Newsgroup sci.archaeology 50483

Directory

   Some points:
Yes, on islands like Madagascar and New Zealand humans were almost
certainly the cause of extinction of moas, elephant birds, giant lemurs,
etc. But you can also note extinctions of small animals. The arrival of
Hawaiians wiped out a full half of the honeycreeper species, some through
introduced pests, but probably others by taking their plumage. We don't,
to the best of my knowledge, see this kind of thing happen in North
America. Islands and continents are not exactly the same thing.
   Also, think about modern populations in areas like Alaska. There aren't
that many people. Hunting in general does not supply as much food as
gathering, which does not supply as much food as farming (granted, a
mammoth is a pretty big hunk of food). 
   And again, I don't recall that anyone has demonstrated that such high
birth rates were not present *before* the introduction of humans.
(somebody give me the paper ref and I'll go look it up)  Take a look at
Smilodon- that thing is built. It makes a tiger look flimsy in comparison,
pretty much regardless of what bone you look at. I've seen them side to
side. Believe me, Smilodon was a bruiser of a cat. Now, lions can pack up
to take down half-ton juvenile elephants and full-sized cape buffalo
(although for obvious reasons they don't do this a lot). Lions kill their
prey by biting it until it suffocates. Smilodon had a different tactic-
grab on with the forelimbs (truly massive) and drive the daggerlike teeth
into whatever part of the anatomy it was they bit into. This tactic is
good for taking down large prey you can't subdue with a bite to the neck,
it would seem. Big game hunters. They are built with stocky, massive limb
proportions. Homotherium is practically plantigrade. They were going after
big, relatively slow animals, and slashing with those teeth until the prey
died. Those teeth are designed to go into a _lot_ of meat- they're six
inches long! These cats were after game larger than what lions will
typically attack. While a big 10 ton mammoth might be a bit much to go
after, juveniles may have been very vulnerable to their attacks, and this
could concievably indicate why they were under a lot of reproductive
stress.

In article <56q8fn$p1q@news1.io.org> yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
>Dear friends and opponents in this group. 
I guess I belong amongst the latter :)
[deletions]
>Joseph Needham writes in TRANS-PACIFIC ECHOES:
>      That the pictographic and ideographic principle of the
>      scripts of the Meso-American people evoked the parallels
>      of the Old World, has been appreciated for nearly two
>      centuries. In 1813 Alexander von Humboldt wrote [about
>      it] ... (p. 16)
See really nothing new in Dr. Chen's hypothesis.
>      ...the pictographic/ideographic principles might not
>      alone attain our collocative level [indicating
>      diffusion] if it were not for the squareness of the Maya
>      glyphs so much recalling Chinese, the reading order
>      which goes downwards in nearly all cases, and sometimes
>      right to left, and even indentations, recalling Chinese
>      practices. On the pictographic side some of the writings
>      from the Shih-chai Shan culture (4th to 1st centuries
>      bce) are notably similar to those of the Aztec codices
>      (Fig. 1) [the illustration at the back of the book shows
>      some Chinese ideograms remarkably similar to some of the
>      Meso-American ones] By the same token, Meso-American
>      cylinder-seals recall those so common in ancient
>      Babylonia and the Indus Valley. (p. 16)
Doesn't it trip any warning bells off in your head that only in Mesoamerica 
do we find "Chinese characters" on Babylonian/IndusValley seals, and
4-1st century B.C. writings are similar to those of the 16th century
A.D. Aztecs?
It's this sloppy mishmosh of cultural traditions that makes me question 
the validity of so much of this diffusionist research.
Peter van Rossum
PMV100@PSU.EDU

Elijah wrote:
> Before you you gather all your little scholars with the big mouths to
> claim I need psychiatry, you better take a survey of the christian and
> Jewish and Moslem population to see if they wish the world's
> medical teams to be led by a lesbian. Nanana you're a dimwit,
> you're deadbeat, you're a bigot...how about growing up.
> You call this SERIOUS attitude on your part.
Another pearl of wisdom from the Pocket Prophet....BUT WAIT THERES
MORE!!!!
Now how much would you pay!?!
> So who or why would my PC be repossessed. You come up with
> trash probably posted by 13-yr olds.
Your own history speaks for itself.
	http://www.dejanews.com
	Find: Richard Schiller (aka Elijah, Elijahowah, Wilderness John et al)
> > In other words a cheap shot, because he doesnt have anything else to
> > resort to.
> 
> WRONG I'm being like Xina, the little child throwing decriptive adjective names as if to be presenting her intelligence.
My you *are* an incredible shade of purple now?  Are you *sure* your
name isnt Barney?  I dont see a single person coming to your rescue,
Richard.  I dont get flame email from your supporters
Did anyone ever tell you in a certain light, you sort of look like a
younger version of radio evangelist extroidinaire Bob Larson?
> > These last few weeks have been very indicative of what "your kind" of world would be.  Thank you but I must respectfully decline.
> You are NOT respectful at all, to anyone at all.
No, Im quite often respectful of those whom I disagree with, provided
they affect some mutual respect, I have not seen that from you. I simply
give what I get.
BTW.... Could I have your mother's phone number?  I would like to speak
to her about your lack of manners and social graces to know when to cut
your losses and simply leave the room.
Xina
Xina

Elijah wrote:
> Before you you gather all your little scholars with the big mouths to
> claim I need psychiatry, you better take a survey of the christian and
> Jewish and Moslem population to see if they wish the world's
> medical teams to be led by a lesbian. Nanana you're a dimwit,
> you're deadbeat, you're a bigot...how about growing up.
> You call this SERIOUS attitude on your part.
Another pearl of wisdom from the Pocket Prophet....BUT WAIT THERES
MORE!!!!
Now how much would you pay!?!
> So who or why would my PC be repossessed. You come up with
> trash probably posted by 13-yr olds.
Your own history speaks for itself.
	http://www.dejanews.com
	Find: Richard Schiller (aka Elijah, Elijahowah, Wilderness John et al)
> > In other words a cheap shot, because he doesnt have anything else to
> > resort to.
> 
> WRONG I'm being like Xina, the little child throwing decriptive adjective names as if to be presenting her intelligence.
My you *are* an incredible shade of purple now?  Are you *sure* your
name isnt Barney?  I dont see a single person coming to your rescue,
Richard.  I dont get flame email from your supporters
Did anyone ever tell you in a certain light, you sort of look like a
younger version of radio evangelist extroidinaire Bob Larson?
> > These last few weeks have been very indicative of what "your kind" of world would be.  Thank you but I must respectfully decline.
> You are NOT respectful at all, to anyone at all.
No, Im quite often respectful of those whom I disagree with, provided
they affect some mutual respect, I have not seen that from you. I simply
give what I get.
BTW.... Could I have your mother's phone number?  I would like to speak
to her about your lack of manners and social graces to know when to cut
your losses and simply leave the room.
Xina
Xina

All:
As promised, I am posting a chronology of Egypt. My apologies for being
late, I do have a life and a job and although I post to usenet on my
lunch hour and from home, the schedule left me away from my resource
materials.
Em Hotep!
Xina
                                   A Chronological Table of 
					Egyptian History
Period				Date					Dynasty
Predynastic period		5000-3100 b.c.
Archaic Period			3100- 2890 b.c.				I
				2890-2686  b.c.				II
Old Kingdom			2686 -2613 b.c.				III
				2613-2494  b.c.				IV
				2494 - 2345 b.c.			V
				2345 - 2181 b.c.*			VI*
1st Intermediate Period		2181 - 2173 b.c.			VII} 	(Memphite)
				2173 - 2160 b.c.			VII}	(Memphite)
				2160 - 2130 b.c.			IX }	(Heracleopolitan)
				2130 - 2040 b.c.			 X }	(Heracleopolitan)
				2133 - 1991 b.c.			 XI}	(Theban)
Middle Kingdom			1991 - 1786 b.c.		     	XII
2nd Intermediate Period		1786 - 1633 b.c.			XIII
				1786 - 1603 b.c.			XIV ( Xios)
				1674 - 1567 b.c.			XV (Hyksos)
				1684 - 1567 b.c.			XVI (Hyksos)
				1650 - 1567 b.c.			XVII (Theban)
New Kingdom			1567 - 1320 b.c.			XVIII 
				1320 - 1200 b.c.			XIX
				1200 - 1085 b.c.			XX
3rd Intermediate Period		1085 -  945 b.c.			XXI
				 945 -  730 b.c.			XXII (Bubastis)
				 817 -  730 b.c.			XXIII (Tanis)
				 720 -  715 b.c.			XXIV (Sais)
				 715 -  668 b.c.			XXV (Ethiopian)
				 664 -  525 b.c.			XXVI (Sais)
				 525 -  404 b.c.			XXVII (Persian)
				 404 -  399 b.c.			XVIII (Sais)
				 399 -  380 bb.c.			XXIX (Mendes)
				 380 -  343 b.c.			XXX (Sebennytos)
				 343 -  332 b.c.			XXXI (Persian)
Conquest by Alexander		 332 b.c.				
Ptolemaic Period		 332 - 30 b.c.				Graeco-Roman Period
Conquest by the Romans		  30 b.c.
Roman Period			  30 - 4th Century AD
From Dr. Rosalie David, 
eeper of Egyptology at the Manchester University Museum, 
Director of the Manchester Mummy Research Project
KEY:
* = Elijah/Wilderness John/Richard Schiller's alleged biblical flood
date

Steve Whittet (whittet@shore.net) wrote:
: >>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.
Someone else (Brian?) wrote:
: >If this is logic, I'll take vanilla.  I very much doubt that he 
: >believes anything of the sort, but I'm perfectly happy to let him 
: >speak for himself.  Try a little common sense:
[Thank you - Ben]
Steve "responded":
: If he doesn't believe that, then he should agree with me that
: language has evolved as a part of the same process of evolution
: in which man has evolved. If we look at that process then we can
: see that the rate of change is changing at an increasing rate.
This is *exactly* why the squid appellation is so appropriate. Here you
are, shifting the terms of debate in mid-stream, moving back and forth in
an inconsistent fashion between wild-eyed speculations and trivial
observations. The responses that people make to you in one context (your
wild-eyed speculations) then are examined by you in a different one
(centered on trivial observations that were never really at issue).
Here you would apparently have it that we agree with you that language
only evolves in the context of urbanization, or we are linguistic
creationists. I reject both positions.
My comments about hunter-gatherer language were made in response to YOUR
claims that language ONLY evolved in the context of URBANIZATION. My
comments were never meant to be construed as a belief in the ex nihilo
creation of language by hunter-gatherers, or that language does not evolve
at all. It is a dishonest and intellectually bankrupt mode of
argumentation for you to keep suggesting this.
If you no longer believe that language only evolves in the context of
urbanization, then you ought to say so, because that was the only real
point at issue here. If you do still believe that language only evolves in
the context of urbanization, then please provide an account of
world-wide diffusion in the last 5000 years, and an explanation for the
utter lack of the material correlates of that diffusion.
Ben

     For those tired of the Carboniferous coal-skull, try the NY Times
Science Section, starting on the front page of the first section, of the
newly discovered Homo maxilla found at Hadar dating to 2.3 million years
ago. Was found in 1994 and is just published in the most recent issue of
Journal of Human Evolution. In particular read about the descriptions of
the ecology of the times, and see how the savannah strawman arguments
evaporate...
Ralph Holloway

In article , joe@sfbooks.com says...
>
>In article <56pnj1$jf6@fridge-nf0.shore.net>, whittet@shore.net (Steve
>Whittet) wrote:
>
>>What is perhaps more interesting is to note that the Indus Valley
>>Civilization connects to the painted greyware culture of the Ghanges
>>at Dehli. The Ghanges leads to Calcutta where the painted greyware
>>and Bang son Drum culture of Indo China meet as the Aruna flows
>>into the Ghanges. The head waters of the Aruna bring you up into the 
>>mountains where the headwaters of the Mekong and its tributaries flow 
>>from  Xizang, Quinghai, Sichuen, and Yunnan, to Vietnam, Laos, Thailand 
>>and Burma.
>
>I think I saw something about the relations among Indus, Ganges, and
>Euphrates earlier that I'll want to comment on, but not without looking at
>a source or two first; I'm not at my best with topics older than 1000 BC
>in that region.
The earliest farming in India was on the Kachi plain west of Mohenjo-Daru
in the 7th millenium BC. In the Vindhyan hills south of the Ganges it
started in the 6th millenium BC. At any rate the bulk of the early
settlement is in the river Valleys of the north of India and not on the 
Deccan Plain where there is some evidence of cattle pens dating to the 
3rd millenium BC. Time Atlas of Archaeology p 88-89
I have the Indus Valley as first settled by farming groups c 3500 BC
and the first walled towns emerging during the next millenium.
This is the period when we find the Bronze Dong Son Drums from 
Northern Vietnam throughout most of Southeast Asia. Early metals
and tripod pottery are spread from Thailand through Malaya to Java.
The Bronze artifacts of Thailand use the sophisticated techniques 
of northern China such as closed molds and lost wax casting. TAA p 151
The question is can we connect northern Thailand and Burma with 
Calcutta at the mouth of the Ganges? The route runs up the Aruna
to the headwaters of a fan of rivers running into China and Indo
China. The key site is the Chou Dynasty city of Babona on the Mekong
where it is adjacent to the Salween leading north to the Aruna.
In India at this time there are cultures on both the Indus and Ganges.
The largest cites are Harrapa and Mohenjo-Daro, each covering some 60 
hectares. These really look like two separate cultures to me. 
The Harrapa cluster at the headwaters of the Indus, the Cheneb, Sutlej,
and Jhelum rivers includes Rupar, Banavali, Kalibangan, Rakhiargi,
and Mitathal plus some minor sites. Of these Rakhiargi, Mitathal and
Alamgipur are actually on a headwater of the Ganges, the Yamuna.
The Mohenjo-Daro cluster at the mouth of the Indus includes Mehrgarth,
Mohenjo-Daro, Ket Dijr, Chanhu-Daro, Amri, and along the coast 
Sutkagen Dor, Balakot, and Alahdino. There are also the cities of the
Rann of Kutch, Desalpur, Surkotada, Rojadi and Lothal.
Of these Lothal is on the Mouth of the Mahi which leads to the Chambal
running into the Yamuna and the Ganges.
There was an Indus trading colony called Shortugai on the  Ama Darya
or Oxus river 1000 km to the north the headwaters of which connected 
to the Indus with a portage through Badakhshan which supplied tin
and Lapis down the Indus and Oxus and also connected by another short
portage to the headwaters of the Tarim.
By 1000 BC the focus of interest had shifted to the Ganges. With the
demise of the Harrapan cities at the beginning of the 2nd millenium BC
the cultural center of northern India shifted eastward to the Yamuna
and Ganges valleys. 
>That said...  You're throwing around the "painted greyware culture" way
>too freely here.  This is probably because you have a source or two which
>does (plenty of non-specialist ones do, and too many specialist ones), but
>still, what you've said remains misleading without your intending that. 
Painted greyware is dated 1000 BC to 500 BC and has been found 
at Taxila on the headwaters of the Indus. it is from Taxila
that Budhism spreads eastward through the tarim basin to reach the 
Yellow river in the 4th and 5th centuries AD
Northern Black Polished ware is 500 BC to 100 BC
and reflects the shift to the east.
This is characterised by rice farming and iron tools c 1000 BC. By
600 BC no fewer than 16 small states had developed in northern India 
on the Ganges. By the end of the 1st millenium BC Buddhism had become
the most prominent religion in northern India.
Here we could digress into a discussion of the Bakh of the Zotts
but only if you have read "Bury Me Standing" by Isabel Fonseca.
>As it happens, a fair chunk of what you say can be sustained with
>sufficiently liberal reading, but not all of it.  And in order to do that
>one has to drop the "painted greyware" as a criterion for PGW culture,
>which, last time I checked, was still seen rather nervously in the South
>Asian context.
The southeast Asian pottery is red on buff ware and incised blackware.
TAA p 150-151; more discussion can be found on page 130 and 188-189; 
in the Times Atlas of Archaeology. Trans Asian trade is covered on pages 
190-191; Chou China is covered on pages 192-193
During the 1st millenium BC Southeast Asian cultures were affected by 
contacts with China and India and that is covered on pages 198-199
>
>I know of no reports of painted grey ware as far east as Calcutta,
The ports shown as recieving painted greyware on the Bay of Bengal
include Sisupalgarh and Tamluk which is at the eastern extremity
of the Ganges delta over which spreads modern Calcutta
>certainly not of any sites where it was used to any significant extent
>(although quantification in general in reports of PGW sites is lousy, I
>concede). 
Sites listed include Charsada and Taxila on the Indus, Rupar,
Hastinapura, Ahichattra, Atranjikhera, Cosam, Chirand, Rajjgir 
on the Ganges,  Bairat, Uijair, and Nasik running through the 
Deccan plain to the Deccan coast of the Arabian Sea; Tamluk and 
Sisupalgar on the Bay of Bengal.
>  I think I've heard some reports, questioned but still reports,
>from Bihar; the furthest east I'm confident it's been reported is
>something like the middle Doab.  Vibha Tripathi wrote a book about this
>ware which is still considered standard, I believe, but you can probably
>just check Ghosh's encyclopaedia or Allchin's new book for something this
>basic.
I know of their books
B and FR Alchin, "The Rise of Civilization in India and Pakistan"
Cambridge, 1982, 
Is part of the source material used here
Their more recent 1995 book, I just have a blurb on.
"The Archaeology of Early Historic South Asia"
The Emergence of Cities and States
Allchin, Raymond 
Drawing on archaeological studies, texts, and inscriptions, this 
analysis explores the character of the early Indian cities that 
developed between c. B.C. 800 and A.D. 250. It pays particular 
attention to their art and architecture and analyzes the political 
ideas that shaped the state systems. 
Contents: 
1. The archaeology of early historic South Asia; 
2. The environmental context; 
3. The end of Harappan urbanism and its legacy; 
4. Language, culture and the concept of ethnicity; 
5. Dark age or continuum? 
An archaeological analysis of the second urban development in South Asia; 
6. The prelude to urbanisation: 
Ethnogenesis and the rise of late Vedic chiefdoms; 
7. City states of north India and Pakistan at the time of the Buddha; 
8. Early cities and states beyond the Ganges Valley;
9. The rise of cities in Sri Lanka; 
10. The Mauryan state and empire; 
11. Mauryan architecture and art; 
12. Post-Mauryan states of mainland South Asia (c.BC 185-AD 320); 
13. The emergence of cities and states; Concluding synthesis
Contributors: G. Erdosy, R.A.E. Coningham, D.K. Chakrabarti, B. Allchin 
Do they have something more recent out?
>
>The culture which is well shown in King's study to be a unified culture
>whether or not it had painted grey ware, doesn't reach a whole lot
>further, as I recall.
This is a development of the 1st millenium BC, where the Ganges
seems to have replaced the Indus in importance.
>  There were significant material culture differences
>between Biharis and Bengalis in the period you're referring to (if it's at
>all the period of the PGW, roughly the first half of the first millennium
>BC and maybe a century or two before that).  I have no doubt they were in
>contact, but to represent PGW as running flush against a southeast Asian
>culture is going a bit far.
The southeast Asian Dong Son Drum culture is c 3rd millenium BC
with stuff like spearheads and three legged stools and it lasts
through the 1st millenium BC, the height of the drum phase was c 400 BC
Painted Greyware is 1st millenium BC
>
>The other connection you draw, between the Indus Valley Civilisation and
>the PGW folks - well, I assume you mean the Indus Valley Civilisation that
>produced Harappa and Mohenjo-daro, right?
Those I see as two separate cultures; both a bit earlier than the 
period we are talking.  I think the Tamluk, Pataliputra, Mathura
period is a better fit.
>
>Won't work.  Despite some controversy about its date, PGW isn't *remotely*
>old enough for PGW people to have direct contact with Harappans.
The Harrapan city of Rupar was still in business c 1000 BC and
that is apparently in the range for painted greyware. That was the
period when the power shifted from the upper Indus to the upper Ganges.
  There's
>at least a half millennium in between, probably more.  Again, see
>Allchin's book, which spends several chapters discussing the 2nd
>millennium BC (the relevant period).
The Formative period culminated c 2000 BC introducing the Mature
period which lasted until c 1000 BC
>
>I'm aware that there are sources out there which draw different pictures,
>but on this one I can be utterly confident.  The radiocarbon dating simply
>offers nothing to erase that huge gap.  I trust any of the current sources
>I've cited will confirm this, but of course when I next have the
>opportunity I'll check on that, if nobody else beats me to it.
>
Check again, I think I will look at some other sources also.
>Also on those rivers.
>
>Til later.
>
>Joe Bernstein
>
>PS  Is your reference to Delhi just a place marker, or do you know of any
>digs there?  I'm curious.
Modern Dehli is close to where ancient Alamgirpur was located as the 
easternmost outpost of the Harrapans.
>-- 
>Joe Bernstein, 
steve

Xina said:
>No you asked for a chronology, I posted it, then you said "I will too!"
>and didnt but persisted in somehow claiming that your biblical (read
>that as bollocks) flood was the same time as you said before, despite my
>refuting your arguements soundly.
My chronology was posted side by side to the RIGHT of your dates
where everyone could compare.
You listed dinosaur periods and I listed my own contrast to it.
I posted a 7-day GIF (not as a reference) but as the presentation
of where I was headed.
>> In essence she wanted a joust where she chooses both
>> of our weapons. Well, I'm sorry but that *IS* a bitch she
>> so proudly admits to be.
>> Especially since I am not offended by (even know and like)
>> several arrogant women, and yet I refer only to the liars
>> as being the bitches. And I hate deliberate malice liars
>> as much as Jesus did.\
>If you demonstrate my lies, then I will of course fall behind your
>definition.  As to my being arrogant.  Is it arrogance to say "I bow
>before no madman?'  And I dont.  Especially not you.  BTW...you are not
>Jesus, he had somehting which you do not....compassion and above all
>humility.  You might reread the bible and learn a bit more about those
>qualities.
And you killed him because he didnt approve of lesbians.
************
everyone benefiting from my work please email
my postmaster, my site will move unless those appreciative
send email to counter those trying to destroy it
************
A voice crying out and going unheard,
(40 years Oct 7) Nehemiah's (9:1) 50th JUBILEE of Tishri 24 
God's 1000 years has begun Sep 14 of 1996.
http://www.execpc.com/~elijah/Ezra1991CE.gif
Discover the world's true chronology thru the Bible at
          http://www.execpc.com/~elijah

In article <56skc7$pd8@frysja.sn.no>, Kaare Albert Lie  wrote:
>petrich@netcom.com (Loren Petrich) wrote:
	[Cognate of "whole"/"holy"/"heal" < IE *kailo- in Gothic?]
>Quite right. In the Gothic New Testament you will find it as the
>verbs hailjan and hailnan, and as the adjective hails.
	So it is unlikely that this word is derived from some Arabic 
word, as Mr. Ishinan had implied.
	I confess it's rather entertaining to puncture the
comparative-linguistic infantilism that I see so often here, and that has 
been criticized so well in Richard Alderson's sig (he's over in sci.lang).
	I did a web search for information on that Offa gold coin, and I 
could find nothing. Although it may well be real, it is most likely the 
work of some wayward Arab coin maker, who produced coins in a style he 
was familiar with -- including assertions of what Offa & Co. would have 
considered heresy. Although they may not have been able to read the 
coin's writing, and may only have considered it some pretty declaration.
-- 
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 <56sfdo$hma@fridge-nf0.shore.net>, whittet@shore.net says...
[most deleted]
>The question I raised was does language evolve in the same way
>people do. I would say it does. I think Loren has a different
>concept. 
>He thinks language, once created, doesn't change much,
>it just adds a few borrowed words.
He obviously thinks no such thing; if you want to argue with the 
established position, you must begin by understanding what it 
actually is.  I hesitate to assume that the misunderstanding is 
wilful, but this is not the first time that you've completely 
misunderstood (or misrepresented) something written here.
>>So you are using size of lexicon as a measure of complexity.
>No. As I have stated several times, I am making a quantitative 
>as opposed to a qualitative comparison.
You've just contradicted yourself.  What do you mean, 'No'?  Your 
quantitative measure *is* size of lexicon.  If that isn't obvious 
from what you've written here, I can quote from an earlier post in 
this thread.  I had asked:
>>What numerical measure of linguistic 
>>complexity are you using to give you a meaningful comparison? 
You answered:
>The number of vocabulary words.
That is the size of the lexicon.
>>As has, I believe, been pointed out many times here, this is a most 
>>unsatisfactory measure.  Moreover, we don't have information on 
>>it for languages more than a few centuries old.  The extant corpus 
>>of Old English runs, I believe, to about 23,000 - 24,000 words; 
>>but that's merely what happens to have been preserved.  The real 
>>total is undoubtedly much greater.  I very much doubt that *any* 
>>information is available from 200,000 BP.
>That is why using a fit curve trend line analysis is appropriate. 
>It allows you to see what is really important is the rate of change.
Except that YOU CAN'T DRAW YOUR LINE IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE DATA.  You 
can talk all you like about 'historical data', but the fact of the 
matter is that even if you could meaningfully define 'word' for 
arbitrary languages, you have only lower bounds on the number of 
words in languages attested only historically.
[Discussion of 'exponential' growth deleted, since it now appears 
that Mr. Whittet is misapplying the term to something else and 
that the mathematics is as suspect as the historical linguistics.]
Brian M. Scott

Excuse me SIR...
Having listened to this revolving door insult pool you have going I
just have one question.   What the HELL does this to do with
Archeology????? You are rude, obnoxious and have poor manners to boot. 
I am neither a christian nor a lesbian nor a member of an ethnic group
and I still find your replies unbelievable.  Couldn't you just give it
a rest??
Kitsa

Saida:
>>>>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.
Mr. Dunsmuir:
>>>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.
Saida:
>>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!
Holoholona:
>.  What you call fancy, stilted language in the King James version of 
>the Bible was neither fancy nor stilted at the time, but rather a 
>readable translation written in a way that any common man could 
>understand. 
Saida:
>So what?  You are completely misunderstanding the jist of what I said, 
>which is that the English is NOT a literal translation.  What is the 
>matter with you people?
	I don't know, but I have much the same "misunderstanding" as
Holoholona.  In your original post (quoted above), you seem to be saying
that the *styles* do not match:  That the Hebrew Bible is written in
simple prose, while the KJV is written in fancy and stilted prose.  (Have
I followed so far?)  Later, you say that the KJV is not a "literal
translation" of the Hebrew Bible, and call this the "jist" of your
argument.
	Speaking as a freelance translator, I hope you understand that
these two statements are not equivalent.  There is a great deal of
difference between a "literal" translation and a "faithful" one.  The
former tend to sound quite stilted because they make use of words and
expressions that are infrequent in the target language, if they appear
in it at all.
	No one has claimed that the KJV is a literal translation of the
Hebrew.  However, Mr. Dunsmuir and Holoholona have both said that is a
*faithful* one within the context of the time it was written.
Holoholona:
> You further compound your misunderstanding by comparing the KJV to 
>Shakespeare, indeed, _Hamlet_, when in fact the KJV and Shakespeare are 
>poles apart in their place in English literature.  Shakespeare did 
>indeed use fancy and stilted language, even invented vocabulary to suit his 
>purpose > (_Hamlet_, for instance).
Saida:
>Oh, really?  You mean the Elizabethans didn't really talk that way?  
>Then how do you know the Jacobeans did?
	There is a very large corpus of Elizabethan and Jacobean writings
from a variety of different registers (e.g. informal letters, poems, legal
documents, etc.).  From these, we can reconstruct the common formal
standard written registers of each period (you are the first to bring up
spoken registers, which are a different matter) and compare them to the
language of the KJV and Shakespeare, respectively.  This comparison
reveals that Shakespeare's language diverged quite a deal more from the
standard of his time than the language of the KJV did from the standard of
its time.
	May I remind you that Shakespeare was writing in verse (blank
verse, but verse nevertheless).  Although people are fond of quoting
"chapter and verse" of the KJV it, by contrast, was written in prose and
with the express intention of being intelligible to the greatest number of
people.  Stylistically, there's no comparison.
Holoholona:
>> The fact that English has changed over the years, and that people think
>>archaic expressions sound "old fashioned" or conservative has nothing
>>to do with "fancy" or stilted language (although it may seem that way
>>to you).
Saida:
>Yes, it does, actually, but that doesn't mean I don't like it.  In fact, 
>I do, and I never said I didn't.
	This sounds like a complete non sequitur to me.  Could you restate
it in a less confusing fashion?
Holoholona: 
>> The fact that Modern Hebrew was revived from the older form
>>structurally intact simply means that the divergence found between 16c 
>>English and 20c English is impossible in 20c Hebrew.
Saida:
>May be now you're beginning to understand what I meant--a literal 
>translation is virtually impossible then and now.  The languages are too 
>different.  
That's not really what he's saying.  He's saying that since Modern Hebrew
is closely based on Biblical Hebrew, it's not surprising that you, a
speaker of the former, find the latter sounds like "simple prose".  The
contrast between Modern English and Early Modern English is much different
in nature, being due to 400 years' natural divergence, and can't be 
easily compared.
	Now, I'm neither an expert in Biblical Hebrew or 17th century
English literature.  But, as a native speaker of English, I can say that I
find the prose of KJV quite simple.  It is not "fancy language" or
syntactic complexity that makes it sound "stilted" to me, but rather the
inclusion of many words and expressions which are now archaic, although I
understand they were current or merely obsolescent at the time of the
translation.  I imagine phrases like:
"Vanity of vanities, all things are vanity!"
"And G-d saw that it was good."
"Honour thy father and mother."
have much the same effect on me as a reader as they do on a reader of
comparable passages in the Hebrew original.  (How well they reflect the
*intent* of the corresponding passages is another matter entirely.)
Saida:
>Something tells me you are not very familiar with this newsgroup or the 
>people in it.  Aloha!
	If you are speaking of sci.lang, I can tell you that, on the
contrary, Holoholona has been a regular contributor for at least as long I
have (that is to say, at least four years) and I wager he knows its
denizens as well as anyone.  I can't speak with authority to
sci.archaeology as I read only the crossposts from it.  Considering the
nature of those crossposts (such as the thread that fathered this
discussions), I continue to think this a wise decision.
-- 
	 Daniel "Da" von Brighoff    /\          Dilettanten
	(deb5@midway.uchicago.edu)  /__\         erhebt Euch
				   /____\      gegen die Kunst!

whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>In article <56krip$nd0@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>, S.NEMETH@IX.NETCOM.COM	
> says...
>>
>>rejohnsn@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu wrote:
>How about some dates?
>First five knots used were what?
Don't have a clue.  Doubt if we will ever find out.
>First leaf wrapped around food and tied?
>First cord woven from grass? bark? hair? 
>First rope woven from leather?
Cord and rope aren't "woven".  They are twisted or braided, generally
out of fibers that have been spun.
>First use of straw with clay to make daub?
>First woven net?
Netting is a textile technique of its own.  It is a knotted fabric.
>First use of wool fiber as yarn or felt?
Good question.  Got no answers.
>First use of flax?
>First use of cotton?
>First use of silk?
Ditto.
>First sewn stitch?
Leathers were sewn, before there were textiles.  No one knows exactly
when that started, but we do have the bone needles that did the deed
at about the point when modern man comes on the scene.
>First basket?
early
>First wattle?
early
>First thatch?
early
>First paper?
much later
>First woven fabric?
At least 10,000 years ago, and possibly earlier because the earliest
example that I'm aware of used a twining technique on such fine thread
that the person studying it did it under a microscope in order to
replicate the technique.  I think we can take it for granted that
"weaving" didn't start out with a technique that fine and that the
scrap of weaving in question was at the end of a long history.
>>
>>I am absolutely, positively NOT going to discuss textile techniques on
>>this newsgroup again!!  Nope! Not going to do it!!!!  
>aww come on...do it for us...
Naaaa.....  
Stella Nemeth
s.nemeth@ix.netcom.com

X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Nov 20 05:25:11 1996 GMT
X-Originating-IP-Addr: 167.142.13.115 (desm-07-50.dialup.netins.net)
X-Authenticated-Sender: xina@netins.net
Lines: 108
In article <3291C2FF.356B@wi.net>,
    Elijah  wrote:
> 
> Only you would ever
> try to plug sockets together.
Sex sex sex!  Is this all you ever think about? How can you claim to be a 
scholar when all you are is concerned about every one else's sex life?  
 Like your Egypt with holes in it.
> Or the cavity in your head.
I would say that *you* have the hole in YOUR head and your jugular has long been
exposed.
> Xina ignores the fact she is slandering thru claiming she saw a list
> and wishes you to witness it yourself. She's rolling now. Let's see
> what she wishes to post next as MORE off topic science.
But Elijah/Wilderness John/Richard/Moses/Jesus/Legion, I posted my Egyptian
Chronology for you to dissect.  Didnt you see it?
> > Elijah wrote: 
> > > You saw no such list. And you encourage a witch hunt.
Its there for anyone in the world to see:
     http://www.dejanews.com
    Find: Richard Schiller, Elijah, or more specifically you can get better
results if you search for: elijah@execpc.com or elijah@wi.net
Very enlightening profiles.  Ah but alas, it only goes to 3/95.
> Lesbian Christina Van Spore is emailing me when she had promised to stop.
I did stop...Does this mean you don't love me anymore, Richard?  I think I might 
even go straight if I knew you still cared! (*NOT!!*)
> These reply posts are NOT emailed to her, yet she is still harrassing me by email.
> Notice what a damn liar she is. Do note that Paul lists liars along with being
> lesbians who wont inherit God's kingdom.
So essentially in your mis-interpretation of God's scripture, you also claimed
at one time in your life that you were going to blast away two Chrysler plants, 
the world was gonna end this past September, and you alone had the answers for 
that. Its really nice you have turned the God of Love and Good Will into the 
enforcer and punisher of all that might have taunted or somehow wronged 
you during your lifetime.
> In this reply she also ignores that I stated a black woman called me queer at work
> and I had no trouble asking how long she was a lesbian so that she could ask that.
> I further asked if I had the freedom to ask her if she was a nigger. I have never
> referred to any as such before, however Xina is so unbalanced that she
> accused me of claiming this story was about her. I
Well if you followed one coherent train of thought one might understand what 
you are talking about, but like your sources they are not forthcoming.  I did
notice in one of your more recent postings you cited a few authors, did not cite 
their published works, the page number NOR thier first name. When you say "Suess, 
Im inclined to think "Green Eggs and Ham, Sam I Am!" So, do you have names, 
titles, page numbers, etc. like you agreed to, or is this something 
that you will claim you did with no data to back it up (*again!)?
Any nursery school graduate would be able to gather his wits about him or herslf 
and post what is asked for rather than your attacks where you bring up 
lesbians, and use it as some sort of bludgeoning device to shame me and others 
into thinking that Jesus was not Crucified by the Romans but instead nailed to 
the cross by a roving pack of Lesbian Avengers.  That was some how edited out of
my version of the bible.
It was a story of yesterday
> at work. Of course, Xina doesnt appear to have a job other than her
> un-named customer.
I am bound by a non-disclosure statement, therefore I cannot name my employer 
under the confidentiality agreement to which I am bonded.  Sorry, buckwheat.  
SO if you ask me, Im just going to tell you Im a very expensive Domina.
> ************
> everyone benefiting from my work please email
> my postmaster, my site will move unless those appreciative
> send email to counter those trying to destroy it
Can I have the address?  I want to tell your postmaster you are doing a bang up 
job of keeping the internet safe and free from all forms of coherent thought 
and upity minorities, gays and lesbians and anyone else who might think you are 
about a dozen bricks shy of a load.  
, 
>
> God's 1000 years has begun Sep 14 of 1996.
Isn't that the day you said that the earth was going to be obliterated by that 
"Armageddon Asteroid" you have been raving about for years?
Isn't that when those two Chrysler plants were supposed to be leveled? 
My advice is to pay off your internet providers that you claim on your 
own web page that you havent paid in 13 years.  Or didnt you know that 
non-payment for services rendered is considered stealing?
Xina
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This article was posted to Usenet via the Posting Service at Deja News:
http://www.dejanews.com/           [Search, Post, and Read Usenet News]

Ralph L Holloway (rlh2@columbia.edu) wrote:
:      For those tired of the Carboniferous coal-skull, try the NY Times
: Science Section, starting on the front page of the first section, of the
: newly discovered Homo maxilla found at Hadar dating to 2.3 million years
: ago. Was found in 1994 and is just published in the most recent issue of
: Journal of Human Evolution. In particular read about the descriptions of
: the ecology of the times, and see how the savannah strawman arguments
: evaporate...
: Ralph Holloway
Thanks for the reference. The version of the NY Times article I downloaded 
actually contained a horribly glaring error... I'm curious if it appeared 
in the paper version as well? Towards the end of the article, the author, 
John Wilkes Noble, mentions that anatomically modern Homo sapiens 
appeared 200 million to 100 million years ago. Now if that isn't a typo, 
I'm not sure what is! 
Also, the article mentions that both halves of the maxilla, including the 
palate, was recovered. Since no mention was made of any teeth found, I 
assume that none were. They were able to determine that the maxilla 
belongs to genus Homo from the more parabolic shape of the arcade, wider 
palate, less protruding facial region. But the species designation is 
currently indeterminate, pending more diagnostic finds from the cranial 
region. 
What I'm curious about is, if they had found teeth associated with the 
maxilla... say an upper canine and molar, would there be enough 
diagnostic features to distinguish whether this was habilis, rudolfensis, 
erectus or as one interested paleo-researcher suggests, a new species of 
Homo? Or would we still need to wait for more diagnostic fossils?
BTW, the Hadar environment 2.3myo was interpreted as a woodland type 
area, from what I recall of the NY Times article... 
Susan
-- 
                                             susansf@netcom.com

In article <3289C237.52DB@wi.net>, Eliyehowah   wrote:
>I have difficulty working a scanner.
>(Need advise for best scan dpi , format, lineart [?] etc.)
>However, I will be posting the C-14 of trees from a published Nobel convention.
One good piece of advice on using a scanner would be to request
permission from the publisher before posting any copyrighted material.
>A list of dendrochronology dates BP~BC along with C-14 dates BP~BC.
>In the list is revealed the fact that trees having C-14 from 2300 BC are being
>claimed by dendrochronology as 3000 BC trees favoring Egyptology.
>Of course, you are claiming them to be trees from 3000 BC containing
>C-14 from that era in larger amounts which falsely produce 2300 BC dates.
>I believe the real Egyptology is proven by the Hebrew Genesis back to
>2370 BC and not the Turin Papyrus (Septuagint Genesis) back to 3090 BC.
>Thus the C-14 is my testimony from God as the truth or word of God,
>and not the dendrochronology you worship as the word of God.
Yep, those dendrochronologists are a sorry lot.  How do they know
that those trees of theirs didn't stick in an extra annual ring now
and then for a good joke to throw the counts off?
Say, if you can find a radiocarbon expert who doesn't think
that a radiocarbon age of ~4250 before present calibrates to
a calendar age of around 3000 BC, tell 'em to send us a paper.
We haven't had any good rip-roaring controversies lately.
--
David Sewell, Assistant Editor
RADIOCARBON: An International Journal of Cosmogenic Isotope Research
Department of Geosciences, University of Arizona
4717 E. Ft. Lowell Rd., Tucson, Arizona 85712 USA
Telephone: 1-520-881-0857    Fax: 1-520-881-0554
     General e-mail address:  c14@packrat.aml.arizona.edu
     WWW server:  http://packrat.aml.arizona.edu/

gerl@Theorie.Physik.UNI-Goettingen.DE (Franz Gerl) wrote:
>jimamy@primenet.com wrote:
>: gerl@Theorie.Physik.UNI-Goettingen.DE (Franz Gerl) wrote:
>: 
>: >The other championed reason for the demise of the mammoths
>: >are climatological and vegetational changes. They however would 
>: >not result in an increased reproduction. Could you comment
>: >then, why this is not *evidence*?
>: 
>: Why is it argued that climate and vegitation changes would not result in 
>: increased reproduction whereas over-hunting would?  Some posit the idea 
>: that bison latifrons was a slow breeder living in small groups in 
>: forest/savanah habitat, only to morph into ever smaller and more prolific 
>: bison types over time when the climate changed.  This occured before man 
>: even showed up.
>: 
>
>Yes, but I was not thinking about a gradual change of a species
>over time. Clearly there is a difference between that and
>complete extinction of a kind. 
No, there is not such a difference.  Bison latifrons is as extinct as it 
ever could be.  But bison live on.  
>Anyway, we are talking about evidence here. If you put on
>environmental stress on a population of animals, restricting
>their habitats and limiting nutrition they "tend" to lower
>their productivity. 
The original hypothosis of this thread was that increased hunting 
INCREASED productivity.  Why would environmental stress DECREASE it?
>The unique thing about the late Pleistocene extinctions
>is, that many animals disappeared, whose ecological niches
>were never refilled.
I don't believe this is true.  No niche in North America was empty after 
the pleistocene extinctions.  It was the niches that went extinct after 
the habitat changed due to climate change, then the animals went.  There 
was no unfilled niche in North America after the pleistocene extinctions. 
 Apparently something unique happened.
>All evidence necessarily has to be circumstancial, and
>I hope you agree, that this finding tips the scales towards
>the overkill hypothesis.
I disagree.  There has been no "finding" and not all evidence is 
circumstantial.  Some evidence is direct.  For instanct, there is direct 
evidence that man killed mega fauna.  There is also direct evidence that 
the climate changed prior to and during the extincitions.  There is also 
an absence of any evidence, direct or circumstantial that man ever hunted 
the largest and most widely spread and dominent herbibor on the continent 
and yet it went extinct shortly before man arrived.  Further, 60 million 
bison bison remained for tens of thousands of years in tact.  This, I hope 
you agree, tends to prove that man was not the sole cause or even the most 
important cause of pleistocen extinctions. 

gerl@Theorie.Physik.UNI-Goettingen.DE (Franz Gerl) wrote:
>: The question is *evidence of WHAT*!!!!!!!!!!!   Yes, we have evidence of 
>: HUNTING!  That is not a surprise!  When you find projectile points in the 
>: body cavities of mammoth fossils, clearly you had HUNTING!  This 
>: tusk-o-chronology is just MORE evidence of hunting!   
>
>No, it is not.
Yes it is.  To argue otherwise is absurd.  As a thinking individual, 
surely you must admit to this. 
 It is evidence that they were producing at their
>maximum rate
No one has yet established a proper baseline as to maximum rate.
, something which they clearly would not do, if they
>were limited in their environment, or if they had difficulties
>with newly appearing grass-species. Animals with limited 
>nutritional support tend to lower their breeding rate.
Yes, and they also tend to go extinct.
  Show that there are animals which 
>respond to hunger or to other environmental stresses
>by increasing their reproductive rate or something like that.
Show that your baseline elephants were not only hunted but that they were 
not subject to environemental stress.
>Well, I would say the evidence is as good as you can get, and
>thorough comparisons should be made in time and for different
>species. By playing logical games and neglecting the circumstancial
>evidence you can get you are not being very scientific.
No logical games and no ignoring of circumstantial evidence.  Rather, it 
is a search for answers to the DIRECT evidence which, of course is more 
persuasive.  While arrowheads in bones are direct evidence of hunting, it 
is not direct evidence of hunting to extinction.  There is also direct 
evidence of climate and habitat change and loss of niches.  There is also 
direct evidence (pollen, teeth contents etc.) that the extinct species 
could not now live in the areas that they once occupied, whether we were 
here or not.  This is no logical game.  It is direct evidence that the 
hunting theorist have yet to address in a logical fashion. 
>Nobody is arguing that the case is closed, but I would really
>like to see your suggestions of what constitutes "evidence".
>A handwritten account of the killing of the last mammoth?
Evidence would be a scientific theory that demonstrated that, based on 
vigatation and pollen studies, mammoths could live in Utah and Arizona 
today as they once did.  Or that bison latifrons, a browser, could live in 
Nebraska or Kansas, where they once did.  Evidence that browsers could 
live where there is no browse and that grazers could live in forests 
where there is now no graze.  Evidence that musgkeg and boreal forest 
could support anything other than a moose. Etc. etc. etc.    

Eugene Climer (ejclimer@mdhost.cse.tek.com) wrote:
: You have developed an interesting opinion about God. 
: 
: You state that "the Bible says" that "God is a 
: bad-tempered, crusty, old fart in the sky, who delights 
: in setting us crappy little rules to obey".
: 
: I understand from this that you have probably never read 
: nor understood the bible
More likely he has, but is paraphrasing it heavily.
-- 
Cardinal Fang   mhammond@access.digex.net
****************************************************************
Darned Unitarians burned a question mark on my lawn!!!
FC 1.2 FCF~m3a/FRRs3r A++ C-/* D++ H M- P+/- R T++ W Z Sm#/Sm++
RLGP a+ cd++ d? e++ f/f+ h+ i+ p~-/* sm#

In article , Loren Petrich
 writes
>       Mr. Whittet, if you spend 1/10 the time studying historical 
>linguistics that you spend on archeology, you might actually *learn* 
>something about this subject.
If he were to spend ALL his time on historical linguistics it might well
be a relief for the archaeologists around here, but he would still end
up as praternaturally clueless on historical linguistics as he currently
is on archaeology.
I repeat the conclusion I reached a couple of month ago. Steve Whittet
is a troll, probably paid for what he does here (and it is undenaible
that he spends a great deal of thime doing it) by the universities to
ease their wage burden through the early removal of academics from their
staff positions via high blood pressure and premature death.
-- 
Alan M. Dunsmuir
  "Time flies like an arrow -
   Fruit flies like a banana" --- Groucho Marx (as used by Noam Chomsky)

Xina  wrote:
>After this past couple of weeks recent developments, I am left wondering
>whether or not it would be in the best interestes of all concerned that
>a newsgroup such as, 'alt.archaeology.biblical, or alt.bible.archaeology
>can or rather *should* be created.
>Do I propose a seperation?  I do at this point, yes.  I find the groups
>of alt.archaeology, and sci.archeology overwhelmed as of late with posts
>by those people that beleive in the bible and study its archaeology. 
I don't think it would do much good.  Anyone who would put misc.test
into their headers isn't going to trim headers down to suitable
groups.
There are already groups for religious discussion.  I doubt if the
poster who you are having trouble with is any more welcome on
alt.christnet or alt.mythology, which will be getting this message,
than he is on sci.archaeology where I'm writing from.
Certainly the archaeology of the Middle East (otherwise known as
biblical archaeology) is an acceptable topic for both alt.archaeology
and sci.archaeology.  I'm beginning to feel very strongly that unless
a topic has begun to overwhelm a general newsgroup, drowning out all
other conversation, that new newsgroups aren't the way to go for
Usenet.  So, for example, an ancient history newsgroup probably is
overdue because the discussions of ancient history, ancient
linguistics, etc. have begun to overwhelm sci.archaeology.  But a new
newsgroup for biblical archaeology isn't going to solve the problems
of overenthusiastic posting by someone who is predicting the end of
the world.
Stella Nemeth
s.nemeth@ix.netcom.com

Cristian Ernesto Arredondo Carrasco wrote:
> 
> You are a fuckin bunch of stupid people that don't know anything about
> what is good and what is wrong but leave me tell you one thing
> Jesus is the only one that can give you the paradise and if you believe in
> Satan as the salvation, man, you are dying.
> 
It is not *us* babbling on and on...telling everyone to believe in a
myth. 
 Mr Pot(aka Mr Carrasco) meet Mr Kettle(aka Mr Stupid Babbling) 
-- 
      ____    ___ _____  __  _______  __  __
     / __ \  /   |__  / / / / /__  / / / / /
    / /_/ / / /| | / / / / / /  / / / / / /
   / ____/ / ___ |/ /__ /_/ /  / /__ /_/ /
  /_/     /_/  |_|____/____/  /____/____/

rejohnsn@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu wrote:
>OK, I'm not very clear on usenet slang -- is this post a spam or a troll, 
>and why?
I don't think it is either.  It isn't the first time I've seen
something about this situation posted here.  I think it is an update
of a report from someone who has done something rather odd with the
current law as it stands.  If the remains are as old as he says they
are, and if they are caucasioid remains, he does have a point.  The
local tribes that have claimed the remains are no closer related to
them than anyone else in the world is, and he has the advantage over
them because he is, at least, a memeber of the same general race.
I think he might like some discussion, but I doubt if he is going to
get any more on this attempt than on the previous one.  Certainly not
on this group.
Stella Nemeth
s.nemeth@ix.netcom.com

In article <56t2vh$g8u@csu-b.csuohio.edu>, scott@math.csuohio.edu	 
says...
>
>In article <56sfdo$hma@fridge-nf0.shore.net>, whittet@shore.net says...
>
>[most deleted]
>
>>The question I raised was does language evolve in the same way
>>people do. I would say it does. I think Loren has a different
>>concept. 
>
>>He thinks language, once created, doesn't change much,
>>it just adds a few borrowed words.
>
>He obviously thinks no such thing;
It is true that he denys that he thinks that, but when you
go back and look at what he has previously posted I think
you will find that is exactly what he has repeatedly claimed.
Perhaps Loren will clarify for us what he does think. Does
language evolve in the same way people do? Or do we just
add on words? 
If the evolution of language is something different than 
just adding on words, then are the laws of linguistics 
subject to change in the same way language is? Do they 
evolve also? If so could you provide some examples.
> if you want to argue with the established position, you 
>must begin by understanding what it actually is. 
Thats fair. Why don't you tell me what you think the 
established position I am arguing with is?
 I hesitate to assume that the misunderstanding is 
>wilful, but this is not the first time that you've completely 
>misunderstood (or misrepresented) something written here.
I tend to like to look at the implications of intransigent positions.
>
>>>So you are using size of lexicon as a measure of complexity.
>
>>No. As I have stated several times, I am making a quantitative 
>>as opposed to a qualitative comparison.
>
>You've just contradicted yourself.  What do you mean, 'No'? 
"No" means I am not using "size as a measure of "complexity"
"size is quantitative" "complexity" is qualitiative. Where
is the contradiction?
> Your quantitative measure *is* size of lexicon. 
Yes. Especially in the sense that Lexicon sometimes is construed to mean 
simply vocabulary unencumbered by grammatical baggage.
>If that isn't obvious 
>from what you've written here, I can quote from an earlier post in 
>this thread.  I had asked:
>
>>>What numerical measure of linguistic 
>>>complexity are you using to give you a meaningful comparison? 
>
>You answered:
>
>>The number of vocabulary words.
>
>That is the size of the lexicon.
Yes. Where is the contradiction? I drew the distinction between
quantitative and qualitative analysis.
>
>>>As has, I believe, been pointed out many times here, this is a most 
>>>unsatisfactory measure.  Moreover, we don't have information on 
>>>it for languages more than a few centuries old.  The extant corpus 
>>>of Old English runs, I believe, to about 23,000 - 24,000 words; 
Harcourt Brace "Standard College Dictionary" counts a vocabulary
for Old English of 40,000 words.
>>>but that's merely what happens to have been preserved.  The real 
>>>total is undoubtedly much greater.  I very much doubt that *any* 
>>>information is available from 200,000 BP.
>
>>That is why using a fit curve trend line analysis is appropriate. 
>>It allows you to see what is really important is the rate of change.
>
>Except that YOU CAN'T DRAW YOUR LINE IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE DATA. 
Apparently you are not used to using this methodology. A trend
line or fit curve analysis is used to extend existing data by
means of a model. We have the data for the curve and the vertical
leg from historical examples of language. We have the data for the
horizontal leg because we have a starting point when man aquired
the physical ability to speak from Anthropology.
>You can talk all you like about 'historical data', but the fact of the 
>matter is that even if you could meaningfully define 'word' for 
>arbitrary languages, you have only lower bounds on the number of 
>words in languages attested only historically.
It doesn't matter. As long as we measure with the same standard
of measure, vocabulary words, we get consistent data.
>
>[Discussion of 'exponential' growth deleted, since it now appears 
>that Mr. Whittet is misapplying the term to something else and 
>that the mathematics is as suspect as the historical linguistics.
Where do you have difficulty agreeing with something as simple as 
the concept of an exponential growth in a population being an 
influence on an exponential growth observed in the things a 
population does? Why wouldn't you describe exponential growth
with an exponential curve? 
If you wish to discuss methods of statistical analysis I would 
be delighted to have you begin by explaining what method you
would substitute.
>
>Brian M. Scott
>
steve

Eliyehowah  "wrote":
This quote probably belongs to user "xina@netins.net"
>>The bible was never intended to be taken as a literalism, and those who
>>take it as such are simply unable, or unwilling to see what is
>>underneath. This is not fault of their own, the data has been so
>>manipulated over history that its very difficult to ascertain what is
>>metaphor and what is history,it is blended.  
>>There is an excellent book for any people of faith who have a difficult
>>time resolving it with what they know is the truth and what has been
>>scientifically proven, "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism: A Bishop
>>Rethinks the Meaning of Scripture" by John Shelby Spong, (a bishop in
							 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>Episcopal Church) 1991, Harper Collins Publishing, ISBN 0-006-067518-7.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^"item 1"
>
>>It is an excellent book, it is written objectively and by someone who
>>does have faith in his God and in what he knows is the truth.  These
>>things are not incompatible, its just that he realizes (as some do not)
>>that to know what is in the mind of the Creator at all times is the
>>height of arrogance.
>
	here it goes...
>I consider this an excuse. And it places Jesus at the height of
>arrogance for knowing the mind of God. I presume the bishop is
					^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>therefore Catholic and believes Jesus *IS* God so as to eliminate
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^"item 2"	^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^"item 3"
>this problem using the trinity. No wonder your frequent quoted
				|-------> etc..
>Catholic church has committed its crimes and excused itself.
>But you dont have to be Catholic nor even believe in God to
>excuse yourself with doctrines. Science has its worshipped doctrines.
>That includes the doctrine I am sick of hearing about our viscious
>animal instincts back to cave man and desires without morale.
|<-------------- the real point ---------------------------->|
	comparing "item 1" to "item 2" I can therefore infere
	that the dictionary I have consulted for the meaning
	of 'episcopal' is misleading and 'Episcopal Church'
	is a 'Catholic Church' disguised.
	"Item 3" it's puzzling, your post up the point quoted
	is composed of 89 lines (1008 words) apparently talking
	about "flood dating and C-14" and then suddenly you talk
	about trinity. Is amazing that, doing this, you also
	demonstrate that you have never read a Gospel in your
	life (see Gv 1,1 for example).
	From point "etc.." you jump from:
	-- Crimes of the Catholic Church (as all the human organization
	is made by man, so I am not surprised about this)
	-- general appreciation on believing in God or not (quite obscure)
	-- "worshipped doctrines of science" (!?)
	-- .... of which one is the real point: "vicious animal istincts"
	That's the real point!! From "Biblical Flood" to 
	"vicious animal instincts", you know, I agree that Catholic
	Church is not perfect but at least She does not produce
	phenomena like some posts I have read on american newsgroups.
	Best regards,
	Claudio
	P.S> I write this post only because I feel safe protected by
	the Atlantic Ocean and I wish to congratulate with the people
	who writes you back standing on the same continent.
>************
>A voice crying out and going unheard,
 	e voria anca veda'r visto l'e trojae che ti dixi
	(now I see that maybe there is a reason for this)

Satan was Lucifer, the firstborn child of the Light (aka Yahweh, aka
Yaldabaoth, hereafter 'God') created to watch over the Earth. God
discovered the first humans & gave them some of His Light; Lucifer,
witnessing this, was disturbed. He was led to question his own
creation, the creation of the Earth, & the worthiness of God. When he
spoke of these things to both angels & humans he was cursed by God, and
cast, w/ those angels who had joined him in questioning, into the
centre of the Earth. Lucifer, now Satan, alone was able to crawl out of
the fire, for the angels created after him were weak & had never known
pain.
-information from the Blasphemer's Bible.

On Wed, 20 Nov 1996 04:55:54 GMT, deb5@midway.uchicago.edu (Daniel von
Brighoff) wrote:
>	There is a very large corpus of Elizabethan and Jacobean writings
>from a variety of different registers (e.g. informal letters, poems, legal
>documents, etc.).  From these, we can reconstruct the common formal
>standard written registers of each period (you are the first to bring up
>spoken registers, which are a different matter) and compare them to the
>language of the KJV and Shakespeare, respectively.  This comparison
>reveals that Shakespeare's language diverged quite a deal more from the
>standard of his time than the language of the KJV did from the standard of
>its time.
hmmm...as i remember the kjv was published in 1611, though the
translation of it was finished in 1610 at which time shakespeare was
46 years old...where is the divergence in time??...
btw an interesting crosscheck on temporal convergence can be found by
going to the 46th psalm, counting to the 46th word from the beginning
of that psalm and then adding to it the 46th word from the end of that
psalm...
frank

On Tue, 19 Nov 1996 17:34:19 -0600, Saida
 wrote:
>carbon dating of a piece of the quantities of rope found with the 
>timbers gave a date of around 2040 B.C., although the 4th Dynasty is 
>generally placed earlier at around 2600 B.C.  You out there, David Rohl? 
>;->
was only the one carbon dating done, and if not, did other samples
yield comparable dates??...
frank

Noel Dickover  wrote (to sci.anthropology):
>Was it my imagination that this group used to discuss anthropology?  I
>haven't been paying attention for a while but I think my news browser has
>led me astray.  Could some kind soul please email me the name of the
>newsgroup where anthropological discussions (as opposed to what we see
>here) might take place?  Specifically I am interested in anthropological
>issues related to modern organizations.
You're right, Noel.
Once upon a time this group used to discuss anthropology in peace and
solitude, with almost no interference and certainly no static.
Then one day a wise ass came along and had the balls to call all of
our discussions pablum, claiming they fail to address the real issue:
the presentation of even one scintilla of evidence substantiating the
scientific establishment's claim that man's most remote ancestor --
our great-great-great-Grandma -- was a catlike, monkey-size primate.
Once upon a time it was possible for featherbedders to avoid any
discussion of evidence reaching down to the bottom line of
anthropology, since they knew none existed.
Therefore, they used to delight in bedside chats of  fiction and
fabrication with as much basis in fact as Aesops's Fables.
Unfortunately, those good old days are gone forever.
And, perhaps -- sooner than they  think -- their erroneous theory.

>                      --    STOP THE PRESS!  --
                 EARLIEST HUMAN FOSSIL FOUND
                   (Associated Press, Nov. 19, 1996)
NEW YORK (AP) --  An African jaw bone is the earliest positively dated
fossil in the human family, extending the age of the genus Homo by
400,000 years, scientists report.
The 2.333 million-year-old jaw was found near a scattering of crude
stone tools in fossil sediments in the Hadar highlands of northern
Ethiopia.
The link between the chopping tools and the species represented by the
jaw bone is not definitive, but may be the best evidence yet that the
first toolmakers were early members of the large-brained Homo group.
``It's propbably better than a bloody glove as circumstantial
evidence," David Bergun, a paleontologist from the University of
Toronto, said today.
(snip)
Kimblel, Donald Johnason and Robert Walter, all of the Institute of
Human Origins in Berkeley, Calif., led the research. Scientists from
Isarel and Canda also were involved in describing and dating the jaw,
which was discoverd in November 1994.
Their report is being published in the December issue of the Journal
of Human Evolution.
``It's an interesting find but it's not, I think, very amazingly new
and unexpected,"  said David Pilbeam of Harvard University, who was
not involved in writing the report.
Other suspected Homo fossils that may be of similiar antiquity have
been found in Kenya and Malawi, Kimbel said . But the Malawi fossil is
not dated as accurately as the Hadar jaw, whose age was determined
using a sophisticated radiometric method.
(snip)
                       ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Hmmm! Wonder what Ed Conrad is going to say about this? 
> After all, it has been almost a half-day since the official
> announcement and we still haven't heard a disparaging
> word.
> Maybe, finally, we've shut him up.
> Let's keep our fingers crossed.

> cynthia gage wrote (to sci.anthropology and a bunch
> of other news groups):
>         What we call academe today is a multi-billion-dollar,
> self-perpetuating, self-selected bureaucracy.
>          The difference between the academic bureaucracy and any other
> self-selecting bureaucracy is that academe claims, as its sole product,
> objective, unbiased, balanced truth.  It has no other reason for
> existence.
>           Is the academic bureaucracy actually the first self-selecting
> bureaucracy in history to produce anything approaching objectivity, or
> is its product simply a predictable result of its biases?
                               ~~~~~~~~~~~~
You've said a mouthful, Cynthia, and -- I have to hand it to you --
you've said it very, very  well.
Academe is INDEED a multi-billion-dollar, self-perpetuating,
self-selected bureaucracy -- and the only  ``truth'  it dispenses
is what it decides to give out.
Even when it is fully aware that a particular ``truth" is total
fiction.
Its ``product" unquestionably is, at all times, a predictable result
of its complete and utter bias.
I offer one glowing example.
Academe's adamant, unyielding stance concerning man's evolutionary
inhuman origin has absolutely no basis in fact.
Even worse, when challenged with facts and evidence --
http://www.access.digex.net/~medved/conrad/conmain.htm
-- it resorts to despicable antics of deceipt, dishonesty, coverup and
foul play.
The Wheels of Vested Interests keep right on rolling along.
Thanks, Cynthia, for your keen insight in sizing up a deplorable
situation and for having the courage to call a spade a spade.
>

It may well have been a forgery.
They did happen, you know
-- 
**********************************************************************
Tone@antb.demon.co.uk        www.antb.demon.co.uk
                     "Its no good prevaricating about the bush"
**********************************************************************

"henry l. barwood"  wrote:
>Conrad, do you 
>really think that anyone believes you any more? I can speak only for 
>myself, but no self-respecting researcher would touch you with a ten foot 
>tongue depressor!
>Here Conrad's eyes sparkle as he pictures himself being given a ticker 
>tape parade down Broadway while thousands of men in white coats shout 
>hosannas to his greatness. Later the entire Nobel Prize committee bows in 
>front of him and kisses his feet. Unfortunately, he wakes up.
>                                   Henry Barwood
Henry:
I have no idea why you've written such a nasty post.
Do you realize it could spoil my whole weekend?
I mean, you ARE into rocks, aren't you? Well, I don't know
why you should be so offended that, because of your total lack
of openmindedness about  my discoveries,  I lost my cool and
called you a cement-head.
After all, you should realize I could've done something a whole lot
worse. I could've told the folks that you have a petrified brain.

whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>Yes. Especially in the sense that Lexicon sometimes is construed to mean 
>simply vocabulary unencumbered by grammatical baggage.
Vocabulary unencumbered by grammatical baggage?
How do you count these words:
long - longer - longest	One word, two words or three words?
good - better - best	One word, two words or three words?
walk - walked - walked	One word, two words or three words?
go - went - gone		One word, two words or three words?
>Harcourt Brace "Standard College Dictionary" counts a vocabulary
>for Old English of 40,000 words.
'Old English' is the name of a language. Do you count it as one
word or as two separate words?
In Norwegian, like in German (not to mention Sanskrit) composita
are more easily formed than in English.
English		Norwegian
old		gammel
english		engelsk
Old English	gammelengelsk
So - how do you count these words?
Does this make the one language more or less sophisticated than
the other?
You can count the number of entries in a particular dictionary.
What can you learn from that? The answer is that you will learn
the number of entries in that particular dictionary. Nothing
more. Nothing less.
Comparing languages by word counts is of very little value. You
will learn very little by using statistical methods here.
Please study some basic facts about language!
______________________________________________________________
K�re Albert Lie
kalie@sn.no

Ed Conrad wrote:
> 
> Andrew, my intriguing awesome array of petrified bones and petrified
> soft organs found between anthracite veins is indeed scientific
> evidence.
I smell 
a 
Piltdown..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................8X.........8X....:^)

In article <32922221.105E@qualcomm.com>, Holoholona <"
bmoore"@qualcomm.com> writes
>In your rush to condescend and insult Alan, it is you who have failed to 
>comprehend 
>_his_ meaning.  What you call fancy, stilted language in the King James version 
>of the 
>Bible was neither fancy nor stilted at the time, but rather a readable 
>translation 
>written in a way that any common man could understand.
Thank you for that, Holoholona. I had decided simply not to respond
further.
-- 
Alan M. Dunsmuir
  "Time flies like an arrow -
   Fruit flies like a banana" --- Groucho Marx (as used by Noam Chomsky)

Elmo wrote:
> 
> menglund@mum.edu wrote:
> 
> >What's the Sphinx-Mars relationship?
> 
> I have also heard about some supposed links between the Sphinx, the
> pyramids and Mars, but so far haven't found out much more about it.
> Most of the people in the archaeology fields seem to think you are a
> bit ga-ga when you start asking these sorts of questions.
> Let me know what you find out.
> 
> Elmo
> (Not the Elmo who has been sending the unmannerly posts to sci.arch)
Because you are not the Elmo who has been sending the unmannerly
posts (whatever they were), I'll give you a mannerly reply.
Apparently there is now agreement among Richard Hoagland, 
Robert Bauval, and Graham Hancock that there is a conspiracy 
of **INTERPLANETARY** proportions to not investigate certain 
martian areas and the Giza Pyramids.  See the article by Hancock 
and Bauval on Hoagland's web site at: 
http://www.planetarymysteries.com/sphinxmars.html
If this doesn't answer your questions, I can't help more as I
don't know more on this topic.  When you visit this site, keep 
in mind that P.T. Barnum was an astute student of human nature 
and his obeservations were correct...
Regards,
August Matthusen

"Tom E. Morris"  wrote:
>Ed:
>I have just recently read the contentious debates going on here. I am
>reminded of Carl Sagan's comment, "Extraordinary claims require
>extraordinary evidence." Until such evidence is presented in the form of a
>paper to a refereed journal (and not on the internet), I am only willing to
>consider much simpler explanations for your find. You may have indeed found
>something very interesting. But I would want to see all simpler hypotheses
>ruled out first before considering your claim.
>Good luck,
>Tom Morris
>Fullerton College
>Fullerton, CA
Thanks, Tom:
You're being openminded, fair and decent.
That's a switch (in these newsgroups).
I'd say there's plenty of evidence available at
http://www.access.digex.net/~medved/conrad/conmain.htm
to back up my big mouth.
As for your suggestion that my specimens be subjected to
interpretation by a ``refereed" journral, I can only remind you
of the rather eloquent words of my late friend, Clayton Lennon.
>>            ``Remember, Ed, you're not only fighting
>>             the man in the ring. You're fighting the referee
>>             and the three judges."
Tom, do you really think I'd get a fair and honest assessment of my
discoveries in a ``refereed" journal? That's the biggest joke of all.
As for reminding me of Carl Sagan's comment, "Extraordinary claims
require extraordinary evidence," please inform Carl Sagan that HE
ought to practice what HE preaches.
He's another turkey who's been gobbling greenbacks for years
at the trough of evolutionary horse manure and pseudo-science.
Incidentally, there's no truth to the rumor that Carl Sagan is an
egomaniac who wears a Size 8 3/4 hat. His habberdasher once told me
-- in strictest confidence -- that he's only a Size 8 1/2.

On Tue, 19 Nov 1996, at 14:10:49, Richard Michael Schiller, hiding
behind a pseudoym and posing as a prophet spat this detritus at us
>Lesbian Christina Van Spore (spelt as she is),
Well I see that your wit (ha!) is to the usual standard.  A real master
of repartee!!  As I bow before your obvious superiority, I am left
wondering what your brain cell does when it isn't producing such gems as
this.
How does it go now?
Walking toilet, Richard Schi--er (oh that IS good fun, I feel *really*
clever now, I'm sooooo smart)  Forty year old going on 4!!! 
>has seen no list. She is following a thread that postmasters/abuse
>has settled, and is attempting to create greater havoc from it.
>She and her ISP are liable. And she is so stupid to advance without knowing
>the email which transpired between my postmaster and the postmaster of
>Garrison Netzel.
And that's the end of it is it?  Given your track record for economy
with truth, I am inclined to take little note of anything you say.  
As anyone who cares to make use of the deja news service at
 http://www.dejanews.com 
will see, you leave a trail of abuse behind you in whichever forum is
unfortunate enough to be subjected to your inane obsessions.
By the way folks, searching Dejanews by entering elijah@execpc.com or
elijah@wi.net as the search string will yield all of the multitudinous
names which this pitiful individual hides behind, along with the whole
stinking mass of his literary excrement.  I should warn you though, not
to follow this particular trail unless you have a strong stomach.
Marc (that's what it says on my birth certificate!)