Newsgroup sci.archaeology 50005

Directory

Saida  wrote:
>If Velikovsky actually said that Ramesses III lived in 375 B.C. then I 
>would have to say he was on something.  The evidence shows this could 
>not possibly have been the case. Ramesses III was a 20th Dynasty 
>pharaoh.  The Great Harris Papyrus, the longest known papyrus from 
>ancient Egypt, tells of his deeds, and is dated to the day that Ramesses 
>died in 1151 B.C.
V. uses the information, which is given in the Papyrus Harris, to
suppourt his ideas. I.e. in the papyrus is written, that in the time
before the father of Ramses III. Sethnacht becomes the Pharao, Egypt
was occupied by forreigners, which plundered the country more or less
by the help of their own adminstration, and that Sethnacht and Ramses
III. liberated Egypt from these occupants. V. says, in the time before
1200BC there was no foreign occupation of Egypt, which Ramses III. or
his father had to fight to. The time of the Hyksos was long gone.
There was only an occupation like descripted in the Papyrus Harris in
the Persian times. So far about Papyrus Harris and Velikovsky.
My questions is, if there is an C-14 analysis of this papyrus, for
instance, which may give knowledge about the time, when it was made.

Douglas Weller (dweller@ramtops.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: On Sat, 09 Nov 1996 21:22:33 GMT, fmurray@pobox,com (frank murray) wrote:
: >On Sat, 09 Nov 1996 12:05:18 +0000, Eliyehowah  wrote:
: >
: >>************
: >>everyone benefiting from my work please email
: >>my postmaster, my site will move unless those appreciative
: >>send email to counter these trying to destroy it
: >>************
: >
: >i can neither say that i've benefitted from your work, nor that i even
: >read far into many of your posts...but i can say that i've seen
: >nothing posted by you that justifies removal of your right to post on
: >sci. arch...
: >
: >those who dislike reading your posts can skip them...those who dislike
: >receiving email from you can killfile that email...those who scurry
: >about seeking something to snitch to some authority figure about,
: >might better spend that time examining their own need to play
: >snitch...
: >
: I can't imagine any postmaster doing anything about what someone posts on a
: newsgroup. Email now, that's another question. That's personal, people like me
: have to pay to receive our email whether or not we want to, etc. Postmasters
: do zap people's accounts for email abuse.
Right, post anything you want.  I can read it or skip as I see fit.  
E-mail is a different thing.  Send me uncivil or annoying and I'll ask 
you to stop; if you don't, I'll ask your postmaster to stop you.  He, 
most usually, will.
--
              A_A    No combat ready unit has ever passed inspection.
John Davis   (o o)    
----------oOO-(^)-OOo----------------------------------------------------
               ~      		Murphy's Laws of Combat

It is by now Beyond Dispute that a single group of African invaders
crossed the Sinai Desert in prehistory and all-but-entirely wiped out
the entire Neanderthal population of Eurasia, with the exception of
Etruscans, Basques (those isolated, daring, enticing, wispy, frilly
people of the Franco-Spanish border), Iberians, Hyperboreans, Elamites,
Numanoids, American Presidential Candidates, and People From Corby.
Therefore, the question we should be asking ourselves is:  What Will The
Africans Do If They Are Allowed To Come Out Again?
A Wall must be constructed across the Sinai Desert, patrolled by
Etruscan Volunteers dressed in Basques in the fashion of the Great God
Xipe, to show these Africans that We Mean Business.  I am sorry to wall
the Boers in with the Africans, but the Africans will just have to Take
Their Chances.  However, the meagre thirty-foot concrete edifices
festooned with barbed wire and landmines of yesteryear will do little to
stop the Africans of today.  Indeed, certain of them, going by the name
of Daley Thompson, can leap to great heights over walls using Flexible
Poles, and a Pole, as any student of Kontology knows, is nothing if not
an Assegai with the Assegai part removed.  These advances in African
Mural Countermeasures lead me to suspect that our Walls need to be
higher, or at least that we need Not To Put A Large Soft Mat On The
Other Side.  Korean martial artists are capable of leaping to great
heights and Kicking Holes in Blocks of Concrete - a superficially
useless skill, UNLESS ONE IS ATTEMPTING TO LEAP OVER THE GREAT WALL OF
CHINA.  This, however, is puzzling, for the Koreans are on the Wrong
Side of the wall.  Why, after all, would anyone attempt to escape from
the Cradle of Asian Civilization?  The answer, however, is simple.  The
Koreans are descended from Mongolians who jumped over the wall
successfully in ancient times, which explains why the Mongols of today
are a stumpy, ill-proportioned people with low centres of gravity and a
tragic inability to perform Flying Jump Kicks on Elephant-Mounted
Opponents.  This may go a long way towards explaining why the Mongols
never won a single battle against Ancient Carthage.**  
Nevertheless, the Chinese 'Great Wall' aggression* was met with heroic
Mongolian resistance, particularly as regards the periodic ill-feeling
that must have ensued over the Chinese sawing off branches of trees that
were growing over to their side of the wall, and the Mongols refusing to
let the Chinese have back arrows which the Chinese had fired into Mongol
generals.  Of course, the World's Police are keen to point out that
Walls will only Slow Intruders Down, and will never Stop Them Totally.
Indeed, it took Mongol Hordes a Thousand Years to sweep mercilessly
south across the steppes from Ulan Bator after the construction of the
Great Wall of China.  Possibly on all previous occasions they had been
surprised by vigilant North Chinese Neighbourhood Watchpersons who
Clapped Vigorously In Unison to Scare Them Away In A Non-Threatening
Manner.
Yours
Reverend Colonel Ignatius Churchward Von Berlitz M.A. (Dom. Sci.) Oxon. 
(Oklahoma)
*In his recent book, 'MY SORDID PAST WITH FARMYARD ANIMALS', Professor
Minitz of Northampton brilliantly elucidates his theory that a simple
paling or clinker fence, possibly surmounted by Garden Gnomes, would
have been less confrontational, particularly when accompanied by a large
fierce bas relief of General Meng Tian and the legend 'I LIVE HERE'.
Indeed, one is forced to ask oneself the question, Would A Twenty-Foot
Wall Capped With Merlons And Patrolled By Archers Be Too Much For A
Suburban Garden In Hounslow, and if so, Is Not What Is Good For Hounslow
Good For The Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region?
**For similar reasons, all modern Korean-Americans have pronounced
Positive Buoyancy, and few Tibetans suffer from Poephagophobia, which is
best described as a Morbid Fear of Yaks.

GuR wrote:
> 
> Saida  wrote:
> 
> >If Velikovsky actually said that Ramesses III lived in 375 B.C. then I
> >would have to say he was on something.  The evidence shows this could
> >not possibly have been the case. Ramesses III was a 20th Dynasty
> >pharaoh.  The Great Harris Papyrus, the longest known papyrus from
> >ancient Egypt, tells of his deeds, and is dated to the day that Ramesses
> >died in 1151 B.C.
> 
> V. uses the information, which is given in the Papyrus Harris, to
> suppourt his ideas. I.e. in the papyrus is written, that in the time
> before the father of Ramses III. Sethnacht becomes the Pharao, Egypt
> was occupied by forreigners, which plundered the country more or less
> by the help of their own adminstration, and that Sethnacht and Ramses
> III. liberated Egypt from these occupants. V. says, in the time before
> 1200BC there was no foreign occupation of Egypt, which Ramses III. or
> his father had to fight to. The time of the Hyksos was long gone.
> There was only an occupation like descripted in the Papyrus Harris in
> the Persian times. So far about Papyrus Harris and Velikovsky.
> 
> My questions is, if there is an C-14 analysis of this papyrus, for
> instance, which may give knowledge about the time, when it was made.
Here is what "Chronicle of the Pharaohs" says about this:
"The 19th Dynasty had ended with a degree of confusion, not least with 
the presence of Twosret as queen regnant, only the fourth in Egypt's 
history to that date.  Whether there was a short period of anarchy, 
perhaps of only a few months, between the end of Twosret's sole reign 
and the accession of her successor Setnakhte is debatable.  How 
Setnakhte came to the throne, or indeed, who he was, is uncertain.  The 
best source for the beginning of the 20th Dynasty comes from about 65 
years later, in the account of the Great Harris Papyrus...The last four 
"pages" describe how Setnakhte arose and put down the rebellions 
fermented by Asiatics: he relieved beseiged cities, brought back those 
who had gone into hiding, and reopened temples and restored their 
revenues."
Yes, it is intriguing, and I would like to see what the actual text 
looks like in all this.  Sometimes I think the whole 19th Dynasty and 
part of the 18th, as well, was comprised of Asiatics--people who had 
become quite Egyptianized to be sure, but very "Asiatic-looking" for all 
that.  Maybe that is what is meant by Setnakhte putting down the 
Asiatics--those Asiatics who had been living in his country for a long 
time and still probably had a lot of clout in the Delta.  Don't forget, 
the Ramessides (Ramesses III not, presumably, being related to them) 
came from Avaris in the Delta and there are indications from scientific 
studies done on the mummy of Ramesses II that he was even embalmed in 
that area and probably died there. (Reeves mentions this in his book). 
Perhaps Setnakhte had to battle some people related to this old order 
for supremacy and it was a case of someone who considered himself an 
ethnic Egyptian versus others considered "Asiatics" by himself, even 
though they had ruled in Egypt for a very long time, Twosret being one 
of them.

> SATAN IS A CROCK OF FOLK STORY.
If only that were true...
But of course it isn't. If you believe in God then satan
must exist. Simple
logic. For where else did all the evil in the world come
from? Do you then
believe the entire Bible is a folk story? If you do not
believe in God then 
not believing that satan exists is I guess irrelevent... 
-- 
Regards,
Bradley Gouldson
Software Developer
--------------------------------------------------
CORE Option			(C)reating
Level 2, 517 Flinders Lane	(O)rganisational
Melbourne 3000			(R)esource
Australia			(E)fficency
Telephone: +61 3 96142211	Fax: +61 3 9614228
--------------------------------------------------

Saida  wrote:
>Here is what "Chronicle of the Pharaohs" says about this:
>"The 19th Dynasty had ended with a degree of confusion, 
snip
>.  Whether there was a short period of anarchy, 
>perhaps of only a few months, between the end of Twosret's sole reign 
>and the accession of her successor Setnakhte is debatable.
In the quotation of the Papyrus Harris in V.´s book, is written, that
there was no Pharao for many years, and that there were  local
warlords in the time before Sethnacht. If the quotation is correct, it
would be not in accordance with a few months of confusion.
>-those Asiatics who had been living in his country for a long 
>time and still probably had a lot of clout in the Delta. 
In that quotation is also said, that "Egypt was subjugated from
outside", so the people of the Delta cannot be meant.
It would be interesting to know, what exactly is written in the
Papyrus Harris about this topic. 

In article <56884a$lac@news.ycc.yale.edu>, bdiebold@pantheon.yale.edu" 
says...
>
>Steve Whittet (whittet@shore.net) wrote:
>
>[many silly things deleted, leaving only the silliest:]
>
>: Levels of social organization provide a good way to judge its 
>: effectiveness. Essentially, things like social stratification,
>: politics, trade, industry, science, which require language,
>: build language. 
>
>: All of these things are associated with urbanization. The rise
>: of urban centers is thus a good clue as to where language is
>: developing. Placing language building among the steppe nomads
>: does not work. Of the two mechanisms we discussed for the spread
>: of language, boats and horses, which seems to you most closely
>: associated with urbanization?
>
>: I think both Mallory and Rebfrew are off target here.
>
>: steve
>
>I'm afraid you are off target, Steve, if you believe that language only
>develops in the context of urbanized societies. An absurd statement, even
>by your standards, and one that is in direct contradiction with just about
>anything understood about the development of language in humans, and about
>the ethnographic record. 
What I said was that things which require language, build language.
If you think about this for a moment you will realise that the very
essence of language is interaction with other people. The more people
you are surrounded by the more likely you are to encounter new words.
>
>Do you suppose that every one of these New Guinean hunter-gatherer groups
>are getting their languages from their urbanized cousins?
No, I expect they have the ability to communicate with others about
all the things that are important to them. My guess is they might have
a vocabulary of thousands of words. I don't expect them to have a
vocabulary of hundreds of thousands of words which is about average
or at least not uncommon among people who do a lot of reading.
> Who do you
>suppose these cousins are? Which urbanized group are the Yanomamo in
>Brazil getting their language from (a language which is every bit as
>complex as our own)? 
Is it every bit as complex as our own? One way to evaluate complexity 
is to compare the number of vocabulary words. If you have a better
or simpler test let's hear it.
>
>Of course, there's a sequencing problem as well. If people don't get real
>language until they become urbanized, how do they get urbanized in the
>first place?
It is what sociologists call a double interacting causuality. 
Things which require language build language. One of the things
which requires us to use more words and less gestures is an
increase in interactions with strangers. 
> Are neolithic villages urban enough for you?
No. The definition of urban is "too many people, trying to do
too many things, in too small a geographical area." Groups
sharing homogeneous attitudes and values, where roles are well
defined and interactions are predictable have less need for language.
Hetrogeneous urban societies are confusing. People are constantly
forced to explain themselves. As we become more urban we have more 
need and less intuitive ability to understand each other.
> Do you have a clue what you are suggesting?
Yes, I think so. I am suggesting things which require language
build language. A man can work all day plowing in a field and
never say a word. A hunter may find gestures less likely to
disturb the game he hunts than a lot of chatter. Someone
bartering vegetables for metal tools may have to do a lot of
talking to strike a bargain.
>
>You also have a problem with an incredibly old-fashioned, evolutionary
>conception of cultural development, in which all the delights of being
>human, such as language, are reserved for city-dwellers like ourselves.
The delights of interaction with other people come most often
when we put ourselves in a place where there are a lot of other
people to interact with. The price we pay is that some of the
interactions are less than delightful.
>Everybody else is just a rung or two down the evolutionary ladder,
>incapable of even speaking, except in the clicks, grunts and
>gesticulations you wrote about in an earlier post.
If you believe there is such a thing as an evolutionary ladder
then it is possible to speak of evolution as a process. How far
along in the process do you have to be before it makes sense
to call what you have language.
Chimpanzees and whales have a fairly complicated social hierarchy. 
They communicate with one another. How far removed from that do
we have to be before we recognize it as a language?
I would suggest that language probably evolved at about the same rate
people did. A Neolithic village or group of hunter gatherers may talk
to one another less often than they gesture. 
>The idea that language sophistication is related to level of
>social integration is just plain silly, in light of the ethnographic
>record. Frankly, it's an insult to self-respecting, linguistically
>proficient hunter-gatherers and nomadic pastoralists everywhere.
>What language is related to is being human, not to being urbanized.
Sophistication is related to urbanization. The frequency of 
interaction with others is related to our ability to communicate.
>Why don't you stick to measuring the Great Pyramid? Your anthropology is
>antediluvian.
Well Ben, I am not an anthropologist, but perhaps you 
care to discuss this in terms of communications structure 
and exchange theory then follow that into the concept
of status, class, social statification, conformity, and the 
emergence of norms, mores, conventions, roles, leadership 
and intergroup relations?
Consider what we actually use language for.
What would a city be without politics? What would politics be
without language? Political Power is the ability to persuade.
I would refer you to "Social Psychology" Secord and Backman
p 139 "Process of Attitude Change" 
I think you will find that language is intimately linked to the
structures which make urbanization possible.
>
>Ben
Steve

We did NOT evolve from those primates(or whatever they're called)! It's
just a coincidence that we look sorta like apes. We were created by God.(
I hope that does not upset anyone!
> karen@uab.edu (karen@uab.edu) wrote in article
<567e84$6it@maze.dpo.uab.edu>...
> edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad) wrote:
> 
> 
> >Newsgroup question:
> 
> >>                        Is Lucy a Monkey?
> 
> >Damn right it is!
> >``Lucy"  is nothing more than a member of the ``monkey" family,
> >with no connection -- none whatsoever -- to early man.
> 
> >The dreamers and hallucinators who led the ``expeditionary" team
> >are well aware of the fraud they had attempted to perpetrate by
> >claiming it to be a missing link.
> 
> >Fact is, the few bits and pieces of what they called ``Lucy" -- to go
> >with the vast majority of manmade bonelike additions that were used to
> >fill the many gaps -- weren't even found in close proximity.
> 
> >Truth is,  ``Lucy" is a mosaic of a few bones that were found over a
> >square mile.
> 
> >To put it rather bluntly, ``Lucy"  is a mockery of scientific
> >integrity (if some still exits in the field of physical anthropology,
> >which I sort of doubt)).
> 
> 
> Uhm, am I on candid camera?  oh...why did they let Mr. Ed out of
> retirement?  He is a talking HORSE for goodness sakes.  Damned Nick at
> Nite.  
> 
> 
> Hahahahaha.
> 
> 
> karen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

petrich@netcom.com (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>In article <565j2o$9a2@fridge-nf0.shore.net>,
>Steve Whittet  wrote:
>>I think Stellas question is where do English, French, German,
>>Italian, Spanish; the Romance languages, Celtic, Anglo Saxon 
>>Old Norse latin, Greek and all the rest of the contributers 
>>to English get their vocabulary from.
Actually, no.  That wasn't what I was trying to say, but it is a
pretty good question, and I am interested in the answer.
>>There are several things at work here. First off most of the words
>>in your list have IE antecedants. Where are those coming from?
>	Let us say for purposes of argument that Indo-European cannot be
>shown to be related to *any* other language family. Then the honest answer
>is that we don't know and never will, since the ancestral Indo-European
>speakers did not have writing and none of their predecessors did. And if 
>we will never know, that does NOT prove that ancient Egyptian is its 
>ancestor. However, some linguists have proposed that Indo-European comes 
>from some language that is ancestral to some other language families, 
>such as Uralic and Altaic. In that case, we can trace some IE words back 
>to this ancestral language.
I don't think this answers the question Steve asked.  It is an
interesting answer, and good background, but it isn't an answer to the
question asked.
So lets try it again rephrased a bit.  All of the languages that are
anticedant to English have IE roots.  Within IE, not outside of it,
what are the roots of languages like German, for example.
>>It makes little sense to trace a word back to German and 
>>just stop there. There are no Germans prior to c 200 BC.
>	But there were the ancestors of Germans back then :-)
And they spoke.......?  And they were influenced by.....?  Etc....
By the way, it is obvious from something you said which is quoted
above that you haven't gotten the main point of the Egyptian word
discussions.  Let me try to translate for you.  There are obviously
some words that have made it into English that have Egyptian word
roots.  They got into English through Latin and Greek and also through
Arabic and Coptic, and on rare occasions directly.  Does that make
Egyptian an ancestor language to English?  That depends on your
definition of an ancestor language.  It obviously is one of the
languages that influenced the languages that influenced English.
Also, I cut off your message at the point where you began to flame the
person you were talking to.  I generally stop reading your posts at
that point.  When you aren't indulging yourself in this way, you have
some interesting things to say.  Unfortunately, I have probably missed
a good number of them since I generally hit the delete key once the
nastiness starts.
Stella Nemeth
s.nemeth@ix.netcom.com

On Mon, 11 Nov 1996 19:35:32 GMT, grifcon@mindspring.com (Katherine
Griffis) wrote:
>.............................................. but the fact that Egyptian (ancient) 
>had no vowel sounds at all....not unlike Classical Arabic. 
are you sure this is what you meant to say??...
frank

rus@world.std.com (rus n sheptak) wrote:
>Sounds like you didn't give this much thought...the Peter Metre is
>useless on anything but an absolutely flat site, a rarity in my
>experience....
On the contrary, Rus, this tool has been used successfully on terrain
other than "absolutely flat."  Think about it.  Can you not imagine
that this would be a good guide, regardless of the terrain?  The Peter
Metre has been field tested and, as I said before, it has been well
received.
Peter

rejohnsn@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu wrote:
>The Peter Metre sounds pretty good, at least for large-scale excavations 
>where you aren't trucking stuff in and out every day, but how does it 
>work in grassy places?
>
>What would be really useful is a P-M that measures a meter on each 
>outside edge, so that you can drop it in a square that's already underway 
>to make sure that you're keeping the dimensions as you go down.
Rebecca,
It works quite well in grassy/weedy places.  I am presently working in
a location with just these conditions.  What we do is place the Peter
Metre down on the ground and use a spade to "cut" into the ground
along the inside edge (since the grass prevents the Peter Metre from
sinking into the ground and leaving an imprint).
As my brochure (available upon request) states, the metre can be made
to any specification.  Since I custom make every one, if an outside
metre is more suitable for your work, I would be happy to build one.
>Too bad you can't make a square auger.
That would take some complex engineering...  
Sincerely,
Peter

Marc Line  wrote:
>Goodness!  Is this new?!?!  I've been using one of these for the best
>part of 10 years.  I call it "The Marc Marker!" :)
>
>It comes in two sizes, 1 metre and 2 metres square.  The frame is
>further subdivided into a 100mm grid of piano wire which can be used to
>mark out soft surfaces.  It can also be used as a frame for scale
>planning and/or photography.  The whole thing can be made at home in an
>afternoon and costs less than 10 UK Pounds.
>
>I suppose it *was* too much to hope that this was more than a thinly
>veiled advertising ploy.
Marc,
No need to be so negative.  ie. thinly veiled advertizing ploy.  No
one is getting rich quick at $44.95 (CDN), considering the cost of the
metal, MIG welding equipment, etc..  My archaeology tools were
designed after working in the field as a volunteer and later as field
staff in an effort to improve the efficency of the crew and to make
life a little easier.  I am sure many people would be able to
fabricate a tool, such as the Peter Metre; however, not many
archaeologists have the time and/or equipment to do it.  Lighten up,
Marc.  Not everybody is out on the take.
Sincerely,
Peter

In part because of some of the Olmec discussions, Ive
been doing some reading on the archeology of the Pacific
basin.  [Didnt find a single Chineese ship's log though!
8-)  ]
What I did find was some accounts that suggest that the
islands of the south-west Pacific were inhabited as early
as 30,000 yrs BP.  Along with the Austrailian discoveries
of late, I was wondering if there were any good sources for
the first oceanic cultures.  Given the references I have 
found, it would appear that intentional ocean voyages of at
least 250 NM were made at least 30k years ago!  
A couple of associated questions:
1.  When did Homo Sapiens replace Homo Erectus in Southeast
Asia?
2.  Is there any evidence of major oceanic migrations between 
the H. Sapiens' exit from Africa (if you believe that) and
their arrival in SE Asia?
3.  Just as conjecture, I ask for any informed guess on how long
it would take a land-locked or coastal marine culture to develop
the voyaging ability to make a purposeful 250 NM trip out of sight
of land?  (Im not talking about the coastal fisherman blown out by
a storm landing on a new island to die there, but rather the sailor, 
that if blown 250 miles by a storm could have returned to his home, 
fetched his wife and kids and set up housekeeping on the new island.)
Enough idle brainstorms.  Thanks for any input!
Regards
bk

wvanhou237@aol.com wrote:
: In article <556o3t$1qb@sjx-ixn9.ix.netcom.com>, S.NEMETH@IX.NETCOM.COM
: (Stella Nemeth) writes:

: >>Osteology.
: >>Religious practices.
: >>Burial rites.
: >>Photography, scale planning, surveying and draughtsmanship.
: >>Diet and the absorption of trace elements.
: >>Dendrochronology.
: >>Conservation techniques.
: >>Thermoluminescence dating.
: >>etc. etc. etc.
: >
: >>Even anthropology comes into it occasionally. (grin)
: >
: >Please, please, please!  Please!  I wanna talk about all of the
: >above!!!!!  
: >Stella Nemeth
I'm up for all the above! Let's not all talk at once now... :)
Susan
-- 
                                             susansf@netcom.com

NORTH EASTERN ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
                              1997 CONFERENCE
     In order to facilitate early submission of session and paper
proposals the conference organizers are distributing the submission form
by email as well as in the newsletter. Just fill in the form below and
email (please eliminate the lines if you fill it out as email response)
it or print it out and send it to us by regular mail.  We will also have
an electronic registration form on the Web site as soon as we can.
        The organizers are very enthusiastic about the theme and program
for '97. Please get those session and paper proposals to us as soon as
you can!  Please remember to book your hotel rooms early. The hotel will
release the block of rooms after the deadline.  This is going to be a
great conference!
Brian J. Given
                  N.E.A.A.  ANNUAL MEETINGS APRIL 11-13, 1997
           THEME:"TRADITIONS AND NEW DIRECTIONS: ANTHROPOLOGY FOR THE 
                                MILLENNIUM"
 DEADLINES:
 Session Proposals:             JAN. 20 '97
 Paper Titles/Abstracts:        FEB. 21 '97
 Hotel Reservations:            FEB. 10 '97 (Contact hotel directly Tel:
819-423-6341,
                                             FAX  819-423-5106)
                         SESSION/PAPER SUBMISSION FORM
1. Name:________________________________________________________________
2. Are you submitting a proposal for a Session?_Paper?_ Workshop? _    
3. Is your position that of Professional? _  Graduate Student? _  
   Undergraduate? _ Other? _
4. Affiliation:_________________________________________________________
In order to respond promptly and to minimize cost we will use email for
all communication if we have your address.
5. email:________________________________
6. Telephone O._______________ H.______________  
7. Fax:_________________ 
8. URL?  http://__________________________________ (for our new list)
9. Audiovisual Equipment REQUIRED: Overhead _   VCR & Monitor _   
   Slide Projector _  Film Projector _  
   Other, please specify ________________________________
10. Title of Submission:___________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
11.Other Known Participants or co-authors:
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
                  SUBMITTING YOUR SESSION/ABSTRACT/TITLE
   Please use subject heading "NEAA Conference" OR "NEAA ‘97" in all
electronic  communication in the "subject" field and as the first line
when you address an  envelope to us.. The World Wide Web site with email
links to the organizers is:  http://WWW.carleton.ca/~bgiven/neaa/  
All EMAIL submissions should be sent to Sandy  Smeltzer / Tim Olaveson
(ssmeltze@ccs.carleton.ca)
 or by mail to 
 N.E.A.A. Conference  '97
 Prof. Brian J. Given/Sandy. Smeltser
 Department of Sociology and Anthropology
 Carleton University
 1125 Colonel By Drive
 Ottawa, Ontario, 
 Canada K1S 5B6
 **************************************************************
 *    BRIAN J. GIVEN                 MAYBE DIFFERENT DRUMMERS *   
 *    CARLETON UNIVERSITY                KEEP US AWAKE!       *
 **************************************************************

CALL FOR PAPERS
 NORTHEASTERN ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION  ANNUAL MEETINGS APRIL 11-13,
1997
 PROFESSIONALS AND STUDENTS ARE INVITED TO SUBMIT SESSION AND PAPER
PROPOSALS
 CONFERENCE THEME: "VALUED TRADITIONS AND NEW DIRECTIONS: ANTHROPOLOGY
FOR                                        THE MILLENNIUM"
                  http://WWW.carleton.ca/~bgiven/neaa/
     Carleton University, Department of Sociology and Anthropology will
be hosting the 1997 N.E.A.A. annual meetings at the very elegant Chateau
Montebello in the village of Montebello, Quebec, Canada April 11 to 13
(please note the change of date and venue from the preliminary call). 
The general theme of the conference is "Valued Traditions And New
Directions: Anthropology For The Millennium" but session and paper
proposals reflecting the full diversity of the discipline are welcome.
There will be a plenary session on "Anthropology 2000: Where Are We
Going?"  
     As always, we extend our invitation to both professionals and
students. You can submit session proposals or abstracts and get hotel
information by mail or email (see below). Participants are encouraged to
propose session topics and papers early (deadlines below).  There is a
conference site on the World Wide Web with continually updated
conference information and email links to the organizers. As the
schedule develops, session topics, paper titles and abstracts will be
available at the Web site.  
     The Chateau Montebello is a five-star resort, the world's largest
log structure, a favourite venue for international conferences.  The
organizers strongly urge that you book rooms as soon as possible. The
conference rate is Cdn. $100/night ($72 U.S.) plus tax, single occupancy
with $10 ($7.20 U.S.) added for each additional person up to four per
room (two queen sized beds).  Students please note: if you are willing
to "rough it" a little (i.e. two beds) you can share 4 to a room at a
cost of Cdn. $32.50/night (U.S. $24.50). The hotel will book rooms for
two days before and two days after the conference at the conference
rate. The organizers will assist individuals who wish to share rooms to
contact others who wish to share (contact Marc Tyrrell). Montebello is
convenient to the U.S./Canada border crossings at Montreal,
Cornwall/Massena and Ogdensburg/Prescot (about 50 miles from Ottawa and
70 miles from Montreal). There is bus service from Montreal leaving from
505 Maisonneuve 8:15am 6:10pm and from Ottawa from 256 Catherine St. 8am
& 6pm.
 REGISTRATION FEES: FACULTY    $ 33 (Cdn.) $ 25 (U.S.)
                     STUDENTS  $ 20 (Cdn.) $ 15 (U.S.)
 DEADLINES:
 SESSION PROPOSALS:            JAN. 20 '97
 HOTEL RESERVATIONS:           FEB. 10 '97 (PLEASE BOOK EARLIER!) 
 PAPER TITLES / ABSTRACTS      FEB. 21 '97
 CHATEAU MONTEBELLO: ROOM BOOKINGS
 392 Rue Notre Dame, Montebello, Quebec, Canada J0V 1L0 Telephone: 
819-423-6341
 Fax: 819-423-5106
 CONTACTING THE ORGANIZERS:
 Please use subject heading "NEAA Conference" in all communication.
 The World Wide Web site with email links to the organizers is: 
              http://WWW.carleton.ca/~bgiven/neaa/
 The organizers' email addresses are:
- Submission of paper titles and abstracts: 
  Sandy Smeltzer / Tim Olaveson:  ssmeltze@ccs.carleton.ca
- Communications/email "switchboard": 
  Ferret Smith:  fsmith@chat.carleton.ca 
- Student coordinator re. student questions: Kimberly-Ann
Lambert:                   kalamber@ccs.carleton.ca 
- Accommodation, room sharing, transportation: 
  Marc Tyrrell: mwtyrrel@ccs.carleton.ca 
- Banquet & food, special diets etc.: 
  Barbie and James Thompson: Jthompso@ccs.carleton.ca 
- Registration and fees: 
  Dave Lavictoire: dlavicto@chat.carleton.ca 
- Special needs and access: 
  Fern Elgar: felgar@ccs.carleton.ca 
- Volunteer Coordinator: 
  Lawson Greenberg: lgreenbe@chat.carleton.ca
- Conference chair: 
  Brian J. Given: bgiven@ccs.carleton.ca
 The mailing address is:
 N.E.A.A. Conference  '97
 Prof. Brian J. Given
 Department of Sociology and Anthropology Carleton University
 1125 Colonel By Drive
 Ottawa, Ontario, 
 Canada K1S 5B6
 **************************************************************
 *    BRIAN J. GIVEN                 MAYBE DIFFERENT DRUMMERS *   
 *    CARLETON UNIVERSITY                KEEP US AWAKE!       *
 **************************************************************

In the rush to answer Stella's question "What makes English a
Germanic language?" we may have overlooked the most famous thing
of all, namely "Grimm's Law" -- the set of sound correspondences
described by Jakob Grimm (half of the famous Brother act) in the
early 19th century. The basic vocabulary of English has /f/ in
words like "five, fire, foot" where Romance, Greek, Slavic etc.
have /p/ (Greek pente, pur, pous); likewise /th/ in "three, thin,
thrush" (Latin tres, tenuis, turdus)...and so on for a whole set
of consonants. English shares this set of innovations with
German, Swedish, Gothic and the other languages we call "Germanic".
Ross Clark

Am researching the megalithic tombs of Malta and have found scant
scant info.  If you have any info please e-mail or post the
info/reference.
Thankx    tfields@perigee.net

mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal) wrote:
>S.NEMETH@IX.NETCOM.COM (Stella Nemeth) wrote:
>>In that case, what does one do with a pidgin?  How does one classify
>>something that was artifically developed so that two groups who don't
>>share a common language can begin to communicate?  If a pidgin, over
>>time, developed into a real language, how would one decide which of
>>the two totally unassociated languages it came from was the "mother
>>tongue" of the new language?
>The only creoles I'm familiar with (a "creole" is a "pidgin" that has
>become a real language, in the sense that it's some people's mother
>tongue), Papiamentu (Netherlands Antilles) and Sranan Tongo (Surinam), I
>would classify as Romance and Germanic, without a shadow of a doubt.
[snip]
>language to a substrate (French in England during the Norman period,
>Frankish in France).  An adstrate is a neighbouring language that
>exercises heavy influence.  The French are worried English might become
>an adstrate to French.  Most of the French words in English entered
>*after* the Norman period, as adstrate influences.
Fascinating.  Thank you.
Stella Nemeth
s.nemeth@ix.netcom.com

whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>In article <56884a$lac@news.ycc.yale.edu>, bdiebold@pantheon.yale.edu" 
>says...
>> Which urbanized group are the Yanomamo in
>>Brazil getting their language from (a language which is every bit as
>>complex as our own)? 
>Is it every bit as complex as our own? One way to evaluate complexity 
>is to compare the number of vocabulary words. If you have a better
>or simpler test let's hear it.
The best test is to learn Yanomamo.  I'm afraid "comparing the number of
vocabulary words" is not feasible, as there are too many uncertainties:
what exactly is a word?  Do you count compound words?  Do you count
proper names?  Do you count technical jargon (whether related to
business and football or to food gathering in the Amazonian jungle and
inter-village warfare)?  Do you count just the active vocabulary, or the
the passive one too?  Do you count the vocabulary size of a single
individual or do you take some kind of average?  If so, how?  How do you
deal with bilingualism (which is very common among "primitive" peoples)?
What is the number of vocabulary words in English?  Is it the number of
entries in the OED, or the number of non-proper name words the average
citizen uses in normal conversation?  There is a considerable gap
between the two numbers.  And there is no OYD, yet.
I'm afraid I don't have any data on the Yanomamo (or Yanoamo") language.
As a limited example of the complexity of "primitive" languages, in this
case the phonological complexity of the South African Bushman language
!Kung, let me repeat here what I posted on sci.lang some days ago.  I
can assure you that some of the grammatical and semantic complexities of
!Kung are just as intricate as this merely phonological aspect of the
language.
<< BEGIN QUOTE >>
cprchrd@mailserv.mta.ca (Christian P Richard) wrote:
>How is the word "!Kung" exactly pronounced?
>What International Phonetic Associations symbols are used?  Does the 
>presence of the click mean two syllables?  Is the "u" like the "u" of 
>"cut", or is that only the Anglicised pronunciation?
The more correct name for this language is !Xu~, which is also the
correct IPA notation (/!xu~/ or /k!xu~/).  There is just one syllable,
and two sounds:
/k!x/ unvoiced apical postalveolar central click with velar aspiration
/u~/  nasalized /u/
If you know how to pronounce it now, you're ahead of me.  I can't.
Clicks are made by closing the airflow in the velar region with the back
of the tongue (as in English /k/ or /g/), and simultaneously making a
closure more forward in the mouth (with the lips or the front part of
the tongue).  Then, the forward closure is released (while maintaining
the /k/ closure), and air rushes in the mouth, producing the sound
("ingressive", as opposed to normal "egressive", where the air flows
outwards).  The forward closure can be:
                                      symbol:
bilabial      ("kissy, kissy")        (.)  [bull's eye]
dental        ("tsk, tsk")            |
(post)alveolar:
  apical      (cork/bottle)           !
  laminal     (cork/bottle)           =/=
  lateral     ("come on horsey!")     ||
Most of these sounds are used in English.  The problem is learning how
to use them in connected speech, as simple consonants.
In !Xu~, the problem is further compounded by lots of secondary
articulations.  The apical postalveolar click !, for instance, has 11
variants, notated:
                     velar  laryng.
              plain  aspir. aspir.
unvoiced      !      !x     !h
,, glott.     !?     !x?    !?h
voiced       g!     g!G    g!h 
,, glott.           g!G?   g!?h
The name of the language itself contains the unvoiced unglottalized
variant with velar aspiration (/x/ is the sound in Scottish "loch").
Compared to that, the pronunciation of /u~/ is pretty straightforward.
English "oo" with nasalization (i.e. part of the air flows out of the
nose).  French, for instance, has nasalized vowels (although it does not
have /u~/).  Portuguese has /u~/.
In 10 easy steps:
1. push the back of the tongue against the soft palate, as for /k/.
2. put the tip of the tongue against the teeth ridge, as for /t/.
3. release the tip of the tongue, let the air flow in (!).
4. release the back of the tongue, but keep it close to the soft palate.
5. while doing 4, let some air flow out, with velar friction (x).
6. lower the soft palate so that the nasal cavity is opened.
7. protrude the lips and put the tongue in position for /u/.
8. start vibrating those vocal chords.
9. let the air flow out of mouth and nose (u~).
10. stop the vocal chords, relax, and try again from 1.
It hasn't worked for me yet, but maybe you'll have better luck!
<< END QUOTE >>
As you can see, there's nothing "primitive" about click consonants.
!Xu~ has about 100 consonantal phonemes (including clicks), the world
record, and over 30 distinct vowels.  Imagine how many different words
you can make with 100 consonants and 30 vowels.  Most !Xu~ words have
either one or two syllables, of the structure CV[CV].  That's 9 million
possible words, I think.  Multiply that by the number of tones (my
source doesn't say how many there are, probably 2 or 3).  This language
was certainly not "designed" to house a limited vocabulary!
I should add that the nasal vowel is pronounced with a low-rise tone (by
modulating the vibration of the vocal chords).  And that I have sort of
succeeded in pronouncing !Xu~ by now.  Just haven't checked with a
native speaker yet to see if I'm saying it OK :-).
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal                     ~ ~
Amsterdam                   _____________  ~ ~
mcv@pi.net                 |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig

All of you sicko freaks who like this stuff,
STAY AWAY FROM THIS NEWSGROUP!!!!
You've got your own to go to, which is obvious from the list that 
came with this message. GO THERE! 
Empyrean wrote:
> 
> HAANS wrote:
> >
> > Have you every wondered what the most beautiful women of Europe look
> > like butt naked and getting fucked HARD?  Well look no further friend,
> > you have found the source, women of all nationalities.....
> >
> > Scandanavian....Taiwanese....Chinese....Russian....Australian....
> >
> > getting fucked hard by men of all nations.
> >
> > Whatever you want to see, we deliver LIVE !!
> >
> > http://www.xxxplicit.com/live.html
> > http://www.xxxplicit.com/live.html
> 
> This is a great site.

S.NEMETH@IX.NETCOM.COM (Stella Nemeth) wrote:
>So lets try it again rephrased a bit.  All of the languages that are
>anticedant to English have IE roots.  Within IE, not outside of it,
>what are the roots of languages like German, for example.
>>>It makes little sense to trace a word back to German and 
>>>just stop there. There are no Germans prior to c 200 BC.
>>	But there were the ancestors of Germans back then :-)
>And they spoke.......?  And they were influenced by.....?  Etc....
They spoke "Proto-Germanic" at some point.  Later on, some spoke
"Proto-West-Germanic" (the ancestor of English, Frisian, Dutch and
German), "Proto-North-Germanic" (the ancestor of Icelandic, Faeroese,
Norwegian, Danish and Swedish) and "Proto-East-Germanic" (the ancestor
of Gothic, Vandal, Burgundian, etc. [no modern survivors]).
Proto-Germanic was influenced primarily by (Proto-)Celtic.  There is a
number of words that only occur in Celtic and Germanic and that can be
shown to be borrowed into Germanic from Celtic.  The metal words "iron"
and "lead" are examples, but also words such as "rich" (and German
"Reich"), connected with Celtic ri:g-s "king" (as in Vercingeto-rix, not
to mention Aste-rix, etc.).  Proto-Germanic itself (or, more likely,
some of its later variants) had considerable influence on Baltic and
Slavic.  Some very old Germanic words were also borrowed by Finnish,
where they survived almost unchanged (e.g. the native proto-Germanic
word for "king" reconstructed as *kuningaz, strikingly confirmed by
Finnish kuningas "king".  Cf. Germ. Ko"nig, E. king.  The word was also
borrowed into Slavic, e.g. Russ. knjaz' "prince" < *kUn'eNg'I).
Of course, if you trace the history of individual words, lots more
influences can be detected (or not: sometimes the conclusion must be
nothing but an "origin unknown").  It is useful to distinguish between
_etymology_, the investigation of the history of single words, and
_historical linguistics_, the investigation of the history of whole
languages, which can only dwell on the major outside influences, and
concentrates largely on the internal grammatical and phonological
changes within a language or language group.  It is not possible, on
grounds of principle, to practice etymology without a solid knowledge of
historical linguistics.  It is impossible, on practical grounds, to
practice historical linguistics while trying to account for the history
of every single word in the language.  That's the problem, or rather the
misunderstanding, regarding for instance the Egyptian words in English:
the sound ones are an interesting detail from the point of view of
etymology, but largely irrelevant from the viewpoint of historical
linguistics in general.  The more "creative" ones (like, say, Ptah ~
father), are at odds with very the principles of etymology itself, as
derived from historical linguistics.
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal                     ~ ~
Amsterdam                   _____________  ~ ~
mcv@pi.net                 |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig

whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>What is the physical connection that allows Anatolian Luwian
>to reach central Italy? Woudhuizen links Luwian with the
>Phaistos Disk of Southern Crete. Some of the particulars
>of the inscriptions you mention are identical with that artifact.
If I understand Woudhuizen correctly, he thinks the Phaistos disk and
other Cretan texts are "West-Luwian", that is to say: Proto-Lycian, more
or less. 
It should be understood that our knowledge of the Anatolian branch of IE
languages is very incomplete and fragmentary: what we have in fact are
no more than three snapshots:
1. 1700-1200 BC, cuneiform texts from the Hittite Empire in Central
Anatolia.  Most of the texts are in Hittite (Nesite), a language which
may have originated around the city of Kanesh, somewhat to the
south-east of Hattussa, the Hittite capital.  The original language of
Hattussa is called Hattic, and is not Indo-European.  To the north of
the Hittites (on the Paphlagonian coast) Palaic was spoken, an IE
Anatolian language.  To the south, in the Konya plain and the Cilician
coast, Luwian was spoken.  Many Luwian and some Palaic cuneiform
inscriptions have been found at Hattussa, and they are both clearly
different from, but related to Hittite.  Nothing is known of the
languages spoken further west.  To the east of Palaic-Hittite-Luwian,
non-IE languages were spoken: Kaska in the Pontus-Caucasus region,
Hurrian in the Armenian mountains and in Syria.
2. 1100-700 BC, hyeroglyphic Luwian texts from the "Neo-Hittite" states
in Commagene (SE. Anatolia) and Syria.  These texts are in an eastern
variant of "Cuneiform Luwian" as known from the Hattussa archives.
Neigbouring languages were Semitic to the south and Urartian (a late
form of Hurrian) in the north-east.  A new wave of non-Anatolian IE
languages had entered the area (Phrygian in Central Anatolia, and
Armenian, which eventually took over the Urartian state around lake
Van).
3. 600-200 BC, alphabetic texts from Western Anatolia, in Lydian, Carian
and Lycian.  It seems certain that Lycian is a late, western variant of
Luwian.  The Lydian language is quite different, and has several
peculiarities which cannot be derived from either Luwian, Hittite or
Palaic, so we must assume it consitutes an independent branch of
Anatolian.  Very little is known about Carian.
What Best and Woudhuizen are trying to prove is the presence of
West-Luwian (Proto-Lycian) and Proto-Lydian in second millennium Greece
and Crete.  The "Sea Peoples" upheaval of c. 1200 BC would have taken
these Aegean Anatolian dialects ("Pelasgian" and "Tyrhhenian") to
Tuscany and other places.
The difficulty is of course that we don't know what West Luwian and
Proto-Lydian were like in the second millennium.  We know second
millennium Central Luwian, second-first millennium East Luwian, and
first millennium West Luwian (Lycian), Carian and Lydian.  Best and
Woudhuizen's approach seems to be to take this difficulty as a blessing:
freely choosing parallels from either of three periods, and from any of
the langauges in question, greatly enhances their chance of a hit.  At
the same time, it also greatly diminishes their chance of having their
work accepted by the specialists.
[700 year time gap]
>I don't follow this. Both have a common point from which they each
>diverge 700 years. How is that equivalent to a divergence of 1400
>years? Use English as a comparitive example. Take the English spoken
>in Scotland and Britain 700 years ago. Are those dialects as relatively
>unintelligible to each other today as American English and Anglo Saxon?
Not sure what you mean here.  The difficulty with Etruscan-Lemnian is
that we *can not* compare with the language as it was 1200 BC, because
we don't have it.  Contemporary American English can be compared to both
British English, and Shakespearean English: we have a "three
dimensional" view.  Etruscan and Lemnian (what little is known of them)
can only be compared to each other, in "two dimensions".  Linguists,
especially Indo-Europeanists, are used to having three dimensions in
comparing languages.  You have to be careful not to be misled into a
distorted view by the two-dimensionality of this case.
>>[Lemnos stele:]
>>> >I don't think so: the text clearly reads "tis phoke", and previously
>>> >there has been talk of "Holaiesi phokiasiale", probably "Holaios the
>>> >Phocaean".
>Why is "Holaios the Phocaean" a better reading than 
>"Helios the folk festival"? 
See my other post on Herodotus' mention of Kolaios the Samian
(Phocaean?).
>>A:
>>
>> ^       <--\
>> |  <------ ^
>> |--------> |
>>S|<-------- |
>>P|-->       |
>>E|^  HEAD   |
>>A||         |
>>R|| SHIELD
In case somebody else has not understood this and the other diagram:
this is supposed to represent lines of text and the direction in which
they should be read, horizontal left to right -->, right to left <--, 
                       |                   ^
vertical top to bottom | and bottom to top |.  The best I can do in 
                       v                   |
(fixed width font) ASCII, I'm afraid.  The glyphs themselves are in a
rather unsurprising early form of the Greek alphabet.
>***************
>does "ci" to "zi" seem like a possible shift?
>******************
Not in Etruscan.  "ci" was pronounced "ki", and "zi" was pronounced
"tsi".  Neither is ci > si (or s'i) a plausible shift in Etruscan.  
A plausible shift in Etruscan would be ci /ki/ > chi /khi/ (aspirated k,
not English nor German ch!) > /hi/.   The fact that in modern Tuscany,
Italian c /k/ is pronounced /h/ (e.g. It.  "the house", Tuscan
dial.  is often taken as Etruscan substrate influence).
The sound system of Etruscan was rather peculiar: no /b/, /d/ and /g/,
but instead an opposition between plain and aspirated stops (as in
Modern Chinese).
Stops: p, ph; t, th; k, kh.  
Fricatives: f, s, s' (=sh?), z (=ts), h.
Liquids: m, n, l, r. 
Semivowel: v (=w)
Vowels: a e i u (no /o/!)
Lemnian has exactly the same sound system but for two tiny differences:
two kinds of s, which I wrote as S and Z, perhaps confusingly, as they
correspond to Etruscan s and s', not z (if Lemnian had a  /ts/, it
does not occur on the stele), and 4 vowels: a e i o (no /u/).
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal                     ~ ~
Amsterdam                   _____________  ~ ~
mcv@pi.net                 |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig

Elmo wrote:
> 
> All of you sicko freaks who like this stuff,
> STAY AWAY FROM THIS NEWSGROUP!!!!
> You've got your own to go to, which is obvious from the list that
> came with this message. GO THERE!
Been there, seen that, next.
> 
> Empyrean wrote:
> >
> > HAANS wrote:
> > >
> > > Have you every wondered what the most beautiful women of Europe look
> > > like butt naked and getting fucked HARD?  Well look no further friend,
> > > you have found the source, women of all nationalities.....
> > >
> > > Scandanavian....Taiwanese....Chinese....Russian....Australian....
> > >
> > > getting fucked hard by men of all nations.
> > >
> > > Whatever you want to see, we deliver LIVE !!
> > >
> > > http://www.xxxplicit.com/live.html
> > > http://www.xxxplicit.com/live.html
> >
> > This is a great site.

100714.1346@compuserve.com (GuR) wrote:
>Mr. Velikovski made in his book "The people of the sea" the statemant,
>that the Egyptian Pharao Ramses III. has not lived in the 1200BC, but
>around 375BC. Together with this statements he arrangend the sequence
>of the Egyptian kings since the Hyksos in a new way.
>
>I have never heard, if his sequence has been proved with
>radioncarbon, thermoluminescens or any other physical method, or if
>his ideas found their way to Egyptology.
This is from SIS Review 6:1-3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE RESIDENTIAL WEEKEND
CONFERENCE, GLASGOW, 7-9 APRIL 1978 (Publ. 1982), "Radiocarbon Dating
and Egyptian Chronology" by DR EUAN MACKIE
"  An even more striking result is provided by the temple complex
which we have already heard about: the buildings at Medinet Habu. We
have a date for the part built under Ramesses III, whose historical
position is shifted even more drastically by Dr Velikovsky's revision,
from the 12th century down to the 4th [10]. Here, although the
radiocarbon date is much younger than those obtained from the
Ramesseum, the sample from the mud-brick bonding gives a result of 860
± 50 bc (Fig. 2) - which is many centuries earlier than can possibly
be right for the very drastic revision proposed by Dr Velikovsky.
"  And I think you will agree, too, that the tombs of the two
officials, Tjanefer and Roma Roy, also fall at a very much earlier
date than could possibly be consistent with the revised chronology.
The dates for Tjanefer, Third Prophet of Amun, who held office from
the time of Seti II to the reign of Ramesses III, are 1110 ± 60 bc,
1130 ± 60 bc, 1040 ± 50 bc and 1060 ± 50 bc; again, these would be
about 200 years older if corrected by the tree-ring factor. These four
dates are remarkably consistent, and average at 1085 ± 28 bc, giving a
very precise indication of the age of the building. Even if we
discount the tree-ring calibration as non-proven, there is no way that
this tomb can be dated to the 6th century BC."
[..]
"  You'll be wondering, of course, what effect this tree-ring
calibration has on the C14 dates I mentioned earlier. The immediate
effect, of course, is that the C14 dates for the Ramesseum and the
temple of Ramesses III appear to be younger than they should be,"
Reference
10. I. Velikovsky: Theses for the Reconstruction of Ancient History
(New York /Jerusalem: Scripta Academica Hierosolymitana, 1945), p.24.
Ian Tresman, Society for Interdisciplinary Studies
http://www.knowledge.co.uk/xxx/cat/sis/