. Good onya!

let me
know as, really, the location of my question appears to have bugged
people inordinately--regardless of the content or my tone of voice.

When folks who are experienced on Usenet top-post, unless it is for a
particular and good reason, the assumption is that they are either
trying to piss people off, or they were born in a barn. When newbies do
it, the assumption is that they do so out of ignorance, and their
response to correction will say a great deal about what sort of
Usenetizen they are likely to be. You seem to be on your way to a good
start.
--
Doug Weller --
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk
Amun - co-owner/co-moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/

.

Relevant Pages
Loading