Newsgroup sci.archaeology 50288

Directory

In article <568md4$dnh@fridge-nf0.shore.net>, whittet@shore.net (Steve
Whittet) wrote:
>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.
Sigh.  Please don't use the word "definition" and then put a phrase in
quotes, with a form of the verb "to be" in between, like that.  You had me
thinking that was a definition.
I believe the standing definition of urbanism, out there in the real world
of scholarship, remains related to Central Place theory.  In other words,
a society with central places [that meet X, Y, or Z criteria, depending
how picky you are] is urbanised.  (To judge by a list of terms I quote you
using later in this post, I'd guess you've encountered a strain of thought
according to which the major criterion was that the central place
hierarchy had at least three levels.  Try checking.  I don't really agree
with those folks, but they'll certainly do you better service than the
quote you just gave.)
Most certainly, the definitions based on population density don't stand up
to common sense; and the remark about "too many people, trying to do too
many things" is rather revealingly off here, I think.
>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.
Um, no, that's what I mean exactly.
Think about it.  You live in a neolithic village.  Is there a physical
structure separating you from the other people, who may well differ
significantly from you?  Maybe, maybe not...  Are there hunter-gatherers
or nomads nearby?  Other villages?  Odds-on, yes.
Now you live in an early city.  Maybe you're in an early Chinese city.  In
that case, you're probably a peasant, and your home is this underground
hovel in a rather large subdivision of underground hovels, outside the
walls.  The odds of your coming face to face with the king on any given
day are, all things considered, *not* very high; it's hard to say whether
you'd ever even meet the second daughter of the chief reader of the oracle
bones; but you see your fellow peasants of that particular subdivision on
a daily basis.  And, of course, the nearest group of hunter-gatherers is
*quite* far away.  The odds of your facing any major confusion are, in all
probability, rather lower than when tasks and classes were less
segregated.  (Ironically, the major scenario I'm coming up with by which
our friendly peasant might see more variety is...the army!  And in fact
militarisation was typically a late stage in the decay of the early
empires.)
[major snip]
>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,
--that's what I was just talking about, fyi--
>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.
Nope, not in anthropological terms.  You're thinking of authority. See
below.  See, for example,  by
Jonathan Haas, New York:  Columbia University Press, 1982.
>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.
That was exactly *his* point, Mr. Whittet.
Consider for a moment the widespread agreement that "authority" precedes
"power" in the evolution of social complexity (Haas can provide lots of
references on this).  "Authority" is defined (roughly) as the ability to
get your way without coercion, and is generally understood to rely heavily
on persuasion.  Usually, a rather language-dependent task, no?
"Power" on the other hand is the ability to exert coercion.  Isn't power
notorious to this day for its efficacy through silence?
You need language to get cities, but not to keep them, according to the
caricature I just sketched.  (The flawed side of which is the "but not..."
part.)  So language precedes cities.  Not tough.
I'm arriving in this thread late and by accident.  But in what I've seen,
you've made no case for language's origin with cities, nor for its
"exponential" growth with them (whatever growth might mean in this
context; you seem just to mean vocabulary enrichment).  You're very far
from convincing me that the average resident of a neolithic village is
likelier to communicate by gesture than by speech.  And you're also far
from convincing me that the set of terms with which you chose to end this
post is any more familiar to you than the terminology of linguistics.
Joe Bernstein
-- 
Joe Bernstein, free-lance writer and bookstore worker joe@sfbooks.com
speaking for myself and nobody else    http://www.tezcat.com/~josephb/

Geez.  I know I really shouldn't get involved in this kind of thread, but...
In article <328F0105.2CF8@scruznet.com>, Mike Wright 
wrote:
>Stella Nemeth wrote:
>> 
>> Mike Wright  wrote:
>> 
>> >.... If I have a larger vocabulary than you
>> >do, is my English more sophisticated than yours?
>> 
>> Generally the answer to that question is yes.
[snip]
>
>Is this evaluation based on anything other that an assumption? Do you
>have any sources for studies?
Sigh...  Here I start the post thinking "sophisticated" is being used in
the colloquial sense, and I want to yell, "Who NEEDS studies?  Don't you
think using words like 'sophisticated' and 'colloquial' is exactly what
the adjective is FOR?"  But no, it's not that, read on...
Of course the rest of you already knew that, having read the rest of this
thread, right?  Silly me.
[snip verbiage about vocabulary tests for college entrance]
>> The idea that languages with large vocabularies are more sophisticated
>> than languages with small vocabularies isn't a new one.
>> 
>> And yes, you count the 40 words for snow or the 50 camel handling
>> jargon words in the word count.  The people who have 40 words for snow
>> probably don't have as many scientific terms as 18th Century English
>> had.  And certainly 20th Century English has move scientific terms
>> than the language of two centuries ago.
>
>So, are you saying having many words for different kinds of snow (BTW,
>this is apparently an unsubstantiated legend) or camel handling is less
>"sophisticated" than having many words related to science and
>technology?
No, actually,
she's saying the EXACT OPPOSITE.
See, she says "And yes, you count the 40 words for snow..." in the "word
count" which determines the size of the language's vocabulary for purposes
of seeing if it's "more sophisticated".  I'm afraid I can't do this whole
logical chain quoting only her words in only her order, but is it maybe a
*little* clearer that way?
Hence, if there were in fact 40 words for snow (one correct reply
acknowledged), that would be 40 extra points for the relevant Inuit
language.  Just as English's 40 words for obtuseness are 40 extra points
for English.
>Let's carry it a bit farther, then. Suppose your vocabulary and mine
>happen to contain exactly the same number of "words", but my vocabulary
>has more words related to farm animals and crops, and yours has more
>words related to linguistics. Whose language is more sophisticated? What
>if the topics are music and physics? How about chemistry vs.
>electronics? Or, kinship terms vs. nautical terms? 
>
>What if your vocabulary is twice as large as mine, but contains no words
>relating to modern science?
It's quite clear that by Ms. Nemeth's criterion here, in the first case,
there is no difference, while in the second case, hers is the more
"sophisticated" vocabulary.
>What is the objective method of measuring degrees of "sophistication"?
>What are the criteria? Has anyone ever actually applied these methods in
>comparing existing languages?
Um, yes, actually, the criterion described by Ms. Nemeth certainly has
been applied.  I've seen any number of references in stupid textbooks to a
language's vocabulary size (word count, whatever you call it in
linguistics) as a measure of its "sophistication".  Not being a linguist,
I haven't seen much by way of refutation.
Would there really be so many objections to it raised back in this thread
(yes, I've caught up a bit) if she had invented it?  Or even if Steve
Whittet had?  Well, uh, actually, maybe in that latter case - But there
certainly wouldn't be these casual references, "Miguel, you around?" and
such, if people didn't already have canned speeches about a tired old
chestnut.
From my experience with Ms. Nemeth in threads like these, she was trying
to point out that this is, in fact, a widely available criterion.  So if
it's horrendously off-base, she'd have liked to know where to find out
more about that.
A pity she was instead asked to provide evidence *herself*.  This is, of
course, a fine way to educate people.  But if you're going to be Socratic,
you don't get to misunderstand what your student tells you.
Joe Bernstein
-- 
Joe Bernstein, free-lance writer and bookstore worker joe@sfbooks.com
speaking for myself and nobody else    http://www.tezcat.com/~josephb/

On Sat, 16 Nov 1996 22:33:22 +0000, Elijah  wrote:
>thread....you can mail their postmaster by merely copying their
>address and writing postmaster ahead of it.
This is a good idea -- mail the postmaster of anyone who, like  Eli, puts
misc.test in the headers to make sure that anyone who replies has to put up
with all the test replies.

In article <328E0CEE.36FD@PioneerPlanet.infi.net>, Saida
 writes
>I would be the last one to say that Hebrew (or Arabic) is easy to learn, 
>but, in case anybody is interested, the Hebrew Bible is written in 
>simple prose, not much resembling the fancy, stilted language of, say, 
>the King James version.
>
I'm sorry? That 'fancy stilted language' was the standard formal written
English of the late 16th, early 17th centuries. This whole discussion
has suffered abyssmally from an overdose of egocentrism, just as
disastrous a folly in anthropology as is anthropomorphism in the
scientific study of non-human societies.
Your above statement simply indicates that you are more familiar with
the Hebrew of the Bible than you are with the language of 17th century
English literature.
-- 
Alan M. Dunsmuir
  "Time flies like an arrow -
   Fruit flies like a banana" --- Groucho Marx (as used by Noam Chomsky)

In article <56lmr8$b1p@reaper.uunet.ca>, Sanjeev Shankar
 writes
>Recent studies seem to question the validity of the "IE movement into
> India" theories.
Only to those nationaistic zealots who refuse to admit the possibility
of any non-Indian source for what they now see as their private national
heritage.
In an exactly similar way, the Nazis looked for the imagined components
of a supreme Aryan culture to prop up what was in fact a highly
diversified 'MittelEuropaeischer' melange.
-- 
Alan M. Dunsmuir
  "Time flies like an arrow -
   Fruit flies like a banana" --- Groucho Marx (as used by Noam Chomsky)

ev-michael@nrm.se (Mike Noreen) wrote:
>Well, if the Mammoths responded with lowered age at first birth, and
>smaller size, then the increase in predation pressure must have been
>significant. Unquantifiable, but significant. 
Not only unquantifiable, but unasignable.  No one has answered my previous 
querry regarding the elephant base line.  Was the first base line herd not 
only  heavily hunted but also NOT under environmental stress (I've never 
heard of such a herd in Africa) and was the second herd not only NOT 
heavily hunted but also NOT under environmental stress (again, I've never 
heard of such a modern herd).    

Alan M. Dunsmuir wrote:
> 
> In article <328E0CEE.36FD@PioneerPlanet.infi.net>, Saida
>  writes
> >I would be the last one to say that Hebrew (or Arabic) is easy to learn,
> >but, in case anybody is interested, the Hebrew Bible is written in
> >simple prose, not much resembling the fancy, stilted language of, say,
> >the King James version.
> >
> 
> I'm sorry? That 'fancy stilted language' was the standard formal written
> English of the late 16th, early 17th centuries. This whole discussion
> has suffered abyssmally from an overdose of egocentrism, just as
> disastrous a folly in anthropology as is anthropomorphism in the
> scientific study of non-human societies.
> 
> Your above statement simply indicates that you are more familiar with
> the Hebrew of the Bible than you are with the language of 17th century
> English literature.
> --
> Alan M. Dunsmuir
> 
>   "Time flies like an arrow -
>    Fruit flies like a banana" --- Groucho Marx (as used by Noam Chomsky)
I think that arrow must be stuck between your ears, Banana Picker!  What 
I was saying is that the old-style English is NOT a literal translation 
of the Hebrew.  The Hebrew is much less complicated in its prosaic style 
and therefore, in itself, more modern than the translations most people 
are accustomed to reading.  I don't know how much more simply I can put 
this SO THAT THOU WILT COMPREHEND MY MEANING, YORICK!

In article <56n631$5cs@fridge-nf0.shore.net>, whittet@shore.net says...
[some snips]
>In article , petrich@netcom.com says...
>>In article <56e16h$5d2@fridge-nf0.shore.net>,
>>Steve Whittet  wrote:
>>>I think you are missing the point Ben. If hunter-gathering and nomadic 
>>>pastoralist groups were perfectly proficient in language, language
>>>would not evolve. ...
>>        Irrelevant; there is an abundance of evidence of evolution of 
>>historically-attested languages -- and often evolution in fields that 
>>show no need for evolution, such as phonology, grammar, basic vocabulary, 
>      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>etc.
>You don't think language evolves. Are you a creationist?
He just said that there is 'an abundance of evidence of evolution of 
historically-attested languages'; obviously he thinks that languages 
have evolved.  The part that you underlined merely indicates that he 
sees no good reason for some of this well-evidenced evolution.  The 
introduction of creationism is a blatant non sequitur (and a rather 
insulting one, in my opinion): it is difficult to see what connection 
there might be between the origin of life and the nature of linguistic 
change.
>>        However, there's been a lot of controversy over simian linguistic 
>>abilities; it's not clear that chimps are able to construct coherent 
>>sentences, even with sign language.
>Not since the mid sixties when Washoe began to construct coherent
>complex sentences, or aren't you familiar with the work of Allen
>and Beatrice Gardiner? I don't know how many times the experiment
>has been replicated since then but to label it contraversial is
>simply uninformed.
To label it anything *but* controversial is either to indulge in 
wishful thinking or to be uninformed.  The last time I looked, the 
controversy hadn't been resolved.
>>>>I can't imagine why you think a major adaptation like language, with
>>>>serious associated neurological apparatus, should have only appeared in
>>>>the last 6,000 years, and then spread without a single exception to every
>>>>group world-wide in such a short period of time. (Or, presumably, much
>>>>more recently, since urbanization in most of the world is a very recent
>>>>phenomenon.)
>>>I am measuring it as an exponential curve. ...
>>        And what is your motivation for an exponential curve, Mr. Whittet?
>Let me put aside your interesting selection of the word motivation
>as the object of your question and provide you my reason for using
>an exponential curve to measure the growth of language.
What's your objection to the term 'motivation'?  In mathematics, at 
least, it's the obvious one to use and conveys no sinister implications.  
As I understand the question, he's simply asking for an explanation of 
the considerations leading to your choice of an exponential curve.  
(And you are therefore proposing to answer precisely the question that 
was asked.)
>Language has evolved over a period of 200,000 years. Very slowly
>at first but with the rate of change changing at an increasing rate,
>in very recent times very rapidly. Generally when you observe a
>phenomena where the rate of change changes at an increasing rate
>you may describe this as an exponential curve.
But I see now that you aren't answering it after all.  You are merely 
asserting without evidence that the exponential curve fits the facts.  
What *is* the evidence that leads you to use an exponential model?  
What variable are you measuring quantitatively in such a way that you 
can actually draw a graph?
>When this curve is compared with increases in population, urbanization
>or indeed any observable sociological trend you care to name, there
>is very close congruence.
This is nonsense.  Population is a well-defined (if not always easily 
measured) numerical quantity.  One can devise meaningful numerical 
measures of urbanization.  What numerical measure of linguistic 
complexity are you using to give you a meaningful comparison?  How 
do you get values of it going back 200,000 years?
Brian M. Scott

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_01BBD47F.BA1209A0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
By replying to him you have illuminated me.  If you feel that your words
have been wasted, think again.
Xina  wrote in 
snip
> And it *is* closed.  I have quit....I cannto argue with someone who is
> mentally and emotionally so ill equipped. Please forgive me my soft
> heart! ;)
> 
snip
> Not when one side decides to withdraw from the battle seeing that it is
> not worthy of effort!
> 
> Xina
> 
------=_NextPart_000_01BBD47F.BA1209A0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

	
By replying to him you have illuminated =
me.  If you feel that your words have been wasted, think =
again.



Xina <Xina@netins.net> =
wrote in 

snip
> And it *is* closed.  I have quit....I =
cannto argue with someone who is
> mentally and emotionally so ill =
equipped. Please forgive me my soft
> heart! ;)
> =

snip
> Not when one side decides to withdraw from the battle =
seeing that it is
> not worthy of effort!
> 
> =
Xina
> 


------=_NextPart_000_01BBD47F.BA1209A0--

If there are any archaeologists left in this group amidst all the
creationist noise I wonder if you are familiar with the BELLE dig in the
Gulf of Mexico.  I heard a report on NPR and found a web page constructed
before the dig actually began.  It is my understanding that the artifacts
being brought out are in pristine condition owing to the surrounding
silt's ability to suppress oxidation.  My question is:  is there any plans
to post photos and discriptions of these artifacts on the Web?  If there
is anyone left in here who might know the answer please respond via
email.  I thank you in advance.
B Goodson
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The following is an explanation of radioactive decay:
     When God the Son squeezed energy into atoms, he squeezed and held the atom so tightly that there were no unstable elements and therefore no radioactivity. At the fall [of Adam and Eve], He relaxed His grip slightly... which affected every atom and allowed some to become unstable, i.e., radioactivity! 
Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1982
---------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <328F0105.2CF8@scruznet.com>, darwin@scruznet.com says...
>
>Stella Nemeth wrote:
>> 
>> Mike Wright  wrote:
>> 
>> >.... If I have a larger vocabulary than you
>> >do, is my English more sophisticated than yours?
>> 
>> Generally the answer to that question is yes.  The more educated and
>> the more sophisticated you are, the more likely you are to have a
>> large vocabulary.  The less educated and the less sophisticated you
>> are, the more likely you ae to have a small vocabulary.
>
>Is this evaluation based on anything other that an assumption? Do you
>have any sources for studies?
Yes, it has been studied extensively by both sociologists and
educators. There are even a number of Federal programs designed
to increase word power among students because of the statistical
correlation with success. One of the more interesting studies
looks at the correlation between deviance from socially accepted
norms, mores and conventions and language usage.
Some of the standard textbooks on this would be 
"Social Psychology", Secord and Backman; and
"Criminology", Sutherland and Cressey.
"Deviance/The Interactionist Perspective", Rubington and Weinberg.
Look at the effect of vocabulary on self typing and labeling theory.
Typing has a lot to do with the definition of a self futhfilling
prophecy by means of the application of a label.
Having an alternative label available can actually result in a
completely different self typing.
>> Think about it for a minute.  If the size of your personal vocabulary
>> didn't mean something, why did they test you on vocabulary and word
>> usage before they let you go to college, or for that matter in some
>> states before they let you go to high school.
>
>The question is not whether my personal vocabulary "means something",
>but whether or not it is a valid measure of something called the
>"sophistication" of my language.
The sophistication of a language can be more than just its
linguistic complexity, it can also determine whether or not
it is possible to concieve of some concepts.
Take the difference between the word "real" in normal usage
and the word "Real" as philosophical jargon. The second usage
has a rather different meaning than the first, though both are
nominally the same word. Isn't that one sense of what we mean
when we use the word "sophistication"? Adding the second usage
to your vocabulary makes possible a concept you would not otherwise
be capable of concieving.
>School entrance exams test for
>vocabulary that will be useful in the context of receiving training at
>that particular school. The vocabulary required to qualify for entrance
>into an advanced music institute might be quite different from the test
>for advanced computer engineering.
Both simply correlate the possession of an understanding of a fields
jargon with familiarity with a fields issues.
> Which has the more sophisticated
>requirements? A language training facility or one that trains gymnasts
>might require only aptitude tests, because vocabulary is not
>particularly important to either endeavor.
Actually, vocabulary is important to both. A poor understanding
of grammar might be reflected by problems with the conjugation
of verbs and make learning a language unnecessarily difficult. 
A poor understanding of terms for parts of a persons physical 
anatomy might inhibit a gymnasts attainment of the best 
possible performance.
>
>> The idea that languages with large vocabularies are more sophisticated
>> than languages with small vocabularies isn't a new one.
>> 
>> And yes, you count the 40 words for snow or the 50 camel handling
>> jargon words in the word count.  The people who have 40 words for snow
>> probably don't have as many scientific terms as 18th Century English
>> had.  And certainly 20th Century English has move scientific terms
>> than the language of two centuries ago.
>
>So, are you saying having many words for different kinds of snow (BTW,
>this is apparently an unsubstantiated legend) or camel handling is less
>"sophisticated" than having many words related to science and
>technology?
No, I think she is saying that having many words for snow makes it 
possible to communicate to someone a whole cluster of concepts with
a single word. If I just say "its snowing outside" it communicates
less information tan if I can add that "its "corn" snow, then you
not only know what to wear, you know what kind of wax to put on your skis.
More words generally get added because there is additional information
that needs to be added on to a core concept. The more interactions
you have, the more variables you need to consider. The more variables
you have the more useful those extra words are. Things which require
language build language.
>
>Let's carry it a bit farther, then. Suppose your vocabulary and mine
>happen to contain exactly the same number of "words", but my vocabulary
>has more words related to farm animals and crops, and yours has more
>words related to linguistics. Whose language is more sophisticated? What
>if the topics are music and physics? How about chemistry vs.
>electronics? Or, kinship terms vs. nautical terms? 
You can measure weigh and judge a vocabulary according to any standards
of measure you like. The word count would be one. You could also do a
count of pivot words vs modifiers. A phrase like "Get that." where you
can almost see the finger pointing, might weigh less heavily than a 
sentence like "Things which require language build language."
>
>What if your vocabulary is twice as large as mine, but contains no words
>relating to modern science?
>
>What is the objective method of measuring degrees of "sophistication"?
>What are the criteria? Has anyone ever actually applied these methods in
>comparing existing languages?
An evaluation of the number of words is just one of several 
dialectical criteria which might be applied. You could look at the
relative similarity or difference of the words used. You could
evaluate the numer of process terms, or the sequence in which
the words are composed in structuring a sentence.
>
>-- 
>Mike Wright
steve

Dominic Green  wrote:
>After two hundred years of Evolutionary and Zoological Thought, we are
>still using the outdated classification systems of Linnaeus, with their
>bizarre familial distinctions drawn purely on whether or not a species
>possesses nipples.  I propose a new, less papillocentric distinction,
>between Virgatoformes and Sinevirgaformes, or Stripy and Non-Stripy
>Animals, a natural and easy classification which requires no tedious
>lengthy discussions as to whether or not an animal's cells contain
>chlorophyll. . . . Within the Virgatoformes,
>meanwhile, an obvious difference presents itself between those animals
>which are Bengal Tigers (Bengaltigridae), and those which are not.  We
>have to move with the times, and the necessity of keeping track of
>Striated Life Forms is upon us.  In these days of spiralling crime, the
>difficulty of taking an Accurate Hoofprint, coupled with the
>proliferation of 'ringer' zebras**, make it very difficult for police to
>apprehend a Getaway Zebra used by a group of marauding Africans,
>particularly if that zebra is equipped with Go-Faster Stripes.
While I appreciate the importance of distinguishing zebras, especially
those which might be used to commit antisocial acts, I am greatly
concerned that you have omitted Striped Canines from your
considerations.  I call to your attention that canids as diverse as
Great Danes, greyhounds, whippets, Mastiffs, and others come in
stripes.  
I am also concerned that you have not included striped Marsupials.
Was there not a Tasmanian Tiger?
Paula.Sanch@emich.edu
-----------------------------
"Are you haunted by horribles?
"Do you have heart thrills?
"Do you readily become orderless unless strained?"
Some quotes from an English version of a Japanese doctor's questionnaire, 
collected by Miranda Kenrick, in _Gems of Japanized English_ (1988)

Yuri, and others, are trying to take bits and pieces of different 
cultures around the world, and link them to Early Formative Mesoamerica.  
Apparently, Olmecs are Africans who migrated from Polynesia with the 
knowledge of an ancient Chinese script!
If Yuri had to put all of his evidence together in a coherent model for 
the diffusion of the Shang script, the only "evidence" would still be a 
few similarities between carvings.  Chen proposed a model based on 
Meggars, Evans and Estrada's 1965 proposition that pottery was introduced 
into Ecuador via stranded Japanese fishermen.  This proposition was 
actually embraced by the archaeological community at the time (showing 
that archaeologists don't simply throw away any possibility of diffusion) 
but in time this theory was cast into doubt.  The last blow to Meggars' 
theory came when Anna Roosevelt found even earlier pottery in South 
America.  Therefore, Chen's model has no mechanism for diffusion, and it 
shows his general lack of knowledge concerning the archaeological context 
of his investigations.
Diffusionists may think that scholars are simply negating their arguments 
as a knee-jerk reaction.  But the truth is, that there are many criteria 
that must be met before even a scholar can propose a new theory.  Posts 
such as this one, and the many by Paul Pettenude, are simply pointing out 
the major gaps in an argument.  More research (not more accusations of 
scholarly elitism) must be conducted in order to fill those gaps.  Once 
that is done, the archaeological community will hail these theories as 
"Amazing new discoveries" rather than "hyper-diffusionist bunk".
David R. Hixson
Dept of Anthropology
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
dhixson@staff.uiuc.edu

In article <56n631$5cs@fridge-nf0.shore.net>,
Steve Whittet  wrote:
>In article , petrich@netcom.com says...
>>        Irrelevant; there is an abundance of evidence of evolution of 
>>historically-attested languages -- and often evolution in fields that 
>>show no need for evolution, such as phonology, grammar, basic vocabulary, 
>      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>etc.
>You don't think language evolves. Are you a creationist?
	I never claimed that they don't. I pointed out that they _do_, and
often in fields where one would not expect any real need for change. 
Compare Old English and modern English. Or Latin and the Romance
languages. Or Mycenaean Greek, Classical Greek, and Modern Greek. Or
Sanskrit and the present-day Indo-Aryan languages. There are a host of
sound shifts and grammatical changes, and it is not clear why they were
worth making. And Mr. Whittet, if you devoted _half_ the effort you devote
to collecting archeological tidbits to studying historical linguistics,
you'll see what I mean. 
>>        However, there's been a lot of controversy over simian linguistic 
>>abilities; it's not clear that chimps are able to construct coherent 
>>sentences, even with sign language.
>Not since the mid sixties when Washoe began to construct coherent
>complex sentences, or aren't you familiar with the work of Allen
>and Beatrice Gardiner? I don't know how many times the experiment
>has been replicated since then but to label it contraversial is
>simply uninformed.
	Some people _have_ tried to repeat it, and have got much _worse_ 
results. Furthermore, some skeptics have labeled the results a case of 
the Clever Hans effect, where the chimps are picking up clues from their 
interrogators, or projections of interpretations onto long sequences of 
random signs.
	[a lot of Whittetian ink-squirting deleted]
-- 
Loren Petrich				Happiness is a fast Macintosh
petrich@netcom.com			And a fast train
My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html

In article , joe@sfbooks.com says...
>
>In article <568md4$dnh@fridge-nf0.shore.net>, whittet@shore.net (Steve
>Whittet) wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>Sigh.  Please don't use the word "definition" and then put a phrase in
>quotes, with a form of the verb "to be" in between, like that.  You had me
>thinking that was a definition.
That's the definition I was taught.
>
>I believe the standing definition of urbanism, out there in the real world
>of scholarship, remains related to Central Place theory.  In other words,
>a society with central places [that meet X, Y, or Z criteria, depending
>how picky you are] is urbanised. 
No. In fact Urban Planners moved away from such nodal concepts
with Kevin Lynch. Robert Sturgis has done a nice study of strip
cities using route 9 heading out from Boston toward Shoppers World
in Framingham. 
It turns out that urban areas going back to the bronze age have been 
organized around transportation systems such as rivers. (The Nile, 
Tigris and Eupharates, Indus, Ghanges, Yellow River)
Do not confuse "urbanization" and "city". A city can be an urban area.
An urban area is not necessarily either a city or a central place.
Often an urban area is a transportation corridor and sometimes this
results in what we call a megalopolis spread out across hundreds of miles.
> (To judge by a list of terms I quote you
>using later in this post, I'd guess you've encountered a strain of thought
>according to which the major criterion was that the central place
>hierarchy had at least three levels.  Try checking.  I don't really agree
>with those folks, but they'll certainly do you better service than the
>quote you just gave.)
Most of the work in the field has been going in the other direction
since about the 2nd world war and the emergence of the Chicago school.
It is the single definition most Sociologists and Urban Planners 
would choose Joe, do you know why? If not, check it out.
>
>Most certainly, the definitions based on population density don't stand up
>to common sense; and the remark about "too many people, trying to do too
>many things" is rather revealingly off here, I think.
If you are not familiar with the quote, perhaps that explains
why you don't understand the concept.
>
>>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.
>
>Um, no, that's what I mean exactly.
>
>...neolithic village. ...Are there hunter-gatherers
>or nomads nearby?  Other villages?  Odds-on, yes.
A neolithic village would generally be a good example of a 
homogeneous as opposed to hetrogeneous culture. The typical
separation is a days journey away along a transportation system
either a road or river. 
Look at the  way towns emerged in Massachusetts as parishes. 
When it got so that people lived too far away to walk to church 
on a Sunday morning a new parish was formed.
>
>Now you live in an early city.  Maybe you're in an early 
>Chinese city.  In that case, you're probably a peasant,
Early urbanization in China was composed of a series of
villages strung along the Yellow River. Social stratification
with classes such as peasants, was a much later development.
>[major snip]
>
>>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,
>
>--that's what I was just talking about, fyi--
Yes, I note that you are apparently less than familiar 
with the jargon of disciplines involved. We need to establish
a basic working vocabulary. To begin with, the classic definition 
of an urban area which I gave you comes from Jane Jacobs 
"The Death and Life of Great American Cities" Vintage Books, 1961
Might I recomend to you as well:
"Introduction to Urban Planning", Cantonese and Snyder, 
"The City in History", Lewis Mumford
"Good City Form", Kevin Lynch
"An Introduction to Urban Design", Johnathan Barnett
>
>>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.
>
>Nope, not in anthropological terms.  You're thinking of authority.
No I am not. This is all pretty basic social psychology, but
the development of a social identity for a community is a lot
like the development of a social identity for an individual.
You start with a sense of identity, typing, labeling,
persuasability and resistance and move on to persuasive
communication and identification of social structure.
Sociometry has to do with choice criterion, resources,
dependencies, alternatives  and power processes, perceptions
of power and interpersonal stratagies for dealing with it.
These criterion include status congruence and consistency,
emerging norms and conformity, role differentation,
expectations, seductive and coercive sanctions,
personality and role strain.
All of these amount to mechanisms for increasing consensus
and achieving a balance between the social nature of the self
and the community. This is what makes social stratification possible.
Social stratification can be thought of as a struggle between
people seeking freedom as a state of being without limits and 
people looking for stabilizing mechanisms in interactions where 
security is found in adherence to laws;
 See
>below.  See, for example,  by
>Jonathan Haas, New York:  Columbia University Press, 1982.
>
>>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.
>
>That was exactly *his* point, Mr. Whittet.
I guess he didn't make it very well then; perhaps because
he argued against any connection between the evolution of
language and the emergence of urbanization in Mesopotamia.
>
>Consider for a moment the widespread agreement that "authority" precedes
>"power" in the evolution of social complexity (Haas can provide lots of
>references on this).
Not necessarily. The reason is that both seductive and coercive 
sanctions can convey power. Authority might be constued as legitimate
or institutionalized power. There are other types of power such as 
reward power, referent power, and expert power some of which may have
no "authority" to influence the decision making process, but which
nevertheless do.
Consider for example the power that the desire for forbidden fruits
may have on our common sense. What "authority" do these temptations
have that gives them such power over us?
> "Authority" is defined (roughly) as the ability to get your way 
>without coercion, and is generally understood to rely heavily
>on persuasion.  Usually, a rather language-dependent task, no?
I always thought "Authority" was defined as "the right to command 
and enforce obeidience and respect." To speak with "authority is
to command respect.
>
>"Power" on the other hand is the ability to exert coercion.  Isn't power
>notorious to this day for its efficacy through silence?
Actually both seductive and coercive sanctions have power.In a 
sense, not having to obey or react is a measure of power, so that
"Absolute Power" might be defined as the ability to do nothing.
>
>You need language to get cities, but not to keep them, according to the
>caricature I just sketched.  (The flawed side of which is the "but not..."
>part.)  So language precedes cities.  Not tough.
Don't confuse language with the ability to speak.
Language has been in the process of developing for 200,000 years.
So has civilization. The rate of change was slow at first but that
rate of change has been increasing at an increasing rate . Like all
other observable social trends it is best described as an exponential
curve. The change in language is thus related to all other observable
social trends, one of which is urbanization.
>
>I'm arriving in this thread late and by accident.  But in what I've seen,
>you've made no case for language's origin with cities, nor for its
>"exponential" growth with them (whatever growth might mean in this
>context; you seem just to mean vocabulary enrichment).
I have said that those things which require language build language.
> You're very far
>from convincing me that the average resident of a neolithic village is
>likelier to communicate by gesture than by speech.
A resident of a neolithic village would be in the cusp of the exponential
curve. At the point where civilization began to emerge, so did language.
200,000 years ago we may have had a few hundred words
20,000 years ago perhaps a thousand
10,000 years ago two thousand
3,000 years ago three thousand
400 years ago forty thousand
now we have hundreds of thousands of words
thats what I mean by an exponential curve.
The conclusion is that there is a connection between all these
things which may be observed to change at an increasing rate of 
change, and less of a connection with things which remain unchanged.
> And you're also far from convincing me that the set of terms 
>with which you chose to end this post is any more familiar to 
>you than the terminology of linguistics.
Persuade me that it would be worth my while to bother.
>
>Joe Bernstein
steve

On Sat, 16 Nov 1996, at 22:56:40, Elijah cajoled electrons into this
>Below Xina realizes that I have something to build on and she
>does not. 
Monumental ego perhaps?  No, she realises, along with just about
everyone else here, that you are a lost cause, a complete waste of time
and that if left to your own devices you will very soon disappear.
>Otherwise there is nothing below in the post of mine
>she replied to which indicates rude behavior on my part.
There is nothing below in the post of yours, full stop.
>Yet I will now reply as kindly as she does.....
>My usual unappreciated satire:  (oh how rude of me;
>but where the hell does she think I have to read her crap
>thinking that as a lesbian bitch she can list off her psychological
>profile of me in scientific newsgroups).
I thought Xina was very kind.  Your words speak for themselves.  You do
not need any help to convince anyone of your disturbed psychological
status.  You are doing an admirable job of that on your own.
>Does Xina also shriek like an invaded Body Snatcher?
>(REFERENCE: This is a movie reference and not a lesbian snatch pun.)
My goodness, is that biblical humour?  Small wonder the churches are so
full on Sunday!  Where did you find that little gem?  Revelations?
>And she also is easily intimidated by the likes of those who
>mimick this convention as being a YoYo
Well I thought as I wrote it that the reference would be beyond the
scope of your comprehension.  The yo-yo, is a childish device attached
to a string, which, when appropriately manipulated, runs up and down the
string, winding and unwinding in a wholly predictable fashion.  Your
beligerent antics are remarkably reminiscent of it.
> (you must read that posted comedy; it is funny, the guy is always good).
Why thank you kind sir!  (with apologies to knights everywhere and
without due deference to the OED which suggests an alternative)
>I can appreciate laughs.
There is a small glimmer of hope then.  Blessed is he that can laugh at
himself, for he will never be without humour.
>However of course IMHO 
Another turnip for the books!  I didn't realise that you were capable of
a HO!
>it is true I have never met
>a laugher who admits to lesbianism, nor a lesbian who laughs.
Well you have now!  I have been laughing ever since leaving my home in
lesbia!
>Of course Xina might say that lesbianism isnt a mental disorder in need of 
>counseling.
And psychiatry, along with most intelligent and reasonable people, would
agree.
>Why they have educated themselves to become the very counselors
>of unhappy heterosexuals. 
Methinks thou hast been watching thy Sigmund Freud video whilst awaiting
thine asteroid!
>Xina's list of psychotic behavior certainly
>wasnt found in 3 hours of psychological testing for a job. Wonder if she
>took the same test I did?
I should very much doubt it.  Rather depends on the job no?  Sounds like
the test applied to prospective agents for the British Secret Service.
"Can you keep a secret?"
"Yes!"
"Start on Monday!"
sniptsum
>NOTICE THE SLAM ABOVE, real professional behavior at a convention.
In my experience, most of the time at conventions is taken up with
consideration of serious matters such as who will be sleeping with whom!
Marc

In article <328E46A8.79D0@wi.net>, Elijah  writes
>Below Xina realizes that I have something to build on and she
>does not. Otherwise there is nothing below in the post of mine
>she replied to which indicates rude behavior on my part.
>Yet I will now reply as kindly as she does.....
>My usual unappreciated satire:  (oh how rude of me;
>but where the hell does she think I have to read her crap
>thinking that as a lesbian bitch she can list off her psychological
>profile of me in scientific newsgroups).
>She cannot discuss her Egypt which falls after a 3090 BC epoch
>in contrast to my Egypt which falls after a 2370 BC Flood. She pukes
>on hearing it as if she has a priest (her university) telling her to
>turn and shun and close her eyes to this shock shock shocking puke
>of Bible as truth. Does Xina also shriek like an invaded Body Snatcher?
>(REFERENCE: This is a movie reference and not a lesbian snatch pun.)
I can well understand that Xina found the argument to be going nowhere,
You cant argue with a stone, it can not change its nature. nor can it
learn, listen, or think. but stones eventually are worn down to dust by
time and weather. or a large sledgehammer. Xina seems to be weilding the
sledghammer rather well.
-- 
Shez                                      shez@oldcity.demon.co.uk
The 'Old Craft' lady               http://www.oldcity.demon.co.uk/
------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <328E1D3A.B06@netins.net>, Xina  writes
Xina I vote you word warrior of the year, you have won hands down, and
have the grace to leave the wounded to lick there wounds. 
Well done.
>
>> On Fri, 15 Nov 1996, at 10:41:55, Eliyehowah cajoled electrons into this
>> 
>> >Your dinosaurs versus my dinosaurs.
>> 
>> Choice of weapons......Dinosaurs at dawn!
>
>LOL!  Well, actually my Dino is on vacation in the bahammas at the
>moment.  I can reach him by pager however! ;)
> 
>> 
>> >PUBLIC NOTICE: this convention is now closed.
>> 
>> Loud cheers can be heard!!!!  The sun comes out.  Birds are singing.
>> God is in his heaven and all is well with the world!  :)))
>
>And it *is* closed.  I have quit....I cannto argue with someone who is
>mentally and emotionally so ill equipped. Please forgive me my soft
>heart! ;)
>
>t
>> these years!!  This chap has the truth!!  He alone knows the TRUE
>> history of the Earth.  When asked what he put his longevity down to,
>> Adam replied, "Clean livin' sonny, a good woman and that fruit diet!"
>
>Dont forget however that an all-fruit diet has a tendency to cause acute
>diarrhea! ;)
>> 
>> >So Xina, you are absolutely
>> >valueless if some scholar would send you into the world to gather data.
>
>> Yeah, a contention is only valid if you accept it without seeking
>> evidence to substantiate it.  This logic also explains much.
>
>I dont particularly value your scholarhip nor ELijah's opinion, so I
>personaly dont care how I appear as a scholar to him or any other JW. 
>The fact remains he nails his own coffin shut with every word he utters.
>
> 
>> >And as Paul says my weapon is my tongue,
>
>Be careful how you waggle it, there are others that are not so
>tolerant.   
>> Stand down the paramedics!  Close the field hospital.  No casualties
>> expected!
>
>Not when one side decides to withdraw from the battle seeing that it is
>not worthy of effort!
>
>Xina
-- 
Shez                                      shez@oldcity.demon.co.uk
The 'Old Craft' lady               http://www.oldcity.demon.co.uk/
------------------------------------------------------------------

"Paul E. Pettennude"  wrote:
>Until you do you're not worthy to even discuss the subject.  In fact, why
>don't some of you take a trip to the library and do some oh soooooo
>boooooring research? It would be a pleasure to discuss Mesoamerican
>archaeology with a larger number of informed individuals in this news
>group.
OK.  You are frustrated and you are angry.  I can understand why.  You
think you are being attacked.  So you attack back.  And we end up with
yet another round of academic-non academic flamewar.
So lets all take a deep breath, shall we.  I'd like to turn off this
flamewar before it starts if I can.
I'd like you to realize that some of us have been taking trips to
libraries and doing boring research for longer than you've been alive.
And it is quite frustrating, if you are one of those people, to have
the only place where you can discuss archaeology and ancient history
with people of like mind turn into a quagmire a couple of times every
month.
I have no opinion on the subject of Chinese-South American
Pre-Columbian contacts, but I've found reading about the things Yuri
has discovered during his "trips to the library" and his attempts at
doing boring research entertaining and interesting.  He might be
getting things right and he might be getting things wrong, but one of
the interesting points about this latest flurry of attacks at the
hobbiests around here is that Yuri has posted cites and partial quotes
of all of the stories he has located.  The people writing those
stories might have gotten the entire thing wrong, but it is quite
obvious that Yuri, during his boring research attempts, has gotten
everything he has read right.
So, could we please try to hold the nasty attacks down.  Maybe we
could manage to get through the holiday season without killing one
another for a change.   ...[sigh]...
Stella Nemeth
s.nemeth@ix.netcom.com

joe@sfbooks.com (Joe Bernstein) wrote:
>I believe the standing definition of urbanism, out there in the real world
>of scholarship, remains related to Central Place theory.  In other words,
>a society with central places [that meet X, Y, or Z criteria, depending
>how picky you are] is urbanised. 
What does one do with Northern New Jersey, or Orange County,
California, I wonder?  Talk about areas that have dense populations
but which absolutely, positively refuse to admit that there are any
"central places" involved at all.  
Stella Nemeth
s.nemeth@ix.netcom.com

Mike Wright  wrote:
>Stella Nemeth wrote:
>> 
>> Mike Wright  wrote:
>> 
>> >.... If I have a larger vocabulary than you
>> >do, is my English more sophisticated than yours?
>> 
>> Generally the answer to that question is yes.  The more educated and
>> the more sophisticated you are, the more likely you are to have a
>> large vocabulary.  The less educated and the less sophisticated you
>> are, the more likely you ae to have a small vocabulary.
>Is this evaluation based on anything other that an assumption? Do you
>have any sources for studies?
Sources and studies?  How about a little real life and a bit of
contact with reality?  And 'm NOT the one making the assumption here!
The higher education establishment makes this assumption when they
require the SAT for entrance to college.  I believe that THEY do have
studies backing the idea up that people with larger vocabularies tend
to do better during the first year of college, since I've read
articles claiming that for the last several decades, but I'll admit
that I don't have cites for those studies.
>> Think about it for a minute.  If the size of your personal vocabulary
>> didn't mean something, why did they test you on vocabulary and word
>> usage before they let you go to college, or for that matter in some
>> states before they let you go to high school.
>The question is not whether my personal vocabulary "means something",
>but whether or not it is a valid measure of something called the
>"sophistication" of my language. School entrance exams test for
>vocabulary that will be useful in the context of receiving training at
>that particular school. 
You have an American e-mail address.  You have to be the only American
that didn't take the SAT test during the last 40 years.
>> The idea that languages with large vocabularies are more sophisticated
>> than languages with small vocabularies isn't a new one.
>> 
>> And yes, you count the 40 words for snow or the 50 camel handling
>> jargon words in the word count.  The people who have 40 words for snow
>> probably don't have as many scientific terms as 18th Century English
>> had.  And certainly 20th Century English has move scientific terms
>> than the language of two centuries ago.
>So, are you saying having many words for different kinds of snow (BTW,
>this is apparently an unsubstantiated legend) or camel handling is less
>"sophisticated" than having many words related to science and
>technology?
No.  Try reading what I actually said, and refer to what has already
been said on the thread.  Someone earlier on the thread asked if one
included scientific terms and professional jargon in counting up the
vocabularies of various languages.  Someone else pointed out that some
peoples have large numbers of words for various kinds of snow and that
Arabic has a large number of words belonging to the profession of
camel handling that modern people speaking Arabic probably don't know.
(I very much doubt if my father knew those words prior to WW I either.
But then, he didn't handle camels as far as I know.)   My point was
that one does indeed include scientific terms and professional jargon
and atmospheric descriptive words because those words do belong to the
languages in question.  Obviously a language that has 40 words for
snow is extremely sophisticated on the subject of snow.  Just as
obviously a language that has no words for snow probably originated in
a place where snow doesn't fall.
My point was that one does not select out those areas where a language
demonstrates sophistication when one is trying to decide if the
speakers of that language have the ability to discuss sophisticated
concepts.
>Let's carry it a bit farther, then. Suppose your vocabulary and mine
>happen to contain exactly the same number of "words", but my vocabulary
>has more words related to farm animals and crops, and yours has more
>words related to linguistics. Whose language is more sophisticated? What
>if the topics are music and physics? How about chemistry vs.
>electronics? Or, kinship terms vs. nautical terms? 
Exactly my point.  If the two sets of vocabulary are exactly the same
in size, but are different in the areas of sophistication, then the
two sets of vocabulary are roughly equal as far as it is possible to
categorize them.
But how likely is that?  What is more likely is that one set of
vocabulary is bigger than the other.  One set would then have the
words for chemistry and electronics and kinship terms, while the
other, if they were both in the same language might have nautical
terms and kinship terms.  Which speaker is more likely to be
discussing sophisticated concepts then?
>What if your vocabulary is twice as large as mine, but contains no words
>relating to modern science?
Then perhaps I am more sophisticated than you are, but in a different
area of expertise than yours.  Frankly, your example is funny because
it is a quite likely situation to turn up.  Non-scientists frequently
have huge vocabularies with very few scientific terms in them, and
some of them are substantially more sophisticated, by any reasonable
yardstick, than grad student in chemestry at the local University.
Stella Nemeth
s.nemeth@ix.netcom.com

In article <56nj5p$kpv@csu-b.csuohio.edu>, scott@math.csuohio.edu	 
says...
>
>In article <56n631$5cs@fridge-nf0.shore.net>, whittet@shore.net says...
>
>[some snips]
>
>>In article , petrich@netcom.com says...
>
>>>In article <56e16h$5d2@fridge-nf0.shore.net>,
>>>Steve Whittet  wrote:
>
>>>>I think you are missing the point Ben. If hunter-gathering and nomadic 
>>>>pastoralist groups were perfectly proficient in language, language
>>>>would not evolve. ...
>
>>>        Irrelevant; there is an abundance of evidence of evolution of 
>>>historically-attested languages -- and often evolution in fields that 
>>>show no need for evolution, such as phonology, grammar, basic vocabulary, 
>>      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>etc.
>
>>You don't think language evolves. Are you a creationist?
>
>He just said that there is 'an abundance of evidence of evolution of 
>historically-attested languages'; obviously he thinks that languages 
>have evolved.
Let's allow that some of the evidence (writing) is limited to 
historically-attested languages. Loren is fond of claiming that 
linguistic reconstructions of language are also evidence of the 
existence of language, so to limit the language that he allows
has evolved to historically attested languages strongly implies
that he thinks whatever was spoken prior to the written evidence
of its having evolved, was created in the same perfectly proficient
form which Ben claims.
> The part that you underlined merely indicates that he 
>sees no good reason for some of this well-evidenced evolution. 
If there is "no need for evolution in phonology, grammar, 
basic vocabulary, etc." what is there need for evolution in?
>The introduction of creationism is a blatant non sequitur (and a rather 
>insulting one, in my opinion):
If we allow that language changed, or evolved, is its diffusion from
one source sufficient to explain its presence everywhere, in whatever
form we find it, or are we to presume that it was created over and over 
again as needed and then given that this explains the differences
what explains the similarities?
There are at least these two possibilities, maybe more.
If it evolved from one souce and diffused around the world, does
it reflect people coming from one source and bringing language
with them, or did it come to people where they had settled
previously either without language, or with an older language 
that the new language from the common source replaced?
How long would it take for such a process, (whatever process
you decide to choose) to distribute common bits of language 
around the world. Would it make a difference in the amount 
of time the process took, how sophisticated and urbane mankind 
had become at the point when this occured? Would language
diffuse faster at a time when there were mechanisms for the
rapid transmission of new ideas such as boats and horses?
Suppose that language were independently invented over and 
over again all over the world. When would this first occur?
When was the last time you think it occured? 
What would prevent its happening over and over again?
Can the independent invention or creation of language as
a recurrent process be considered equivalent to the
evolution of language? What else would you mean by the
evolution of language than the replacement of something
old with something new? Could the independent invention and
diffusion of language work together to affect the rate of
change of language?
> it is difficult to see what connection 
>there might be between the origin of life and the nature of linguistic 
>change.
For one thing there is the out of Africa theory, for another
proto world and nostratic.
>
>>>        However, there's been a lot of controversy over simian linguistic 
>>>abilities; it's not clear that chimps are able to construct coherent 
>>>sentences, even with sign language.
>
>>Not since the mid sixties when Washoe began to construct coherent
>>complex sentences, or aren't you familiar with the work of Allen
>>and Beatrice Gardiner? I don't know how many times the experiment
>>has been replicated since then but to label it contraversial is
>>simply uninformed.
>
>To label it anything *but* controversial is either to indulge in 
>wishful thinking or to be uninformed.  The last time I looked, the 
>controversy hadn't been resolved.
What controversy do you refer to? Can you cite some recent
examples of the experiments pro and con? I admit I haven't looked for
a while, but was interested that the people working on the movie "Congo"
reported having been suprised to learn that what they thought was science 
fiction (speech syntheiser backpack) was actually being done in the lab.
>
>>>>>I can't imagine why you think a major adaptation like language, with
>>>>>serious associated neurological apparatus, should have only appeared in
>>>>>the last 6,000 years, and then spread without a single exception to 
every
>>>>>group world-wide in such a short period of time. (Or, presumably, much
>>>>>more recently, since urbanization in most of the world is a very recent
>>>>>phenomenon.)
>
>>>>I am measuring it as an exponential curve. ...
>
>>>        And what is your motivation for an exponential curve, Mr. Whittet?
>
>>Let me put aside your interesting selection of the word motivation
>>as the object of your question and provide you my reason for using
>>an exponential curve to measure the growth of language.
>
>What's your objection to the term 'motivation'? 
it implies a motive; a concious or unconcious need, drive etc;
that incites a person to some action or behavior; ie an agenda.
> In mathematics, at 
>least, it's the obvious one to use and conveys no sinister implications.
Ok, so stipulated.
>As I understand the question, he's simply asking for an explanation of 
>the considerations leading to your choice of an exponential curve.  
>(And you are therefore proposing to answer precisely the question that 
>was asked.)
Yes.
>
>>Language has evolved over a period of 200,000 years. Very slowly
>>at first but with the rate of change changing at an increasing rate,
>>in very recent times very rapidly. Generally when you observe a
>>phenomena where the rate of change changes at an increasing rate
>>you may describe this as an exponential curve.
>
>But I see now that you aren't answering it after all.  You are merely 
>asserting without evidence that the exponential curve fits the facts. 
I am asserting that an exponential curve is the appropriate model
to use in graphing an observed rate of change which is changing at
an increasing rate.
>What *is* the evidence that leads you to use an exponential model?  
>What variable are you measuring quantitatively in such a way that you 
>can actually draw a graph?
the x axis measures time, the y axis measures vocabulary words
the curve begins at the left c 200,000 BP, with a value of 500 
words.It moves to the right as an essentially horizontal line 
up to c 20,000 BP where it crosses 1000 words. By c 1600 AD
the Chineese have 45,000 individual ideograms. Today we have
a vocabulary in English of a couple hundred thousand words
and the line goes verticle.
Interpolating in the curve c 3,000 BP we might have 2 or 3000 words.
Now take any othe observable sociological trend you care to name
and examine it similarly. The exponential curve is actually reflecting
the increased complexity caused by the rapid growth in population
of our urban civilization.
>
>>When this curve is compared with increases in population, urbanization
>>or indeed any observable sociological trend you care to name, there
>>is very close congruence.
>
>This is nonsense.  Population is a well-defined (if not always easily 
>measured) numerical quantity. 
The rate of change in population has been changing at an increasing 
rate for some time. Read Erlichs "The Population Bomb" or look at the 
CIA's "World Fact Book".
 One can devise meaningful numerical 
>measures of urbanization.  What numerical measure of linguistic 
>complexity are you using to give you a meaningful comparison? 
The number of vocabulary words.
 How 
>do you get values of it going back 200,000 years?
I read anthropology books.
>
>Brian M. Scott
>
steve

Joe Bernstein wrote:
> 
> Posted and e-mailed (though not to the previous poster).
> 
>
> In article <56lmr8$b1p@reaper.uunet.ca>, sshankar@waterloo.border.com wrote:
> 
> >Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:
> >>
> >> Indo-Iranians from Central Asia came into Iran and India somewhere in
> >> the 2nd millennium.  Given that Indo-Iranian is closely connected to
> >> languages in Europe (Greek especially), their ultimate origin must be
> >> (Eastern) Europe.
> 
>
> > Do you know of  any archeaological evidence for the "movement of
> >Indo-Iranians into Iran & India" ??
> > Recent studies seem to question the validity of the "IE movement into
> > India" theories.
> 
> I've yet to see such studies unconnected to places with names like "Vedic
> Research Institute"; in particular, I've seen a spectacularly unconvincing
> paper by one David Frawley (presumably still findable on the Web, where I
> first saw it).  (Also, in the distant past, various articles assuming or
> claiming to support the  chronology appeared in the  of Indian History>.)  I will appreciate any better references you can
> provide.  The rest of this post proceeds on what I know, which
> unfortunately derives from a lot of careful study years ago, plus rather
> less, and less careful, recent reading.
DAVID Frawley's is one of the papers I've read too.  I do not
particularly believe it to be "spectacularly unconvincing" but rather
convincing.  Seen from  a Euro-Centric standpoint Frawley's work might
not be particularly digestible, but from a Indian standpoint it makes
sense. 
 Dr Subash Kak & Dr N. Rajaram are 2 other people whose
work seems to complement Frawley's ideas ( Dr Kak has written a book on
the "Astronomic Code of the Rg Veda"  ISBN 81-85689-98-9 & has
co-authored with David Frawley &  Georg Feuerstein "In Search of the
Cradle of Civilization New Light on Ancient India" ISBN 0-8356-0720-8).
Other references:
(1) Shrikant G. Taligere:"The Aryan Invasion Theory: A Reappraisal",
1993
(2)Sethna K.D: "The problems of Aryan Origins: From an Indian point of
                view", 1992
(3)Shaffer J.G: "Indo-Aryan Invasions: Cultural Myth and Archealogical
                  Reality", 1984 in The people of South Asia: The 
                 Biological Anthropology of India, Pakistan, & Nepal,
                 pp 77-90. Editor John R. Lukas
Most IE studies ( apart from the disagreeing ones mentioned above) seem
to start from the view-point of a "IE migration into India" and go about 
trying to find (i) proof for this migration (ii) a "Home-land" for the
"IE" peoples.  The works I've mentioned also agree on the matter of
migration but disagree on the direction!!!!
> 
> There are lots of disagreements over how *many* Indo-European speakers
> arrived in India, in particular (or South Asia more generally:  in this
> post, I'm awake as to which I use, thanks), or about *how* these speakers
> arrived.  Some months ago, Moin Ansari and I debated these issues at some
> length on this newsgroup, and I'm cc'ing him on this post partly to let
> him know the topic's back.
> 
> But there is very little doubt that such people *did* arrive in India, and
> around the time Mr. Carrasquer Vidal says (though maybe the 3rd millennium
> BC is a possibility).
Again this is only a *theory*, no *evidence* has been uncovered to
support this.
> Several lines of evidence converge on this, and there doesn't seem to be a
> lot of room left for disagreement.  When I last studied the subject in
> detail (1986-7), the main arguments that held water were still the
> 19th-century linguistic and textual ones (e.g., the similarity between
> Avestan Persian and Vedic Sanskrit, or the tendency for the older texts to
> use further-west place names).  While these were good enough to persuade
> me the movement happened, I wasn't terribly confident about much more than
> that.  (Mr. Ansari, by the way, disagrees strenuously with me on the
> validity of the other older arguments, but he can make his own case.)
> 
> Recent evidence appears to make it much clearer.  First of all, Asko
> Parpola's belief that the Indus Valley Civilisation's language was a
> Dravidian language is now persuading quite a few people who had been
> skeptical; I understand he's close to a translation of the seals
This is a dated belief. Dr S.R Rao " Dawn & Devolution of the Harrapan
 Civilization" has put forward an extremely strong case for the Indus/
Harrapan language to be 'vedic' based on his interpretations of the
various seals which have been found.

On 14 Nov 1996 18:25:23 GMT, "Steve Heeter" 
wrote:
>I have read many books which show pictures,
>and give VERY general information.  (as if it
>is written by historians, not architects)
>
>I'm looking for source data including...
>
>Wood Fortress construction
>(i.e. Motte and Bailey)
>	Foundation needs
>	Post formation
>	Post joining
>	Wall vs. Structure Needs
>
>Stone Fortress construction
>(i.e. Castle or Abby)
>	Foundation needs
>	Ashlar block formation
>	Archway formation
>	Wood/Iron/Stone Co-Joints
>	Wood flooring (2nd floor +)
>
>Wattle and Daub construction
>(i.e. Town Buildings)
>	Half Timber preparation
>	Wattle Materials
>	Daub Mixes
>	Foundation needs
>	Principles of Thatching(SP)
>
>I am involved in a business which is considering
>the construction of these and other Medieval era
>structures.  They will need to be as accurate as
>possible, including possible partial construction
>to demonstrate the methods used.
>
>PS I have already worn out my David McCaulley
>books and videos...
>
>Thanx in advance
>
>-- 
>Steve Heeter
>
>** Life is too short to be boring **
Steve,
Sounds like a fine idea.  But,  where are you gonna get the craftsmen
that have all these skills, today?  Contractors DON"T want to spend
any time on anything that takes time or pride of workmanship.  They
want it done fast and cheap so, they can get their money and rush on
to the next job, by way of the bank, of course.  
I'm sorry to be negative but, nobody today cares about anything
beautiful, intricate, delicate or creative.  Money rules!!!
Fred

In  seagoat@primenet.com (John A.
Halloran) writes: 
>
>In article <56cilf$dpd@news2.cais.com> valis@pacificnet.net (Shem)
writes:
>
>>I am very interested in Mesopotamia, read about it voraciously in my
>>free time, and have decided I want to learn Akkadian.  Could anyone
>>recommend a book that would serve as a good general introduction to
>>learning the language?
>
>I am far from being an expert on Akkadian, but I do know that Richard
Caplice 
>is a respected scholar who wrote a recent introduction to Akkadian.
>
>Regards,
>
>John Halloran
>
Er, Caplice is not that recent (having been around a good 12-15 years,
at least), and I seem to recall a fair number of typos in the text that
can drive you nuts when you are struggling to do the initial exercises.
 Unfortunately, other Akkadian grammars are far worse, perfectly horrid
exercises in pedantry that assume a knowledge of Hebrew and throw reams
of linguistic jargon around.  And the truth is that most in-the-flesh
Akkadian teachers are no better, wallowing in pedantry and knowing next
to nothing about HOW to teach a language to anyone other than a fellow
linguist.  I've seen classes where profs actually handed out a one-page
xerox the first day, supposedly summarizing the entire grammatical
structure of a cuneiform language, with the cheery anouncement
"Memorize the grammar, we'll read original texts Thursday." (!) One
cuneiform grammar stands apart, written in clear, straighforward
English, and that is John Hayes' _A Manual of Sumerian Grammar and
Texts_, published by Undena Publications, 1990.  It's well organized
for self-study so you might want to think about dipping into Sumerian
first and facing the wretched Akkadian materials later.
Kate

Hello everyone, it's me again.  As you may know, I am doing a project on
Rome, and I desperately need some pictures or overhead views of Ancient
Rome.  These pictures need to be clear.  I am building a model of Rome to
accompany the project, and it would be nice if I could find some
picutres on other models.  I know there is one that is very popular among
books about Rome, I have commonly seen this model, but I don't know where
I can find a complete picture.  This model is HUGE and very detailed.  If
anyone knows where on the internet, or what books I could find this book,
it would be greatly appreciated.  Also, if anyone is artistic out here, I
was wondering what materials are best for building models, so far I have
tried newspaper and plaster, as well as hard board.  Again, any
suggestions are welcome.  Thanks!
-- Jason
-- 
*************************************************************
* "Who's the fool?  The fool, or the fool who follows him?" *
****Jason*Shim******************cb790@freenet.toronto.on.ca *

mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal) wrote:
>In "vanacasial" and "morinaic", Woudhuizen slips in two "Etruscan
>spelling" C's which are totally unjustified: the middle "l" is exactly
>the same as the final "l" in "vamalasial" (Beekes reads: "vanalasial").
I wrote:
>>There is very clearly a M, not a N,  in 'vamalasial', you must admit, looking 
at the drawing in both Beekes and Woudhuizen.....[snip]. So I also do
not see why the straight roof in 'eptesio' is rendered as P and not C,
if the sloping roof must be L [in all Greek scripts, the P had a
gutter at the end of the roof, so to speak :)]. <<
I noticed later that this is not totally true. There are two :
drawings around for the Lemnos stela
1) by Pallotino, 1947 [the one with the head]
2) by Nachmanson 1908 [text only]
Woudhuizen gives no 2 at page 140, and no 1 at page 142, while Beekes
has only no 1. 
you will  note that the two drawings differ on MANY points, also
- the drawing 1 has a clear M in 'vanac/lasial' but the no 2  a clear
N. And note that in his transcription Beekes does give a N..!
- the drawing 1 has no clear P in 'eptesio',  but no 2
does. And in his transcription Beekes does give P...
So i think we must conclude that the  drawing of Pallotino is
unreliable, and mere for illustration purposes! The one of Nachmanson
stems from "a carefull epigraphic case-study", so less suspect.  
So  what i said about the need of a modern and new transcription 
[microscopic analysis of the stela] is even more valid:
>>So in my eyes it is a mess anyhow - what we would need is person
without any interest in the text, but with a vast knowledge of old
alfabets, being locked up in a room with a microscope and the original
stela for a day or two...and then come up with a judgement on the
L/C/P s. For now, the jury seems out...<<
Aayko Eyma
Holland
PS. In your very nice overview of the Anatolian languages, 
>>  The original language of Hattussa is called Hattic, and is not 
Indo-European. [....]   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. [...]
Urartian (a late form of Hurrian) in the north-east<<
the latter line is less correct, or better: could lead to confusion :
Urartian [9th-6th century] was not a later continuation 
of Hurrian. Both languages were closely related languages  but
different branches of a root language, Proto-Hurrian-Urartian, and
these branches had grown apart already in the 3th millenium.
Hurrian-Urartian is connected with the North-eastern Caucasian
languages. 
[Source: G. Wilhelm - The Hurrians,  p.4, isbn 0-85668-442-2]
The Caucasian languages are grouped  like this [Ruhlen, Crystal]:
I South Caucasian 
   A  Kartvelian [Georgian]
       Svan
  B   Zan [Mingrelian, Laz]
II North Caucasian
A Northwest
   1 Abkhaz-Abaza
   2 Ubyx-Adyghian
      a Ubyx
      b Circassian 
B Northeast
   1 Nax
   2 Dagestan 
      a Avaro-Andi-Dido
      b Lak-Dargwa
      c Lezgian 
It is very uncertain whether I and II derive from one 
common ancestor. Likely not.
Hattic [the  non-IE of Anatolia] is perhaps related
to either I [Karthvelian] or IIA [Abkhaz]    (Mallory p.26)
I have never read anything about Kaskian. Anybody?
With their north Anatolian position a link with the Caucasian
 groups might be expected.

Frank:
.
>hmmm......seems that your coordinates would place the "face of the 
>earth" on the wrong side of the altai mountains, and well into the 
>mongolian highlands...northeast of the tarim basin (approx. long. 75 
>to 95. lat. 37 to 42)......
.
     You are quit right!  Since becoming disabled and confined to a 
wheelchair, I have had to rely on memory, or call on my wife for help.  
In this case I remembered that the Trim Basin was about 20 Long. by 10 
Lat.  And I remembered the 95 deg. Long., but went the wrong way from 
there.  I got my wife to show me the map I had used and, sure enough, 
it shows the Tarim Basin about Long. 75 to 95 and Lat. about 5 degrees 
north and south of the 39th (not 49th) parallel.
     It also shows a spur of the Gobi Desert extending down east of 
the Basin (and Pe Shan mountains).  The Pe Shan mountain breach thus 
allowed an east wind, which I am told is  steady and strong, to blow 
sand from the Gobi into the Basin, displacing the water, eroding the 
breach at a phenomenal rate, and burying the "Adamic Nation" beyond 
recovery -- perhaps forever.
     Thanks for correcting my faulty memory!
.
                                                      Suds

DARWIN IS BURIED IN WESTMINSTER ABBEY WITH OTHER CHURCH OF ENGLAND GREATS

Frank:
.
>hmmm......seems that your coordinates would place the "face of the 
>earth" on the wrong side of the altai mountains, and well into the 
>mongolian highlands...northeast of the tarim basin (approx. long. 75 
>to 95. lat. 37 to 42)......
.
     You are quit right!  Since becoming disabled and confined to a 
wheelchair, I have had to rely on memory, or call on my wife for help.  
In this case I remembered that the Trim Basin was about 20 Long. by 10 
Lat.  And I remembered the 95 deg. Long., but went the wrong way from 
there.  I got my wife to show me the map I had used and, sure enough, 
it shows the Tarim Basin about Long. 75 to 95 and Lat. about 5 degrees 
north and south of the 39th (not 49th) parallel.
     It also shows a spur of the Gobi Desert extending down east of 
the Basin (and Pe Shan mountains).  The Pe Shan mountain breach thus 
allowed an east wind, which I am told is  steady and strong, to blow 
sand from the Gobi into the Basin, displacing the water, eroding the 
breach at a phenomenal rate, and burying the "Adamic Nation" beyond 
recovery -- perhaps forever.
     Thanks for correcting my faulty memory!
.
                                                      Suds

DARWIN IS BURIED IN WESTMINSTER ABBEY WITH OTHER CHURCH OF ENGLAND GREATS