Subject: Re: What Topics Are Acceptable To Be Posted On sci.archaeology?
From: Troy Sagrillo
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 20:52:23 GMT
Mary Beth Williams wrote:
> Part of the problem is the divergent views between US and European
> academics of what constitutes archaeology -- in the US, archaeology,
> including theory and methodology, is usually associated with
> anthropology departments --
BTW, there is a great big country to the north of the US called "Canada"
and archaeology just happens to be a discipline there as well, and
another country to the south of the US called "Mexico" wherein
archaeology is also a discipline.
> if you're interested in Egyptian, Greek,
> Roman, etc., history/art/language, you'll usually have to associate
> with Classics departments.
You seem to be confusing **Americanist** Archaeology (ie, an
anthropologically oriented approach to the study of the archaeology of
**North and South America**) with that of the entire field of
archaeology. At my own school Egyptian, Hellenistic Greek, and Islamic
archaeology (including anthropologically-based theory and methodology)
are taught in the Near and Middle Eastern CIvilizations Department
(often called Near Eastern Studies at other universities); Greek and
Roman archaeology (including anthropological-based theory and
methodology) are taught in the Classics Department. The Anthro. depart
limits itself to Americanist Archaeology. I rather think that the people
in these departments are doing something besides *just* studying
"history/art/language" -- they also conduct field work, publish site
report, and write on archaeological theory, and all of it just as valid
and professional as that published in Americanist circles. This old
distinction between an art historical and "anthropological archaeology"
approach doesn't much fit anymore.
> In Europe, anthropology departments are
> less common, and usually focus on cultural/biological issues, so
> archaeology is aligned with history/classics departments.
>
> So whereas I find myself skipping over 99% of the threads lately, I
> won't argue that Egyptology doesn't belong in a archaeology NG...
> However, I would draw the line at linguistics, which, noting the number
> of posts on sci.arch, certainly could fill its own NG.
The archaeology of Egypt, the ancient Near East, Greece, and Rome all
have a philological aspect to them that is equally valid and important
as the pots and strata that Americanists are so fond of. Just because
the Americanists don't have any texts to read doesn't mean that
linguistic problems are unimportant for the rest of us (in addition to
the pots and strata that *we* love as well).
Troy Sagrillo
Dept. of Near & Middle Eastern Civilizations
University of Toronto
Canada
Subject: Re: Ancient Egyptian
From: mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal)
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 05:22:32 GMT
Steve Whittet wrote:
>>The fascinating thing however, and if you would take the time to study
>>some introductory textbooks on historical linguistics you'd find that
>>out for yourself,
>
>The last one I read was Mallory, "In Search of the Indo Europeans"
>where I found that at least one of the major premises of his book
>was based on confusing the location of the Andronovov and Afanaseivo
>cultures, which are 3500 miles apart.
For the third time: what's your evidence that he does confuse them?
And Mallory is hardly a textbook on HistLing.
>> Esteban,
>
>The name Stephen or Esteban goes back quite a long way. Care to
>comment on its etymology? I wonder if it is related to the word
>"turban"
>
>"s" folded cloth= guard, protect
>"tep" = head
>"hn" = provide, equip
>A turban is a folded cloth used to protect the head and to
>provide some cool shade from the rays of the sun in the desert.
Oh, it's from the name of a headgear alright, but I think the ultimate
origin may be Sumerian IGI.TAB.ANSHE "donkey's blinkers, blinders"...
>> [English] is quite easily ID-able as a Western Germanic language,
>>desecended from Proto-Indo-European, spoken,
>>but not written, thousands of years ago.
>
>But that's the whole point Mike, German shows up around 200 BC,
>PIE dates to at least c 4,000 BC, isn't there a bit of a gap there?
Yes that's the whole point, Stephanos, there is a huge gap, and still we
can see the evidence...
>>The tell-tale signs are all over, and learning to identify them
>>is not rocket-science, it's quite easy, once you know and recognize
>>the basic principles. Try it.
>
>What I see is a lot of people filing off the corners of square
>pegs and then declaring exultantly that they fit round holes.
That's a bizarre statement coming from someone who has just taken three
ancient Egyptian pegs, smashed them to pieces, ground them to wood pulp,
and fashioned a perfectly Greek cardboard crown out of them.
>>The same with Ancient Egyptian. Sure, the language's phonetics and
>>grammar change, often radically, from Old Kingdom Egyptian to Coptic.
>>Sure, the Egyptians borrowed Semitic words and Nubian words and Greek
>>words, and whatnot, and it is a fascinating, and historically relevant,
>>subject in itself to trace the different borrowings to their sources.
>
>Yes, we agree, it is a fascinating, and historically relevant, subject
>in itself to trace the different borrowings to their sources.
Like I have tried to do in the "Silver" thread with the words for the
different metals. I hope I wasn't boring anyone with that: I for my
part found it fascinating and fun... The thing is, that with your
method (I'm using the term loosely) of deriving etymologies, anything
can turn into anything. Where's the fun in that, Steve?
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal ~ ~
Amsterdam _____________ ~ ~
mcv@pi.net |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig
Subject: Re: Original Egyptians
From: souris@netcom.com (Henry Hillbrath)
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 06:00:30 GMT
fjyurco@midway.uchicago.edu (Frank Joseph Yurco) writes:
>To all who have posted on this subject:
>
>The original Egyptians were Africans. Yet, contrary to claims of some,
>in Africa, you have the same sort of wide diversity as there is in Europe
>and Asia. So, the claim that because the ancient Egyptians were Africans,
>a priori, they must have been black is just so much false speculation,
>driven by the American social construct of "black" and "white". In brief,
>the American social construct is: if one in eight great grandparents was
>African, then the individual is black. This originated with the old
>southern black slave codes, to deal with the problem of children of
>African-Euro-American mixed unions. It has nothing whatever to do with
>the facts of biology, and the reality of any continent's population.
I usually agree with what Professor Yurco says about thing I know
something about, and when he talks about things I don't know much
about (like Egypt), I usually assume that he is right.
But, in this case, I have to respectfully disagree, based on my own
research and experience. (I am one of those "Euro-American"
southerners, and I think maybe some of the family might have had as
many as a couple of slaves, even. So, I have some personal
interest.)
One out of eight grandparents might have been the rule, or law,
somewhere. But, it was certainly not a general rule. And, like most
anything else, the definition of "black," and "black enough for a
slave," was a matter of state law, so there were at least as many
criteria as there were states (and, that is at anyone time, it could
well have changed with time.)
The particular states that I am most familiar with the "Black Code"
in are South Carolina (because some of the secondary sources I have
read found a lot of documentation there) and Louisiana (partly
because I lived there for a few years.)
In both cases, and I think generally, there was *no* limit (often
expressed as "one drop" though I don't know that those words were
used in the law.) Usually it was expressed in terms of the condition
of the mother. If she was a slave, the children were also, in the
absence of any other factor. Notice that goes on to infinity, you
could never get white enough to be free.
In many cases, slave owners freed (technically termed "manumitted")
slaves, especially those that were "commonly known" to be their own
children. This wasn't a rare occurrence, even in the WASP sections
of the south. Manumitted children seem to have been more common in
South Carolina than in Louisiana. In most cases, the freedom was
intended became effective on the owners death, a condition of his
will.
One could be cynical and say that this was cheap for the owner, but
gave him an "out" for his conscience (and, maybe a little peace and
quite around the house.) However, in many cases, in the absence of
the owner, the slaves did not actually become free, and many of the
details of the relationship are known from the law suits that
resulted. The pedigree of those involved in these suits never seems
to have come up.
In Louisiana, one out of eight grandparents would have resulted in
being classed as an "octoroon." There were names for all degrees out
to one sixty-fourth. ("mulatto," "quadroon," "octoroon," and I
forget the rest. I have made the statement from time to time that
they only went to 1/64, because the Creoles couldn't figure out the
names after that.)
There was no question that octoroons (1/8) were "black," and the
children (1/16), and grandchildren (1/32), and the great-
grandchildren (1/64). There are plenty of accounts of these people,
including their sale as slaves and there was no question of their
status as black. Some assume that because there was no name for
1/128, that they would have been "white." But, that is somewhat
academic. 1/64 requires 6 generations, between 90 and 120 years,
say. There were very few slaves in Louisiana that had a pedigree
going back that far, so there was really no way to find out if there
was a line.
This was serious stuff. Being classified as black could get you a
trip to the auction block and a lifetime of servitude. After
emancipation, the stakes were not so high, admission to a
university, maybe, which water fountain you had to use, whether you
could get a hamburger in Woolworth's. But, the criteria was just as
tough, and maybe even tougher. And the laws were specific about
"Negro ancestry in any degree" or similar terms.
Very recently, I would say since 1980, there was a long running
legal battle in Louisiana on just this subject. It was rather
offensive, and depressing, but it had some of the features of comic
opera. But, the case demonstrated, that though the "Black Code,"
even though it had lost all its teeth, still existed as a caricature
of its former self.
A lady somehow discovered that on some official state record, her
race was listed as "colored." Well, she was highly offended, and she
tried a variety of means to get the situation corrected. She stated
that she was white, and there had never been the slightest
suggestion, nor had she ever had any though that she was any thing
but white.
The case eventually got to the Louisiana Supreme Court, which gave
its ruling, finding, among other things, that 1) There was nothing
that the State of Louisiana could do with the information, since all
racial discrimination had been thrown out by the Federal government,
making "the point moot." 2) There were witnesses that claimed that
the lady was a descendent of a slave, God knows how many generations
back 3) Both those facts were irrelevant, anyway, because the
question of "white" or "colored" was, in Louisiana, exclusively
reserved for the state, and there was no appeal, review, or
corrective action, by judicial or other means. All decisions were
final. The Nazis couldn't have done better.
That was the last I heard of the case, I don't know if there was in
further action.
So, when people say "Is Egypt Black?" in the context of "Should
Afro-Americans get credit for Egyptian accomplishments?" I have to
evaluate that from the same rules that were applied to Afro-
Americans. Black enough to go to the auction block, black enough to
get credit.
Cleopatra (and I don't doubt it a bit) is said to have been 100
percent Greek. That is fine, but, she was almost certainly not as
"white" as a lot of people that were sold as slaves in Louisiana.
She, and any other Greek or Mediterranean type would have been well
advised to be duly apprehensive about getting mixed in with the
wrong company in the Southern U. S. of the 1840's.
If that is true of Greeks, then I suppose my position on Egypt is
clear. And, though most U. S. slaves came from West Africa, because
it was closer, some slavers in the American trade occasionally
operated in East Africa, Zanzibar, in particular. Any "Super
Saharan" African, including the odd Egyptian tourist that happened
to wind up on an American (or British, French, etc.) slave ship
would have had a very tough time talking his, or her, way out of
slavery based on skin color. And, they would not have been the
whitest slaves being auctioned in Louisiana, either.
There were a lot of other people that were being sold as slaves at
the time (say 1800), including Greeks (by the Turks), and the reason
that they weren't going to U. S. markets had more to do with
accessibility than any moral or ethnic consideration.
As long as I am going on this topic, I want to make one more point.
Today, we talk of "sound bites." The modern mind can't handle
complexity, the media has to boil everything down to a simple idea
that can be stated in half a sentence.
This is no new phenomena. And, what passes for history for most of
us is a collection of "snapshots" which we assume to apply to whole
periods.
That is the myth. The facts are that the first railroads got to
Kansas in about 1866, the first drive from Texas was about 1868.
There were a lot of cows already in Kansas, and the Kansas ranchers
raised holy heck about all those dang wild Texas cows, crawling with
pests and disease. So, the rail drives were later to rail heads
further west, which sometimes was the wrong way for the drives,
because the "zoning laws" hadn't gotten there yet. The first
railroad (an entirely different one) got to Fort Worth in 1876. 8
years is not much of a career, even for a cowpoke, on the
"...Hurricane Deck of a Spanish Cow Pony." (as one account is
titled.) The usual number of cattle drives per cowboy was *one.*
That is a bit closer to the facts.
But, 90% of all oaters (my count) deal with the cattle drive
experience.
That is what the movies have taught us.
The first Blacks got to Jamestown in 1619. There were already slaves
there, white, English slaves. In theory, these were "indentured
servants" (Blacks were "servants" too, for a long time. "Slave"
didn't become the usual word until much later.) Some of these were
Some were "redemptioners" who had entered into contracts
voluntarily. And, some worked out their contract and become free men
or women. But, some were forced into contracts, and some, especially
females, were never released, by one means or another.
Initially, there was no "social contract" that was different for
blacks or whites. That required some time to develop. And, there
were more white servants than black into the 1700s. Later on, many
of the whites came from Germany, and some of the "recruiting"
practices were very much of the same ilk as those used in Africa.
Cotton didn't become an important crop until after the invention of
the cotton gin, around 1796, and New York had many black slaves into
the 1820s.
"Gone With the Wind" is about a tiny segment of the Southern
population, black and white, in one short span of time.
Black Slavery, the South as a slave society, as a major profit
maker, and cotton, and were all short term conditions in the U. S.,
relatively speaking. The "hay day" of cotton production was already
starting to disappear, with or without slaves, even before 1860.
The effects of race hatred, made large by a transitory economic
bonanza, are still with us. As are strange ideas about how many
grandparents are required to determine color. Maybe it is time to
give this whole thing a rest.
Henry Hillbrath
Subject: Re: Ancient Egyptian
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 30 Oct 1996 10:18:44 GMT
In article <556l0f$pqc@halley.pi.net>, mcv@pi.netÁ says...
>
>Steve Whittet wrote:
>
>>>The fascinating thing however, and if you would take the time to study
>>>some introductory textbooks on historical linguistics you'd find that
>>>out for yourself,
>>
>>The last one I read was Mallory, "In Search of the Indo Europeans"
>>where I found that at least one of the major premises of his book
>>was based on confusing the location of the Andronovov and Afanaseivo
>>cultures, which are 3500 miles apart.
>
>For the third time: what's your evidence that he does confuse them?
Mallory says...
"In purely temporal terms an expansion of Indo-European speakers
as far east as the Yenisey as early as the fourth or early third
millenium BC might adequately account for the early separation of
the ancestors of the Tocharians from their other Indo European
relations." ISOTIE p 226
These are the same Tocharians of whom there is no archaeological
evidence prior to c 800 AD !!!
A somewhat better map of the relative positions of the two cultures
than the sketches Mallory provides can be found on page 149 of the
Times Atlas of archaeology. Mallory provides sketches of the region
he assigns the Afanasievo on page 225 and the region he assigns the
Andronovo on page 227 of his "In Search of the Indo-Europeans.
Mallory is discussing the 2nd millenium BC.
"Radio carbon evidence suggests that the Andronovo culture
may have begun to emerge in the early 2nd millenium BC" IBID p 227
He wants to demonstrate that people from the Steppes expanded into
southeastern Europe to affect the formation of the immediate
ancestors of the Indo-European peoples of the Balkans and Greece.
First Mallory claims...
"Khlobystina notes that like the earlier Yamnaya burials on the
Volga the earliest Afanasievo tombs in the Altai were confined
exclusively to males and children. (c 4000 BC)
Then Mallory associates the Afanaseivo with a region to the
northeast of lake Baykal...
"If Elga Badetskaya is correct when she finds no solid evidence
for stockbreeding on the Yenisey prior to the Afanasievo culture
then we have a hint of an explanation of how this culture managed
to spread so far to the east." ISOTIE p 225
I cross referenced the National Geographic Society map of Russia
and the newly independent nations of the former Soviet Union dated
January 1993. The Yenisey river is 3500 miles east of the Yamnaya
burials on the Volga.
This region north of the Altai is generally regarded as the Andronovo
culture by the 2nd millenium BC. From Atamanovo just north of the
Mongolian border the Yenisey runs due north into the Kara Sea inside
the Artic Circle.
The Steppe culture c 4000 BC includes the sites of Karasuk, Chernovaya,
Afanas Yeva Gora, Barmaut and Biysk. By the 2nd millenium BC it has
expanded to include Zhigolovo and Irkutsk on Lake Baikal in the east
and Malyy Koytas on the Irtysh river in the west.
These areas are separated from the Tarim basin by the Gobi Desert.
Mallory allows that
"traditionally the second millenium BC of the west Siberian Steppe
is primarily represented by the Andronovo culture" IBID p 227
He then illustrates the Andronovo culture as running from the Dneister
Donets, Don and Volga around the Caspian to the Aral Sea.
These two regions are separated by more than 3500 miles.
From the Yenisey to the Aral Sea is 2450 miles. from lake
Baikal to the Dneister is 5250 miles.
Mallory then admits
"Today the concept of a unified Andronovo culture has been seriously
challenged by a number of Soviet archaeologists who prefer to regard
the regional variants as independent cultures."
The Andronovo culture is north of the Altai, not west of the Aral Sea.
According to the Times Atlas there is a separate Zaman Baha culture
to the south between the Aral sea and the Pamirs.
East of the Caspian there is the Namazga culture in what is modern
Turkmenistan.
Onthe Volga river there is another separate and distinct culture.
Likewise on the Crimea there is what becomes the Cimmerian culture
with Dereivka and Sredney Stog on the Dneister.
Mallory attempts to confuse these widely separated independent
cultures on the basis of
1.)"A paucity of archaeological exploration in the intervening territory."
2.)burial in "flat graves", in the supine position
3.)pointed based pots
4.)the inclusion as grave goods of lithics, ceramics and bone implements
He admits
"predictable regional variation"
then goes on to say
"This enormous region does find
similar ceramics and metal types,
a predominately stockbreeding economy and a
range of broadly similar burial practices"
(in which he includes both burial and cremation as similar)
He lists as his similarities up to c 1200 BC
stockbreeding economy
domestic horse
wheeled vehicles
kurgan (timber grave) burials
ceramic form (pointed based pots)
metal implements
Other than the choice of building materials which is a factor
of what materials are available in different climates, and the
generally northern location of the sites relative to urban centers,
all the rest of these "similarities" can be found almost anywhere
in Africa, Asia or Europe by c 1200 BC.
>
>And Mallory is hardly a textbook on HistLing.
Sorry, he came highly reccomended...:)
>
>>> Esteban,
>>
>>The name Stephen or Esteban goes back quite a long way. Care to
>>comment on its etymology? I wonder if it is related to the word
>>"turban"
>>
>>"s" folded cloth= guard, protect
>>"tep" = head
>>"hn" = provide, equip
>
>>A turban is a folded cloth used to protect the head and to
>>provide some cool shade from the rays of the sun in the desert.
>
>Oh, it's from the name of a headgear alright, but I think the ultimate
>origin may be Sumerian IGI.TAB.ANSHE "donkey's blinkers, blinders"...
This is what you consider an equivalent correspondence?
>
>>> [English] is quite easily ID-able as a Western Germanic language,
>>>desecended from Proto-Indo-European, spoken,
>>>but not written, thousands of years ago.
>>
>>But that's the whole point Mike, German shows up around 200 BC,
>>PIE dates to at least c 4,000 BC, isn't there a bit of a gap there?
>
>Yes that's the whole point, Stephanos, there is a huge gap, and still we
>can see the evidence...
If you see the evidence then fill in the gap. Until you have evidence
with which to fill in the gap you end up like Mallory trying to explain
the fact that two cultures locally clustered on two rivers separated
by 75 degrees of longitude have no apparent connection because of
"A paucity of archaeological exploration in the intervening territory."
>
>>>The tell-tale signs are all over, and learning to identify them
>>>is not rocket-science, it's quite easy, once you know and recognize
>>>the basic principles. Try it.
I just took a look at what Mallory was attempting...it would be
easier to make the case that the Egyptians discovered and colonized
the Americas c 600 BC...:)
>>
>>What I see is a lot of people filing off the corners of square
>>pegs and then declaring exultantly that they fit round holes.
>
>That's a bizarre statement coming from someone who has just taken three
>ancient Egyptian pegs, smashed them to pieces, ground them to wood pulp,
>and fashioned a perfectly Greek cardboard crown out of them.
Ok, I don't mind being corrected, explain to me why my conjecture
is far fetched. Why wouldn't someone be named after the work they do
or the distinctive clothes they wear?
>
>>>The same with Ancient Egyptian. Sure, the language's phonetics and
>>>grammar change, often radically, from Old Kingdom Egyptian to Coptic.
>>>Sure, the Egyptians borrowed Semitic words and Nubian words and Greek
>>>words, and whatnot, and it is a fascinating, and historically relevant,
>>>subject in itself to trace the different borrowings to their sources.
>>
>>Yes, we agree, it is a fascinating, and historically relevant, subject
>>in itself to trace the different borrowings to their sources.
>
>Like I have tried to do in the "Silver" thread with the words for the
>different metals. I hope I wasn't boring anyone with that: I for my
>part found it fascinating and fun...
I found it interesting, as I have your other posts which are often
well written and informative, but I would like to pursue the idea
that a name which tends toward a description of properties such as
color, texture, hardness, sharpness, flexibility, ductility or weight
might easily be a compound composed like a toponym from more than one
thought or perspective.
> The thing is, that with your
>method (I'm using the term loosely) of deriving etymologies, anything
>can turn into anything. Where's the fun in that, Steve?
You need to apply a system.
1.) Identify the similarities. What is it that makes the similarity
what it is?
2.) Identify the differences. What is it that makes them what they are?
3.) Look at it in terms of a process. Is it possible to see several
sequential transformations
4.) Is there a larger more general category into which the individual
transformtion fits?
5.) How can we objectively measure, weigh or judge what is
and is not a match?
6.) What is the sequence of transformations? Where else do we
see a similar sequence?
7.) Is there a recognizable cognate with a similar sound?
>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
steve
Subject: Re: What Topics Are Acceptable To Be Posted On sci.archaeology?
From: mbwillia@ix.netcom.com(Mary Beth Williams)
Date: 30 Oct 1996 13:20:27 GMT
In <556ed9$hhb@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com> S.NEMETH@IX.NETCOM.COM
(Stella Nemeth) writes:
>
>mbwillia@ix.netcom.com(Mary Beth Williams) wrote:
>
>
>>Part of the problem is the divergent views between US and European
>>academics of what constitutes archaeology -- in the US, archaeology,
>>including theory and methodology, is usually associated with
>>anthropology departments -- if you're interested in Egyptian, Greek,
>>Roman, etc., history/art/language, you'll usually have to associate
>>with Classics departments. In Europe, anthropology departments are
>>less common, and usually focus on cultural/biological issues, so
>>archaeology is aligned with history/classics departments.
>
>In no way, shape or form does the study of Egypt belong in a
>"Classics" department. In a history department, perhaps. But Egypt
>wasn't a "Classical" culture. They didn't speak Greek or Latin until
>quite late in the game.
I wasn't making a judgement call, here, just stating how archaeological
studies are usually designated in academia in the US. Some larger
universities have *Ancient Studies* programs, but most schools cannot
support an entire department of Egyptologists, and so lump them in with
*Classical* departments...
>Also, although it is obviously true that those archaeologists that
>study the Americas are associated with anthropology departments,
>probably no matter where they study, I find it hard to believe that
>Americans that study Egyptian history have to do it in an anthropology
>department. I guess I've got a question for Frank Yurco as to what
>department at the University of Chicago he is associated with.
UChicago determined long ago that it would spend space and money
developing a world class Egyptology program (in fact, my Egyptocentric
11-yr-old is already set on attending..) However, most colleges and
universities in the US and Canada don't have similar
resources/inclinations, and so Egyptology is delegated to
Classics/Ancient history departments, as I stated earier. Nowhere did
I say that they would be associated with anthro departments.
>I also wonder, now that some of the writing systems used in the
>Americas can be read, whether those areas of the Americas will decided
>to move their disciplines out of anthropology departments and into
>history departments. After all, those peoples actually have some
>history to be studied now that the writing they left can "speak". You
>can't do that in an anthropology department. Anthropology doesn't
>have the right tool kit.
This is actually rather humorous, as is shows a rather stark ingorance
of anthropology as practiced in the U.S. At UMass, as in nearly every
other major academic institution (with a few exceptions) in the US,
historical archaeology is located in anthropology, not history,
departments.
MB Williams
Dept. of Anthro., UMass-Amherst
Subject: Re: What Topics Are Acceptable To Be Posted On sci.archaeology?
From: mbwillia@ix.netcom.com(Mary Beth Williams)
Date: 30 Oct 1996 14:08:58 GMT
From: mbwillia@ix.netcom.com(Mary Beth Williams)
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
Subject: Re: What Topics Are Acceptable To Be Posted On
sci.archaeology?
References: <3275238E.2AD0@netins.net>
<3275F15D.62FE@netins.net> <555195$p5l@dfw-ixnews
11.ix.netcom.com> <32766E82.5C74@utoronto.ca>
In <32766E82.5C74@utoronto.ca> Troy Sagrillo
writes:
>
>Mary Beth Williams wrote:
>
>> Part of the problem is the divergent views between US and European
>> academics of what constitutes archaeology -- in the US, archaeology,
>> including theory and methodology, is usually associated with
>> anthropology departments --
>
>BTW, there is a great big country to the north of the US called
"Canada"
>and archaeology just happens to be a discipline there as well, and
>another country to the south of the US called "Mexico" wherein
>archaeology is also a discipline.
Yes, and there are 200+ other countries in the world with universities
as well... I wasn't trying to leave anyone out, or make a bloody
judgement call as to what was right or wrong, just attempting to give
an explanation as to why there appears to be this dicotomy, and as
Americans and Europeans appear to be the majority readers of this NG, I
focused on them, no insult by ommission intended.
>> if you're interested in Egyptian, Greek,
>> Roman, etc., history/art/language, you'll usually have to associate
>> with Classics departments.
>
>You seem to be confusing **Americanist** Archaeology (ie, an
>anthropologically oriented approach to the study of the archaeology of
>**North and South America**) with that of the entire field of
>archaeology.
Please re-read my statement. *I* was not confusing anything, rather
pointing out how archaeology is associated differently in the US (and
in many Canadian institutions) than in Europe. Yes, in the US and
Canada, archaeology IS split up between anthropology and other (Ancient
Near East, Classical, Medevial Europe, etc.,) departments.... That is
what I was stating... In most European universities, it is not.
At my own school Egyptian, Hellenistic Greek, and Islamic
>archaeology (including anthropologically-based theory and methodology)
>are taught in the Near and Middle Eastern CIvilizations Department
>(often called Near Eastern Studies at other universities); Greek and
>Roman archaeology (including anthropological-based theory and
>methodology) are taught in the Classics Department. The Anthro. depart
>limits itself to Americanist Archaeology.
^^^^^^
I would check on that again...I seem to recall meeting colleagues from
Toronto who studied West African archaeology who were in the Anthro
department...And what about those who study pre-Contact New
Zealand/Australian/Pacific archaeology? In what department are they
located (in the US, its typically Anthro departments...)
I rather think that the people
>in these departments are doing something besides *just* studying
>"history/art/language" -- they also conduct field work, publish site
>report, and write on archaeological theory, and all of it just as
valid
>and professional as that published in Americanist circles. This old
>distinction between an art historical and "anthropological
archaeology"
>approach doesn't much fit anymore.
This may be true at Toronto, but just 18 months ago at the SAAs I had
extensive discussions with friends from a *very prominent* (and unnamed
to protect the guilty ;-D) Near East department who stated that the
theoretical discussions which had racked archaeology, e.g. the
PP/Processualist debate between Hodder and Binford, did not concern
them, and in fact, they weren't all that familiar with either
theoretical framework...That such theory wasn't *all that important* in
their program.
>> In Europe, anthropology departments are
>> less common, and usually focus on cultural/biological issues, so
>> archaeology is aligned with history/classics departments.
>>
>> So whereas I find myself skipping over 99% of the threads lately, I
>> won't argue that Egyptology doesn't belong in a archaeology NG...
>> However, I would draw the line at linguistics, which, noting the
number
>> of posts on sci.arch, certainly could fill its own NG.
>
>The archaeology of Egypt, the ancient Near East, Greece, and Rome all
>have a philological aspect to them that is equally valid and important
>as the pots and strata that Americanists are so fond of. Just because
>the Americanists don't have any texts to read doesn't mean that
>linguistic problems are unimportant for the rest of us (in addition to
>the pots and strata that *we* love as well).
*Americanist* archaeology is not all about pre-Columbian cultures...One
of my foci is the Contact Period, where ethnohistoric texts are well
integrated.. They are treated (or should be) however, as artifacts, to
be interpreted in conjunction with other materialist artifacts, not
in-and-of themselves... Then they are historical documents, and should
be treated as such. Oh, and you've forgotten the *Meso-Americanist* do
have texts to play with along with their pots and strata ;-D... Oh, and
all those *Euro/African/Asian-Americanist* types as well.
MB Williams (typing one-handed, so forgive the typos)
Dept. of Anthro, UMass-Amherst
Subject: Afanasievo - Andronovo
From: mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal)
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 15:10:58 GMT
whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>In article <556l0f$pqc@halley.pi.net>, mcv@pi.netÁ says...
>>
>>Steve Whittet wrote:
>>>
>>>The last one I read was Mallory, "In Search of the Indo Europeans"
>>>where I found that at least one of the major premises of his book
>>>was based on confusing the location of the Andronovov and Afanaseivo
>>>cultures, which are 3500 miles apart.
>>
>>For the third time: what's your evidence that he does confuse them?
>Mallory says...
>"In purely temporal terms an expansion of Indo-European speakers
>as far east as the Yenisey as early as the fourth or early third
>millenium BC might adequately account for the early separation of
>the ancestors of the Tocharians from their other Indo European
>relations." ISOTIE p 226
>These are the same Tocharians of whom there is no archaeological
>evidence prior to c 800 AD !!!
Of whom there is no *textual* evidence prior to c. 800 AD. What's the
big deal? We have no textual evidence of the Baltic peoples until the
16th c. AD.
The Tocharians were already in the Tarim Basin by 200 BC, when the
Chinese start describing events in the area. We can deduce that from
the fact that the Chinese describe no one leaving and no one (except the
Huns and the Chinese themselves) entering. That's a perfectly
reasonable assumption.
Mallory, and anybody who has studied the Indo-European languages, and
Tocharian in particular, knows that the Tocharians *have to* to separate
early from the main IE area, because their language is so different...
A fourth or third millennium date is where the linguistic evidence tells
us to look.
>A somewhat better map of the relative positions of the two cultures
>than the sketches Mallory provides can be found on page 149 of the
>Times Atlas of archaeology. Mallory provides sketches of the region
>he assigns the Afanasievo on page 225 and the region he assigns the
>Andronovo on page 227 of his "In Search of the Indo-Europeans.
The map on p. 225 is not particularly well-designed, but it is correct.
The map on p. 62 shows the relative positions of Andronovo and
Afanasievo better.
>Mallory is discussing the 2nd millenium BC.
>"Radio carbon evidence suggests that the Andronovo culture
>may have begun to emerge in the early 2nd millenium BC" IBID p 227
>He wants to demonstrate that people from the Steppes expanded into
>southeastern Europe to affect the formation of the immediate
>ancestors of the Indo-European peoples of the Balkans and Greece.
>First Mallory claims...
>"Khlobystina notes that like the earlier Yamnaya burials on the
>Volga the earliest Afanasievo tombs in the Altai were confined
>exclusively to males and children. (c 4000 BC)
>Then Mallory associates the Afanaseivo with a region to the
>northeast of lake Baykal...
??????? Are you confusing Lake Balkhash with Lake Baykal?
>"If Elga Badetskaya is correct when she finds no solid evidence
>for stockbreeding on the Yenisey prior to the Afanasievo culture
>then we have a hint of an explanation of how this culture managed
>to spread so far to the east." ISOTIE p 225
>I cross referenced the National Geographic Society map of Russia
>and the newly independent nations of the former Soviet Union dated
>January 1993. The Yenisey river is 3500 miles east of the Yamnaya
>burials on the Volga.
Yes. As Mallory says: "... to spread so far to the east ..."
>This region north of the Altai is generally regarded as the Andronovo
>culture by the 2nd millenium BC.
And as Afanasievo culture in the 3rd millennium BC.
>The Steppe culture c 4000 BC includes the sites of Karasuk, Chernovaya,
>Afanas Yeva Gora, Barmaut and Biysk. By the 2nd millenium BC it has
>expanded to include Zhigolovo and Irkutsk on Lake Baikal
Now there's the real Lake Baikal!
>in the east and Malyy Koytas on the Irtysh river in the west.
>These areas are separated from the Tarim basin by the Gobi Desert.
So? The upper Yenisei area where the Afanasievo culture was located
(roughly the areas of the Khakass, Tuva and Gorno-Altai Autonomous
Regions), is separated from Dzungaria by nothing much (descending the
Altai mountains will do). The Tarim Basin is across the Tien Shan
mountains from Dzungaria.
>Mallory allows that
>"traditionally the second millenium BC of the west Siberian Steppe
>is primarily represented by the Andronovo culture" IBID p 227
>He then illustrates the Andronovo culture as running from the Dneister
>Donets, Don and Volga around the Caspian to the Aral Sea.
P. 227: the Andronovo culture is located from the Ural river (touching
on the Middle Volga) eastwards to the Irtysh river, and southwards to
the Aral Sea and the Amu Darya / Syr Darya basins (Oxus and Jaxartes
rivers). The Dniepr, Donets, Don and Volga areas are given as Srubnaya
(Timber-Grave culture). You're not reading the map correctly: the two
areas are shaded differently.
>These two regions are separated by more than 3500 miles.
>From the Yenisey to the Aral Sea is 2450 miles. from lake
>Baikal to the Dneister is 5250 miles.
Is that Baikal or Balkhash?
>Mallory then admits
>"Today the concept of a unified Andronovo culture has been seriously
>challenged by a number of Soviet archaeologists who prefer to regard
>the regional variants as independent cultures."
>The Andronovo culture is north of the Altai, not west of the Aral Sea.
>According to the Times Atlas there is a separate Zaman Baha culture
>to the south between the Aral sea and the Pamirs.
>East of the Caspian there is the Namazga culture in what is modern
>Turkmenistan.
>Onthe Volga river there is another separate and distinct culture.
OK, so in the Times Atlas they split the "unified Andronovo culture"
that Mallory discusses into several independent cultures. It's a
difference of opinion, and *not* a confusion on the part of Mallory.
Given that in the first millennium the whole area of the different
regional variants of Andronovo (Andronovo, Zaman Baha, Namazga, etc.) is
inhabited by Scytho-Iranians, I would say that Mallory is probably
justified in grouping them together, and that "a number of Soviet
archaeologists" are probably over-stressing the differences between the
cultures.
>Likewise on the Crimea there is what becomes the Cimmerian culture
>with Dereivka and Sredney Stog on the Dneister.
These Mallory in no way confuses with the Andronovo. All he claims is
that they are both Indo-European, as the Scythians and the Cimmerians
are both IE peoples...
In summary:
Mallory correctly locates the Afanasievo culture in the Altai-Upper
Yenisei area, third millennium BC.
Mallory correctly locates the Andronovo complex in the general area of
Western Turkestan in the second millennium BC. He does not agree with
some Soviet archaeologists (ex-Soviet by now), who would split the
Andronovo culture into several independent units, although he envisages
the possibility that some eastern variants of the Andronovo complex
might indeed represent a linguistiaclly different culture, namely the
Tocharians, the main Andronovo population being (Proto-)Iranian.
Where is Mallory's confusion of the Andronovo and Afanasievo cultures?
Where is Lake Baikal?
>>And Mallory is hardly a textbook on HistLing.
>Sorry, he came highly reccomended...:)
As a book on the IE homeland problem. It is neither an introductory
textbook on linguistics nor on archaeology. If you read it without
proper background in these two areas, you might get confused, it seems.
Look, I don't agree with Mallory on a lot of things. I do agree with
him on the Afanasievo culture being the most probable origin of the
Tocharians however, but I'm perfectly willing to contemplate other
options. As Mallory says, it's only a hypothesis, and nothing can be
solidly proved.
But the hypothesis of an origin in the campaigns of Alexander is utterly
ridiculous. I'm sorry. The linguistic similarities between Greek and
Sanskrit are much, much greater than those between Greek and Tocharian,
so this hypothesis of yours is even more unlikely than claiming that the
origin of the Indo-Aryans lies in Alexander's campaign as well. Or does
it???
>>>What I see is a lot of people filing off the corners of square
>>>pegs and then declaring exultantly that they fit round holes.
>>
>>That's a bizarre statement coming from someone who has just taken three
>>ancient Egyptian pegs, smashed them to pieces, ground them to wood pulp,
>>and fashioned a perfectly Greek cardboard crown out of them.
>Ok, I don't mind being corrected, explain to me why my conjecture
>is far fetched.
. It won't do any good, but if you insist:
>>>"s" folded cloth= guard, protect
>>>"tep" = head
>>>"hn" = provide, equip
To prove that a word has an origin in another language, first you have
to prove that the word exists in that other language. That is
essential. There is no Egyptian word s-tep-hn.
1. The "word" does not mean "folded cloth", let alone "guard,
protect". "s" is simply the alphabetic sign for the sound "s", written
with the "folded cloth" hieroglyphic.
2. I'm no expert on Ancient Egyptian, but I think the order of compound
nouns made with a verb and a noun tends to be VB + N ( "pious"
= LOVING GOD). I would expect .
You have confused writing with language once again, and you have ignored
the grammar of Ancient Egyptian. You have invented a word out of thin
air which is not only unattested, but utterly impossible, and then you
want us to believe that is the origin of Greek "crown".
Two-hundred years ago, that's how etymologizing was done. You are
willfully ignoring 200 years of advances in linguistic science, and are
advocating methods (again, I use the term loosely) that relate to modern
linguistics as astrology relates to modern astronomy. I call that
walking around with blinders. And this is the last time I'll seriously
discuss an etymology like the above. Now I have to go take an
aspirin...
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal ~ ~
Amsterdam _____________ ~ ~
mcv@pi.net |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig
Subject: Re: Nefertiti (was Re: BLACKNESS in Egyptian Art, Murals, etc. (REPOST))
From: Saida
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 12:21:45 -0600
The Hab wrote:
>
> "Jeffrey L. Jones" wrote:
>
> >> In <54q5s3$mac@news.smart.net> mobius@smart.net (Stephen Hendricks)
> >writes:
> >> [and someone else replied too, but I missed it, saying:]
> >>
> >> >>I don't know about that, but I can buy the olive-skin or yellow-ish
> >> >>cast. I have never seen the bust of Nefertiti in person, only color
> >> >>photos, which are not necessarily reliable. Yet I wonder why you would
> >
> >> >>say that a person with an olive skin cannot be considered "white"?
> >>
> >
> >Here's a good test! take those "olive skinned" Egyptians, especially from
> >ages ago, and toss them into a Klan rally and see if they exit with
> >membership cards.
>
> Hehehehehe....This is (basically) what I, as an Egyptian, used to say to
> misguided Egyptians who thought that being "Caucasian" (sic) meant being
> "white". There are not many who believe this, but some do....most likely
> in the upper classes who had some dealings with those lovely British
> Imperialists. But that's another story...In other words, EGYPTIANS ARE
> NOT AND NEVER WERE "WHITE".
>
> The Hab
If you do not see yourself and your acquaintances as white, that is your
perspective and I cannot quarrel because I don't know any of you.
However, I see a lot of Egyptians all the time, especially at the Coptic
church where I attend various functions and most of them look pretty
pale to me. Around here the winters are long, the fall short, and
suntans get lost in a hurry.
However, we both have to agree that neither one of us has ever seen a
single ancient Egyptian in the living flesh! When you say that
"Egyptians are not and never were 'white'", aren't you forgetting about
that segment of the ancient Egyptian populace of Asiatic extraction?
These people were absorbed into the population and became Egyptians in
every sense.
How do you account for thew following, which I take from Bob Brier's
"Egyptian Mummies" commenting on the analyses of the remains of the
Pharaoh Ramesses II?
"A variety of analyses showed that the elbalmers dyed the pharaoh's
hair, probably with henna, so he would look young forever. The hair of
an eighty-year-old such as Ramses would have turned white; however
traces of the hair's original color remain in the roots even in advanced
age. Examined microscopically, Ramses' hair proved to have once been
red."
"...The anthropological study and microscopic analysis of hair, carried
out by four laboratories: Judiciary Medicine (prof. Ceccalsi), Societe
l'Oreal, Atomic Energy Commission, and Institut Textile de France showed
that Ramses II was a "leucoderm", that is a fair-skinned man, like
prehistoric or ancient Mediterraneans or, perhaps, the Berbers of
Africa."
And Maspero, who first saw the mummy when unwrapped:
"...the top of the skull is quite bare. On the temples there are a few
sparse hairs, but at the poll (back of head) the hair is quite thick,
forming smooth, straight locks about five centimetres in length..."
How does a fair-skinned man with straight, red hair fit into your
picture of an Egyptian?
"