Newsgroup sci.archaeology 49529

New evidence supports the contention that hunting by early man helped
drive mammoths (and other large animals) to extinction in North America.
Work by Daniel Fisher, a geology professor from the University of 
Michigan at Ann Arbor, focuses on tusks. Tusks, like tree rings, record 
many things about the owner's life - climate, diet, times it gave birth,
etc. Fisher studies show the tusks recording "intense" hunting pressure.
WHen a female mammoth is pregnant, calcium is diverted to the fetus
instead of to the tusks which show a slower growth rate. After birth
the tusks resume normal growth.
Modern day elephants were the guide for this study. The young mature
more quickly and the females try to reproduce as often as possible so
as to keep numbers up. Under starvation conditions elephants do not
reproduce as often.
What Fisher has found is that mammoths living at the end of the
last ice age gave birth every four years - the same as for modern
day elephants that are *not* starving but *are* being hunted.
+----------+    Rich Travsky   RTRAVSKY @ UWYO . EDU
|          |    Division  of  Information  Technology
|          |    University of Wyoming   (307) 766 - 3663 / 3668
|       UW |    "Wyoming is the capital of Denver." - a tourist
|        * |    "One of those square states." - another tourist
+----------+    http://plains.uwyo.edu/~rtravsky/

Saida first of all the blue headress is just evidence that this woman was
rich or was of royalty, this headress was common among the before
mentioned. Second this bust is   a unfinished bust and is called a
replica, when you see nefertiti next to akhanaten in the tomb
representations she is represented as african and as black looking as
akhanaten (The father of Monotheism ) is in his greatness. This woman that
you eurocentrics like to perpetuate is clearly a foriegner. The 18th
Dynasty is irefutably african. 

If Egypt was a european civiliztion, how come it was not built at home in
europe?.....Why build it on a land of people that you despise?.... Where
did you originate from? When did you come on the scene?.....and
last.......Name a(Real) European civilization that was built independant
of the african presence.

Hello everybody,
You all know that Cleopatra VII had a brother Ptolemaeus XIII.  But
yesterday a friend of mine who went to Egypt, told me that he had been
in the temple of Cleopatra in Karnak.  The guide showed him some
hieroglyphics which indicated that Cleopatra had 'a sister born on the
same day as' her, which makes her a twin sister.  She also named
Cleopatra.  My friend also remembered that Cleopatra killed her sister
by throwing her in a pit with alligators.
Once at home again he did some research on it, but didn't found it in
any book.  I have checked some of my books with the same result.  I
couldn't even find a temple of Cleopatra in Karnak.
I would appreciate it very much if you could let me know how much of
this story is true.  Are their books that refer to this sister ?
Thanks in advance.
----------------------------------
 J.S.Bach + G.Gould = Heaven
----------------------------------
Bart Van Hoeck, Asse (Belgium)
Bart.VanHoeck@Ping.be

On Wed, 30 Oct 1996 09:31:36 GMT, edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad) wrote:
>
>The  WORLD'S MOST IMPORTANT FOSSIL, unquestionably, is
certainly not this hoax!
Do we really have to see this thread again?

Stella Nemeth wrote:
> 
> fmurray@pobox,com (frank murray) wrote:
> 
> >On 30 Oct 1996 08:51:56 -0500, bandowjb@muss.cis.McMaster.CA (J.B.
> >Bandow) wrote:
> 
> >>There is a newsgroup SCI.ARCHAEOLOGY.MODERATED on USENET. Perhaps your
> >>in the wrong boat....just think...topics about REAL archaeology without
> >>pseudoscience, ufos, or non-topical discussions.
> >>
> >>Wow..what a concept. Hope to see you there. All are welcome. Just be
> >>on topic.
> 
> >yes...a fine serdabic concept, but fewer posts there all month than
> >here in a day...and of those posts to the moderated necropolis, only
> >twelve this month became a thread...half of those threads consisted of
> >a single reply...only one had more than three...five minutes a month
> >and one can read the entirety of what is posted there...
> 
> >though this group may wander a bit from what some might decree to be
> >its one true sacred path, it is alive...the suk is not the pyramid,
> >nor its people chiseled to perfected form...
> 
> Yes.  You have found the real problem with s.a.m.  It has the most
> rigid set of rules I've ever seen in Usenet.  As a result it has been
> described as an "announce" newsgroup over in news.groups on more than
> one occasion.  I find that a reasonable description.
> 
> It is almost impossible to have any kind of conversation there since
> every post has to be defended, because the rules require it.  It has
> to be just the right size, with the right amount of quote and text.
> You can't state an opinion.  It requires cites.  I've never figured
> out how one can find a cite for one's own opinions.
> 
> I have no one to blame but myself for that situation.  I voted for it.
> 
> Stella Nemeth
> s.nemeth@ix.netcom.com
I wish I could get even the announcements. My new server won't even pick
up the newsgroup - nor any relativley new one. And it only picks up
about half the posts on the groups I can get. 
Of course, with sci.archaeology, that could be an advantage;^D
Fran

Mary Beth Williams wrote:
> In <32766E82.5C74@utoronto.ca> Troy Sagrillo 
> writes:
[snip]
> 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.
Did you ever read a book called A History of Archaeological Thought by
Bruce Trigger? It's one of the standard texts. Trigger happens to be a
*damn* good Egyptologist (or Nubiologist -- I'm not sure how he defines
himself), and teaches at McGill.
And to add my story to yours, I have studied Syro-Palestian Archaeology
at the Univiersity of Arizona in the Near Eastern Studies Dept. We read
all the theory books (Hodder, Binford, Flannery, Renfrew, etc.), had
seminars, gave papers, etc, etc, etc. (BTW, fyi, at UA Mesopotaminan
archaeology was in, **gasp**, the *Anthro. Dept.*!) When I came to
Toronto -- same thing. Sure there are a few old timers who think that
archaeology is all about *really nice* statues and trying to prove the
Bible, but not many. The difference between the Americanists and those
dealing with the ancient civilizations of the Old World is that while we
might read the theory, we also have to deal with reality on the ground,
a reality which is much more complicated and long-lasting than that
generally found in the New World. I have met *plenty* of people who
**teach** Americanist archaeology in your vaunted anthropology
programmes who haven't moved a spadeful of dirt in their lives yet write
volumes on theory. Theory is useful, but it is just a conceptual frame
work after all, and it's not a lot of help to those who actually move
dirt. I'm sorry, but at sites with a whopping 1/2 metre of stratigraphy,
3 occupation layers with some worked stone and maybe a broken pot or two
have nothing *but* theory (and yes, I *have* worked on these kinds of
sites in Arizona). Try applying that to a site with 25 metres or more of
vertical stratigraphy (not to mention the horizontal expanse), 75+
occupation layers over a 2,000 yr period, major civil/religious
archiecture (in addition to the domestic architecture & cemetaries),
more pottery than you could ever even count let alone process, throw in
some texts, and then you will see how useful arguments about
Post-Processual archaeology will be. No doubt this is why your NES
friends tell you that "that such theory wasn't *all that important* in
their program", because quite frankly, it's *not*.
Look, don't take this personally (and I really do mean this). I am just
tired of listening to the Americanists claim to somehow be on the
archaeological high road because they obsess about theory night and day,
but seem relagate the rest of us to "art historian/philologist" status.
Sorry -- that totally denigrates the hard work of a lot of people
working in the Middle East and the Mediterranean (and elsewhere I am
sure). Maybe now that the "new archaeology" is thankfully dead, you all
can come back, join us in reality, and maybe roll up your sleaves and
move some real dirt. ;-)
> MB Williams (typing one-handed, so forgive the typos)
No prob. I can't spell, so we're even! ;-)
> Dept. of Anthro, UMass-Amherst
Troy Sagrillo
Dept. of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations
University of Toronto

Xina (xina@netins.net) wrote: : All: 
: Lately it has come to my attention that there are certain among us that
: do not appreciate our discussion of Egyptology, Religion, Mythology, or
: Linguistics on this newsgroup, feeling that these subject are not really
: related to sci.archaeology in their subject matter.    Could someone
: please clarify for me if these things are indeed unrelated to
: sci.archaeology? 
IMHO:
Egyptology: maybe
Religion:   NO
Mythology:  NO
Linguistics:fun to read sometimes, but NO
"Egyptians were black/white"   My God, NO!
My $.02.
Arthur

In <327844A8.10A6@utoronto.ca> Troy Sagrillo 
writes: 
>
>Mary Beth Williams wrote:
>
>> In <32766E82.5C74@utoronto.ca> Troy Sagrillo

>> writes:
>[snip]
>> 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.
>
>Did you ever read a book called A History of Archaeological Thought by
>Bruce Trigger? It's one of the standard texts. Trigger happens to be a
>*damn* good Egyptologist (or Nubiologist -- I'm not sure how he
defines
>himself), and teaches at McGill.
Much of what I've read from Trigger (other than _A History_, which,
yes, is a well dog-eared part of my library) is his work on the Fur
Trade (even headed a symposium on the subject, papers and intro by
Trigger published in a volume of _Man in the Northeast_), so I assume
that he doesn't consider himself _only_ an Egyptologist/Nubiologist,
but an *Americanist* as well.
MB Williams
Dept. of Anthro., 

In <327844A8.10A6@utoronto.ca> Troy Sagrillo 
writes: 
:::smip:::
The difference between the Americanists and those
>dealing with the ancient civilizations of the Old World is that while
we
>might read the theory, we also have to deal with reality on the
ground,
>a reality which is much more complicated and long-lasting than that
>generally found in the New World. I have met *plenty* of people who
>**teach** Americanist archaeology in your vaunted anthropology
>programmes who haven't moved a spadeful of dirt in their lives yet
write
>volumes on theory. Theory is useful, but it is just a conceptual frame
>work after all, and it's not a lot of help to those who actually move
>dirt. I'm sorry, but at sites with a whopping 1/2 metre of
stratigraphy,
>3 occupation layers with some worked stone and maybe a broken pot or
two
>have nothing *but* theory (and yes, I *have* worked on these kinds of
>sites in Arizona). Try applying that to a site with 25 metres or more
of
>vertical stratigraphy (not to mention the horizontal expanse), 75+
>occupation layers over a 2,000 yr period, major civil/religious
>archiecture (in addition to the domestic architecture & cemetaries),
>more pottery than you could ever even count let alone process, throw
in
>some texts, and then you will see how useful arguments about
>Post-Processual archaeology will be. No doubt this is why your NES
>friends tell you that "that such theory wasn't *all that important* in
>their program", because quite frankly, it's *not*.
>
>Look, don't take this personally (and I really do mean this). I am
just
>tired of listening to the Americanists claim to somehow be on the
>archaeological high road because they obsess about theory night and
day,
>but seem relagate the rest of us to "art historian/philologist"
status.
But Troy, you seem to forget that much of the current theoretical
debate was initiated by Europeanist archaeologists, like Hodder (who is
digging in the Middle East currently, is he not?)  Head over to the
arch-theory mailing list, and you'll see the wonderful theoretical
debate between Shiffer and Dobres, the latter, although a product of an
American school (Berkeley), whose field work is overtly European (as
are other theoretical scholars there, such as Meg Conkey.)  There's a
whole world of archaeology outside of what is considered *Americanist*
and ANE, and much of our current theory (particularly a lot of the
Marxist/PP stuff I currently find intriguing) developed there.
Even within Americanist archaeology is there an assumed dichotomy
between the *dirt theory* scholars and the *art historians*,
Mesoamericanists often relegated to the latter.  Personally, I find
this appalling, as some of the best gender theory I've heard has come
from Mesoamericanists.  As I tend to work with recovered materials and
remains rather than stratigraphy and post-molds, I also often am viewed
with distain by some of my shovel-wielding colleagues, so I can
empathise...Pushing dirt does not give one a monopoly on the
application and development of theory (personally, I'd like to see
everyone stop digging until we adequately look at all the stuff that
we've already dug up, rather than merely cataloguing it and going on to
the next test-pit.)
But all that you and I are discussing relates directly to archaeology,
and thus belongs here on this NG...But what about the study of
cultures, whether they be Americanist or ANE, is not suitable for
discussion in an archaeological NG?  I tend to be a materialist--Hence
artifacts, including books, manuscripts, stelae, etc, are fair game, if
they're treated as artifacts... But what of linguistics?  Even as an
NA, I'd like to believe that oral tradition may assist in interpreting
the past, but I'm not sure that I'd go as far as to state that its
*archaeology*...
Just a few thoughts rattling around my post-partum-rotted brain...
MB Williams
Dept. of Anthro., UMass-Amherst

In article <3277C83C.47D@iceonline.com>, Satrap Szabo
 writes
>But, you just go ahead and keep on campaigning to put everything in its
>nice, neat place, and keep the linguists as far away from the
>archaeologists as possible.  By no means let them converse freely on an
>open discussion forum!  Heaven help us, we wouldn't want to actually
>*advance* the state of archaeology, or linguistics even.
In this medium, the opposite of discipline is, unfortunately, free-
ranging, masturbatory fantasy. I would certainly oppose the inclusion of
postings, on *any* forum with a prefix 'sci-', which contained the sort
of rubbish we have been seeing here, which indicate that to some a wild
and over-active imagination, coupled with the total lack of a self-
critical faculty, is believed to be an adequate replacement for the
pains-taking analysis of facts and the logical extraction of deductive
conclusions from them, which is the life's blood of archaeology, or any
branch of scientific investigation.
This disciplined approach is also, as has been pointed out repeatedly by
people much closer to the face than I am myself, the very stuff of
related subjects like historical linguistics, which is every bit as
demeaned by the nonsense being published here as archaeology itself is.
-- 
Alan M. Dunsmuir
  "Time flies like an arrow -
   Fruit flies like a banana" --- Groucho Marx (as used by Noam Chomsky)

GROOVE YOU wrote:
> 
> Saida first of all the blue headress is just evidence that this woman was
> rich or was of royalty, this headress was common among the before
> mentioned. Second this bust is   a unfinished bust and is called a
> replica, when you see nefertiti next to akhanaten in the tomb
> representations she is represented as african and as black looking as
> akhanaten (The father of Monotheism ) is in his greatness. This woman that
> you eurocentrics like to perpetuate is clearly a foriegner. The 18th
> Dynasty is irefutably african.
Well, Groovie, you are consistent at least.  Your statements are nearly 
100% false, as usual.  The headdress of Nefertiti is totally unique 
among Egyptian queens.  You tell me where else you see one.  Plus, you 
will notice that, underneath the tall, blue crown, there is the golden 
circlet diadem that comes down part-way over the forehead and 
cheekbones.  Even if we couldn't recognize Nefertiti any other way, this 
circlet would be the big tip-off that the lady is a queen because nobody 
but the pharaohs and their chief wives ever wore this diadem.
Lesseee, royal diadem, blue crown, long neck--that adds up to Nefertiti. 
It can be no other.  This was no foreign gal but a beautiful, 
fair-skinned Queen of Egypt, like it or not.