Subject: Re: [!] Support the Musee de l'Homme (Paris) !
From: ROCHU@vm.amu.edu.pl
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 96 20:11:07 CET
In article <56sbde$gen@uni2f.unige.ch>
Comite de Defense du Musee de l'Homme (by way of David Roessli) writes:
>
>
>DEFENCE COMMITEE FOR THE MUSEE DE L'HOMME, PARIS
>
>* Against its destruction and replacement by a museum of 'First Arts'
>* For its renovation and maintenance within the Museum National d'Histoire
>Naturelle
>
>What is the Musee de L'Homme?
>
>Like the Vincennes Zoo, the Jardin des Plantes, the Arboretum Chevreloup, the
>station at Brunoy, etc., the Musee de l'Homme (Museum of Mankind) forms part
>of the Museum national d'Histoire naturelle, created by government decree and
>placed under the aegis of the Ministry for Education. By virtue of its three
>departments (Anthropology, Ethnology and Prehistory), their collections, and
>the knowledge they represent, the Musee de l'Homme is the only establishment
>in the world which represents the biological and cultural diversity of
>humanity in a single place.
>
>Its main originality resides in the fact that it draws together three aims:
>conservation; research; and teaching and promotion of knowledge. It
>represents a centre for the disciplines which it helps develop. As a result,
>it receives many school groups. Specialists from the world over find an
>unique situation for research and exchange in its laboratories associated
>with the scientific collections.
>
>
>
>Why is the Musee de l'Homme under threat?
>
>A commission, instigated by the French President, has decided to replace it
>with a 'Museum of Civilisations and First Arts' (Ministerial meeting of 7
>October 1996).
>
>The Musee de l'Homme would disappear. The collections of the department of
>Ethnology, containing over 300,000 objects, would be attributed to the
>Ministry of Culture and hence diverted from their scientific vocation. The
>new museum would reduce the artefacts to just their aesthetic dimension, thus
>removing them from their historical and cultural context. The origins and
>biological diversity of humans would no longer appear as the essential
>explanatory framework for the development of their civilisations, cultures
>and arts.
>
>The proposed museum would be a new Public Administration Establishment (EPA),
>which would open the door to temporary work contracts for its running. This
>project implies a considerable waste of human and financial resources, due to
>the fragmentation of services and research departments. What would happen to
>the permanent staff of the National Education and Research in this context?
>
>
>
>What do we want?
>
>We call for the withdrawal of the project to create a museum of 'First Arts'
>in place of the Musee de l'Homme. This project will not meet the needs of the
>general public and nor will it be in the interests of scientific research and
>teaching.
>
>We are asking for the renovation of the present Musee de l'Homme and its
>maintenance within the Museum d'Histoire naturelle and the Ministry for
>Education.
>
>We make this appeal all those who value the Musee de l'Homme and its
>commitment to research and teaching. Please express your support for the aims
>of the committee by completing and returning the form below, or by completing
>our online bulletin at,
>
>http://anthropologie.unige.ch/cdmh/cdmh-us.html
>
>
>I support the Committee for the defence of the Musee de l'Homme
>
>SURNAME, first name:
>
>Address:
>
>Position:
>
>E-mail:
>
>Signature:
>
>Send to: Comite de Defense du Musee de l'Homme, 17 Place du Trocadero, 75116
>PARIS, France. E-mail: phm@mnhn.fr
Subject: Re: LUCY: ``Yes, we have no bananas!"
From: raven@kaiwan.com (/\/\ )
Date: 21 Nov 1996 14:05:59 -0800
Reset to talk.origins.
In article <56proj$78@news.ptd.net>, edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad) wrote:
>
>macrae@geo.ucalgary.ca (Andrew MacRae) wrote:
>
>(and Ed Conrad eventually will respond)
>
>>In article <56fao1$6ta@news.ptd.net> edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad)
>>writes:
>>|Michael Clark wrote:
>>|>On Mon, 11 Nov 1996, Ed Conrad wrote:
>>|>> To my mind, the ONLY physical anthropologist who possessed scientific
>>|>> integrity in a search for honest answers to legitimate questions about
>>|>> man's origin and ancestry was the late Dr. Earnest A. Hooton, longtime
>>|>> professor of anthropology at Harvard University.
>
>>|>(T)ed? Do you know any LIVING anthropologists?
>
>>|Quite frankly, no!
>>|Oh, I do know of some who are still walking and talking because
>>|I see them on TV every once in a while, usually after an ``incredible
>>|discovery" like the time they claimed to have found Little Lucy's
>>|fossilized babushka.
>>|
>Says Ed:
>Finding a fossilized babushka is stated in jest, obviously. But it is
>no more ridiculous than pronouncements by segements of the scientific
>community of hairbrained ``discoveries" in recent years.
>
>For example, the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe.
>
>No proof, Andrew! N-O-N-E.
>
>In fact, recent new-found ifnormation about distant outer space -- via
>the Hubble Telescope, for example -- indicate that the universe could
>not possibly have been created this way.
>
>The Big Bang Theory is as ridiculous as the erroneous, preposterous
>theory that the gradiose, incredibly varied assortment of living
>things -- man, especially -- had evolved from a single-cell organism,
>despite the astronomically incredible odds against such an
>eventuality.
>
>| But, unfortunately, as anyone who follows their rather mechanical
>|straight-from-the-book irrational establishment-protecting commentary
>|is well aware, they (members of the anthropological ``community'')
>|are actually brain dead zombies.
>
>> -- So, the answer is, yes, Ed knows some living archaeologists. No,
>>he can not name even one that supports his claims. He apparently
>>attributes this to professional bias, and considers them "brain dead
>>zombies" as a result.
>
>I state emphatically that every single anthropologist with whom I have
>deal over these past 15-16 years has been a fraud and a phony.
>
>They include Alan Mann at the University of Pennsylvania, Robert
>Eckhardt at Penn State University, some turkey from the Smithsonian
>Institution, Milford Wollford at . . .(I foget, he's lucky I even
>remember his brain-boggling name), David Pilbeam (a a real horse's
>ass), Stephen Jay Gould . . .and the bigwigs like Johanson, Leakey,
>Leakey's mother, etc.etc. etc., who did not even have the courtesy to
>respond to information and photographs I had sent them.
>
>Every single one of them either shot me down with nonsensical rhetoric
>or wanted nothing whatsoever to do with involvement in honest
>investigation.
>
>All they were doing, Andrew MacRae, was protecting the party line.
>
>> -- Thanks for clearing that up, Ed. I suppose the same attitude is
>>applied to every living geologist and paleontologist you know too?
>
>Oh, I could recite a litany of names of geologists and paleontologists
>with whom I have dealt and who, no different than the anthropologists,
>have refused to budge in their brainwashed thinking.
>
>I could sit for an HOUR writing their names -- but all I will say is
>that they almost all have been as concrete-skulled as Henry Barwood
>(one of the persistent howlers on talk.origins).
>
>Apparently, all they know is what they've read in books.
>And the books say it just can't be.
>
>> -- Does your bigotry have any bounds within the set of people who
>>disagree with your claims? Or is that its defining feature? In other
>>words, are there any people out there who disagree with your
>>interpretation, but whose opinions you respect?
>
>Yes, indeed!
>They were the late Wilton M. Krogman, author of ``The Human Skeleton
>in Forensic Medicine," and the late Raymond M. Dart, M.D., both of
>whom examined my specimens openmindly and stated -- to my face AND in
>writing -- that I definitely have discovered petrified bone in
>Pennsylvania's coal fields.
>
>Sadly, even their colleagues in the scientific community paid them no
>attention because the powerful force of vested interests -- and
>self-protection -- was so overwhelming.
>
>> -- Will you ever talk about scientific evidence again, Ed, or is this
>>pathetic rant the most you can muster these days? You just
>>ignore my postings anyway, so I do not really expect an answer (versus a
>>reply -- not all replies are answers), but I would like to be surprised.
>
>Andrew, my intriguing awesome array of petrified bones and petrified
>soft organs found between anthracite veins is indeed scientific
>evidence.
>
>The problem, sadly, is that you and your colleagues continued to deny
>it. You see only what you want to see -- and nothing more!
>
>The human skull embedded in the boulder most dramatically resembles
>the contour of a human skull -- and Ted Holden, right now, has in his
>possession another photograph which will prove visually that the
>colored material in the interior of the boulder IS a human skull,
>emphaticaly proving man not only existed during the time of the coal
>formations but was a great deal larger.
>
>> -- Can we talk about your thin section data, or is that irrelevant to your
>>claims now?
>
>For the record, Andrew, I'll gladly talk about my thin section data
>anytime.
>And every time I talk about I'll bring up your ridiculous assumption
>that the Haversian systems visible in non-petrified bone should be a
>mirror image of what is visible while examining petrified bone.
>
>Repeating: The petrification process causes the removal -- the
>disappearance -- of the structure surrounding the Haversian canals.
>But the canals, thank goodness, remain forever.
>
>They do not vanish because, being canals (or tunnels or holes or
>passageways), there was nothing there to be displaced during the
>petrification process.
>
>As for your home page, Andrew, there's no question that you're
>displaying a variety of pretty pictures of what the cell structure of
>non-petrified bone looks like.
>
>The paramount question, however, is NOT what the cell structure of
>non-petrified bone looks like. Instead, it is: What does the cell
>structure of PETRIFIED BONE look like?
>
>> -Andrew
>> macrae@geo.ucalgary.ca
>> home page: http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>I've said it before. I'll say it again (this time dedicated to Andrew
>MacRae:
>
>>>> MAN AS OLD AS COAL
>
>Physical evidence currently exists that proves man inhabited the earth
>while coal was being formed, shaking the very foundations of who we
>really are and how we really got here.
>
>An assortment of human bones and soft organs, transformed to rocklike
>hardness, has been discovered between anthracite veins in the
>Carboniferous-dated coal fields of eastern Pennsylvania over the past
>15 years.
>
>Since one of the golden rules of geology is that coal was
>formed during the Carboniferous a minimum of 280 million years ago it
>means that man had existed multi-millions of years before the initial
>emergence of the monkeylike, cat-size insectivore from whom the
>evolutionists claim we eventually evolved.
>
>However, the scientific establishment has wielded its powerful
>disdainful influence -- deceipt, dishonesty, collusion and conspiracy
>-- to prevent evidence of the most important discovery of the 20th
>century to be documented as fact and, therefore, keep us from learning
>a monumental truth about ourselves.
>
>I assure you I know what I'm talking about because I discovered these
>petrified human remains and have had a ringside seat to the scientific
>establishment's despicable antics of suppressing an aresenal of
>physical evidence.
>
>The degree of dishonesty to which I have been subjected is almost
>beyond belief. I had to have a postal inspector inspect files in a
>post office in California to catch one university in a mammoth lie
>regarding testing.
>
>Even worse, the nation's most prestigious scientific institution
>actually was caught tampering with physical evidence that had been
>submitted for testing.
>
>In the future, I hope to provide the full details of these and other
>horror stories to which I have been subjected.
>
>Only the late, great Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky, who also had been put
>through the wringer by the vested interests of corrupt scientists,
>could comprehend what I have experienced because he also
>had been victimized by their shameful, disgraceful shenanigans.
>
>It is rather ironic that my discoveries of of petrified carboniferous
>bones may be the evidence that Velikovsky was correct
>in his claim that mankind had been subjected to catastrophic
>atmospheric-connected disturbances in the far-distant past.
>
>This is because almost every specimen of petrified bone I have found
>between coal veins is cleanly broken, indicating they all had been
>subjected to an event almost beyond our comprehension.
>
>My first discovery was made quite by accident while searching for leaf
>fossils in shale (or slate) in June 1981.
>
>At the time I had no idea of its significance but, fortunately, kept
>returning to the same area to do more searching and discovered many
>more specimens.
>
>At the time I believed that anthropologists and paleontologists were
>upright, and sought their opinion of my discoveries in good faith. But
>in each and every case my specimens were called concretions --
>certainly not petrified bone -- even though opinions were based
>strictly on visual observation, without testing of any kind.
>
>When I eventually realized I was getting the runaround and not an
>honest, scientific appraisal, I began doing my homework and eventually
>concluded that these anthropologists and paleontologists were
>shrugging me off out of fear and to protect their vested interests.
>
> When physical evidence surfaces that disproves the evolutionists'
>theory about man's ancestry and origin, the scientific establishment's
>"party line" must be protected at all cost.
>
>The scientific community may have gotten away with such behavior in
>the past. Fortunately, the World Wide Web has changed all that.
>
>
>
>
Subject: Re: A Demand for the Kennewick Man's Remains
From: rejohnsn@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 13:32:42 -0600
On Wed, 20 Nov 1996, Stella Nemeth wrote:
> 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.
Which begs the question, "what is race"? It is a folk concept -- it
certainly has no scientific currency, especially in anthropology. The
indices by which the "race" of skeletons is determined are statistical
indices. They do not give a probability that a skeleton is one "race" or
another -- they give the frequency of occurrence of skeletal traits. It
so happens that some of these traits cluster with others in higher
frequencies among people from one geographic area than from another.
When a particular cluster of traits occurs at a rate of 69% among people
from Africa, it does not mean that a skeleton with such a cluster
has a 69% probability of being African. The same cluster of traits might
have a frequency of 42% among Europeans and 39% among Asians. Given the
different population sizes in those three areas, a 69% frequency within
one area population might be sufficient for a 52% probability that an unknown
person with those traits came from Africa. (N.B. the numbers are just
made up to make the point).
The "race" identifications resulting from these indices are best thought
of as morphological types. Statistical "norms," if you will. But there
is always variation around such a "norm". There probably are historical
(long-term genetic) reasons why there are "norms," "types," modes that
appear in populations from particular geographic areas. But it does not
follow that a person who matches a statistical type must be from the
associated geographic area. Why? Human variation. There is a lot of
it. If 69% of a population exhibits a particular cluster of traits, that
means 31% exhibit a different set of traits. And not all clusters of traits
are mutually exclusive. You might have some clusters that seem "African" and
others that seem "Asian" in the same skeleton. Assigning "race" is therefore
an educated guess, as much art as science.
But you never really assign "race". Race presumes a particular
historical circumstance (genetic relationship to a particular
population). The statistical indices don't address questions of history,
they address questions of associations between traits. You can have a
person who fits the statistical "type" for caucasians -- but if there is
no viable historical explanation for the presence of caucasians at that
place at that time, then you are better off saying that the person is
genetically related to Asians, but exhibits sufficient variation around
the Asian "type" that they appear "caucasian". But since "race" presumes
historical connection, and there is no evidence of that, then the concept
of "race" is clearly a misnomer -- "type" is far more appropriate.
There are lots of reasons why the identification of the skeleton as
"caucasian" is suspect, besides it being a sample of 1.
First, the indices by which we make such "racial" -- i.e. typological --
classifications are based on a big (I think about 50,000) collection of
skeletons at the Smithsonian Institution (I don't remember the name, but
it's well known among physical anthropologists). I think this
collection contains mostly social unfortunates (e.g. poor people) from
the 19th and 20th centuries. In general, a great deal of demographic
information about the individuals is known -- age, sex, health, race (in
the historical sense). But the majority of it is caucasian, which means
that we may not have a good grasp of the real range of variation in other
"races". Moreover, by the last century, there were quite a few
"biracial" people (which, incidentally, is why the concept of race as an
historical genetic association with a particular geographic population
does not work. I'll keep using it that way for simplicity, though).
So our indices MAY generally hold for modern populations -- but the skeleton
in question is 9,000 years old! There is NO reason for assuming that
human variation 9,000 years ago is exactly what is has been in the past
150 years! We are comparing a 9,000 year-old person with a modern
control sample. That introduces an unknown amount of error. To say that
this individual is caucasian, we would have to know the range of human
variation among 9,000 year old caucasians, as well as Asians and Africans
(to make sure that there wasn't so much overlap as to make two groups
indistinguishable).
Second, aren't there caucasians in central Asia? What about the
aboriginal people of northern Japan (the Ainu) --
weren't they "caucasian" in appearance? "Race" (in the sense of
genetic relationship) is not interchangeable with culture. Maybe there
was a small population of "caucasians" that migrated over the Bering into
North America. But if so, there culture was likely far more similar to
Native Americans than to Europeans (both 9,000 years ago and today).
NAGPRA is not based on "racial" affiliation, but on cultural
affiliation. Just because someone may have looked like you doesn't mean
they would have identified with you rather than with someone who looked
different. Even if the claimant belongs to the same "race" he does NOT
have a better claim. "Race" and ethnicity are different.
Since there is no evidence of long-distance colonization 9,000 years ago,
we have to assume that, whatever "racial" affiliation the person may have
had, there cultural affiliation was probably more like that of the people
around them. And certainly their descendants' culture would have become
part of that great variety of Native American culture. Perhaps this
skeleton was a member of the "caucasian race". That doesn't give
Euro-Americans a claim on it, because probably this person WAS a Native
American. "Native American" does not refer to a "race," it refers to the
population that for historical reasons was the first human population to
settle in North America. Apparently this person was among them.
The rest of us Euro-Americans came some 8,500 years later. We are NOT
Native Americans (leaving aside those many of us who have Native American
great-grandparents -- that was substantially after 9,000 years ago).
Of course, a Euro-American claim on the skeleton is just the sort of
proprietary politicking about ownership of the past that NAGPRA emerged
as a response to. Now we're beginning round two. Better we should start
being cooperative than be stubborn. Why do you think the situation is
what it is today? Because we Euro-Americans assumed that we know best,
and that Science is good for everyone and everyone had better admit to that.
Know what? Uh-uh. Euro-American culture is not the apex of human
cultural achievement. That sort of arrogance just pisses off
non-Euro-Americans, and there are a lot more of them than there are of
us. This kind of claim is the NAGPRA version of crying "reverse
discrimination" with respect to affirmative action. Losing a position of
privilege and being forced to compete is not discrimination.
Cheers,
Rebecca Lynn Johnson
Ph.D. stud., Dept. of Anthropology, U Iowa
Subject: Re: Etruscans [was: Re: The Coming of the Greeks]
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 21 Nov 1996 20:18:42 GMT
In article <57206h$klg@frysja.sn.no>, kalie@sn.no says...
>
>whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>
>>(reference my discussions with Joe on the sites along
>>the Indus and Ganges, painted greyware, the Dong Son,
>>etc; neither Kraha or Porzig has adequately explained
>>the work of Rao at Lothal)
>
>Neither has any study of Palestrina's Masses ever adequately
>explained - at least not to my knowledge - the mating habits of
>the polar bear. So the sentence quoted above can only be
>explained by one of two possible hypotheses:
>
>a) Either you are completely out of your mind,
>
>b) or you have absolutely no idea of what Krahe and Porzig are
>writing about.
The questions are simply "Did Sanskrit originate in India"?
or "Was it an import? If you don't think the archaeological
work of Rao at Lothal is germane to the discussion please
tell us why it is not. I think it is because it clearly
demonstrates a mechanism whereby other exports from India
were reaching IE speaking regions as early as the 3rd millenium BC.
>
>Although it may be said that you present rather compelling
>evidence in favor of hypothesis a, I will still tentatively opt
>for hypothesis b.
Thank you, that is very kind of you.
>
>>I have no political agenda, I don't see the archaeology as
>>anywhere close to matching the outdated linguistic theories of
>>an incursion into India by Aryans,
>
>OK - I realize that you have not read your basics, so I will give
>you a few hints of what to find in these two books. Neither of
>them present theories. Neither of them is outdated. Krahe present
>the basic comparative grammar of IE languages.
Excuse me, but since this is not theoretical, or so you inform us,
and must therefore be based not on some theoretical reconstruction
of IE but on the evidence of some IE text, and since I have skipped
my basics and apparently missed the reference to said IE text, would
you be kind enough to cite it for me?
You will pardon me if I continue to consider the evidence of the
archaeological artifacts. Stamp seals from Mesopotamia in India
and stamp seals from India in Mesopotamia weigh heavily against
such speculative reconstructions.
> Porzig presents the distribution patterns, carefully recording the
>similarities and differences between IE languages.
Ok, lets stipulate there are similarities and differences. If the
evidence for this comes at least initially from written records,
often from rather late periods, how does this help show us what
the diffusion pattern was in the 3rd millenium BC unless we at
least give some consideration to correlating the archaeological
record with the linguistics?
>Starting from these basic materials, any intelligent reader will
>be able to form his/her own ideas.
Cite the artifactual evidence on which the theory is based,...
I'm sorry, you did say it was not a theory, cite the record
where somebody says "I brought the Sanskrit language to India"
>
>>Some knowledge is a dangerous thing....
>
>Seeing that these words come from you, I don't see how anyone
>could contest them.
Thank you, now its time to put up your cites in rebuttal.
>
>
>______________________________________________________________
>
>Kåre Albert Lie
steve
Subject: Re: New Study Supports Man Hunting Mammoth to Extinction
From: gerl@Theorie.Physik.UNI-Goettingen.DE (Franz Gerl)
Date: 21 Nov 1996 20:13:07 GMT
jimamy@primenet.com wrote:
: gerl@Theorie.Physik.UNI-Goettingen.DE (Franz Gerl) wrote:
:
: >Above you write that bison latifrons morphed into bison bison,
: >others hold that it was outcompeted by bison bison. So the
: >genus lives on. It is hard to imagine that you are not able
: >to make a difference between morphing/replacement to/by a
: >close relative filling the same ecological niche
: >and the dissapearance of whole families,
: >whose ecological niches were never again filled.
:
:
: Thats like saying the dinosaours left a niche that was never again filled.
: This is not true. Nature abhors a vacant niche and you will be hard
: pressed to find an empty one.
Yes, but it took nature a few million years to refill the niches
of large plant eaters. The pleistocene extinctions happened 10000
years BP and there is no reason to assume that things are in
equilibrium now.
: Further, those who argue that the species changed over time will insert
: several intermediate forms between latifrons and bison bison. These
: intermediate forms were hunted by humans (crassicornis,priscus, antiquus,
: etc.). There is much debate on the relationship between these forms and
: whether they were transitional or substitutional. However, one thing
: remains the same: there was not a replacement in a niche by a close
: reletive. Latifrons did not vacate a niche to be "replaced" by bison
: bison. The latifrons niche, not unlike the giant ornyx, existed in a
: more forested and less savanah type habitat, based upon pollen and tooth
: studies.
:
So what. Conditions changed somewhat and the representative
of the genus changed somewhat. This is quite different from
families of animals disappearing which thrived for millions of
years.
: >: >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?
: >:
: >
: >I hope you are not playing word games with me. With environmental
: >stress I meant your revered vegetational and climatological
: >changes. Starving or freezing or sweeting animals reproduce
: >slowly, hunted animals with plenty of food maximize their
: >productivity.
:
: I'm not playing word games. The original post seemed to indicate that
: mammoth response to heavy hunting was giving birth at a younger age
: or greater rate? Am I right on this or did I miss something? Anyway, I
: agree with your statement. It was my "revered" vegitational and
: climatological changes that did exactly as you said. The fauna reproduced
: slowly and died out. If the mega fauna which were subject to your revered
: hunting still had pleanty of food (i.e. no climatological changes) then
: why didn't they just increase productivity and survive into today?
Because people can kill a lot faster than animals can reproduce.
:Why
: are there no browsers on the high plains? Why are there no grazers in the
: desert south west? Why are there no herds of anything migrating through
: boreal forest and muskeg?
Here you go again with your argument, that because the habitat
is not exactly at the same location it was before animals had
no choice but to go extinct. Don't you see how stupid that makes
you look?
:
: >This is obviously not true, since horses thrived after their
: >reintroduction by the Spaniards, yet they disappeared with
: >the other megafauna. It is also hard to imagine, that all
: >the niches filled by the camelids, megatherium, glyptodon,
: >the mammoths and mastodonts etc. suddenly disappear in both
: >Americas in a climate swing that is not very different from
: >many others experienced before.
:
: I disagree. The horse did not fill or refill a niche. It displaced
: animals that were already in that niche (bison, prong horn, elk, plains
: big horn etc.).
Please show evidence, that these animals disappeared completely after
the mustangs moved in. In Africa zebras are doing nicely among
the other megafauna.
: By the way, do we have any evidence of man ever hunting
: the horse?
In Eurasia yes. There is no reason to assume people changed behaviour
just because they moved into America.
: I think they died out before the late pliestocene extinctions.
: It is not hard to imagine that niches of the camelids, megaletherium,
: glyptodon, the mammoths and mastodonts disapeared. Now you are getting
: the point. It is the niches that DID disapear. Due to habit changes, new
: and totally different habitats appeared to be filled by smaller, more
: prolific breeders. This is not in question. Even the die hard
: man-extinction theorist must admit that there was a savanah on the high
: plains, there was a steppe in Alaska, there was a forest-savanah in the
: Great Basin but these changed to the current Holocene situtation short
: before the end of the pleistocene. The direct vegitative evidence for
: this is overwhelming.
:
Your argument does not get any better by endlessly repeating it.
There is no evidence whatsoever that the niches filled by
large herbivores disappeared. They changed somewhat (and the
picture is far less clear than you state it), and for 60 million
years the large mammals adapted to these changes. You claim, that
all of a sudden their niches disappeared completely, whereas
if you move in exactly the same genera there is no problem
whatsoever. You seem to have a very vivid imagination.
Franz
Subject: Re: Etruscans [was: Re: The Coming of the Greeks]
From: Saida
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 14:26:30 -0600
Alan M. Dunsmuir wrote:
>
> In article <32938B0D.2B82@PioneerPlanet.infi.net>, Saida
> writes
> >Dinsmuir doesn't know any German or French and couldn't
> >point the way to a duck flying south for the winter.
>
> Actually, it's "Dunsmuir", and at the last count I could just about cope - I don't claim any degree of fluency - in seven (European)
languages, > French and German being by far my two strongest after
English.
Is it? I don't care if your name is Dinty Moore and you came sold in a
can--you are still a jerk.
>
> >As for myself, I could play the native or the tourist or, in a pinch,
> >both at once! How about you, Sucker? Sie schreiben jedes Mal deutsch > >am Signatur. Was heist das? Wer soll das denn
lesen--versteckte > >Nazis? Schrieb Englisch, Spitzbube--Sie sind in
Amerika! Sie kennen > >mich nicht oder meine Erziehung und Ausbildung.
Vorsichtig, oder > >kriegen Sie bald 'was um die Ohren. Mon vieux, je
crois que vous avez > >faite une erreur ici. Dinsmuir est un sal chien
et vous etes la salete > >sous ses pattes!
>
> My Goodness! That thin veneer of civilisation really IS beginning to
> peel back now, isn't it?
> --
> Alan M. Dunsmuir
No, sir, no thin veneer here. When it comes to civilization I am
parquet, cloisonne and platinum-plate with a heart like a Credit Suisse
ingot. You, by stark contrast, are tinsel, plywood, made in Taiwan
and about as genuine as Monopoly money. Good manners deserve courtesy,
vraiment, but I have yet to see any evidence of gentility in connection
with you, Laddie. You are one mean-spirited piece of work, Dunsmuir.
So--is it better when I spell your name right?
>
> "Time flies like an arrow -
> Fruit flies like a banana" --- Groucho Marx (as used by Noam Chomsky)
Subject: Re: New Study Supports Man Hunting Mammoth to Extinction
From: gerl@Theorie.Physik.UNI-Goettingen.DE (Franz Gerl)
Date: 21 Nov 1996 20:56:10 GMT
jimamy@primenet.com wrote:
: gerl@Theorie.Physik.UNI-Goettingen.DE (Franz Gerl) wrote:
[...] (glad, we can agree on something
: >It seems obvious to me, that where elephants have been culled to
: >much below the carrying capacity of the area and where they
: >don't eat each other's food environmental stress is not
: >the dominating factor. Also your suggestion is not very
: >scientific, as one is not able to prove a negative, i.e. that
: >there is no stress.
:
: The problem is that I have never heard of elephants that have been culled
: to below the carrying capacity of their habitat.
You never heard of elephants being hunted for ivory in the African
national parks? Which planet are you living on?
: Rather, these elephants
: are most often killed because they are raiding farms and leaving Parks
: that they have denuded. Environmental stress is prevalent in Africa.
: Thus, we need a baseline herd of elephants that is living in a "natural,"
: complete habitat. We need to understand what their reproductive rate is
: under normal circumstances. This is hard to do in this day and age.
: Once that is done, we need to inject hunting pressure while leaving the
: habitat variable the same. Once this baseline eveidence is developed, we
: can compare it to the tusks of mammoths from all over the place. However,
: from the original post, and from subsequent posts refereing to less than a
: dozen elephant samples, I question the result that has been proposed.
:
There really is no need to undertake such a bloody experiment,
since in large areas, even national parks elephants have been
reduce by poachers. Also it is a lot easier and fully sufficient,
to just measure the nutritional status of the elephant herds.
The fattest ones should give you your baseline. Or do you
prefer to insist on undoable experiments, so you can stay
with your faith forever?
: >I would like to see evidence that these habitat changes (other than
: >changes in latitude) actually preceeded the extinctions. Given the
: >poor time resolution of these events, I would like to see how the
: >case has been made, that the growth of boreal forests and the
: >loss of species diversity in vegetation preceeded the extinction
: >of the mammoth. That the composition of grasses changed, and
: >that trees started to grow where they didn't, is a plausible
: >consequence of the disappearance of a main grazer to me.
:
: The so called "end of the pliestocene" and the begining of the holocene
: (another subject of debate) is, itself, often cited as the very benchmark
: you seek. Another, and very simple example is the (I think) undisputed
: fact that we had a land bridge between the east and west due to the
: tremendous amount of water locked up in the poles and in ice sheets. This
: is what allowed man to enter America in the first place. Beringia is gone
: now. This fact alone speaks to the tremendous climatological changes.
: When this water was locked, up we had very dry steppes in Alaska and the
: pollen cores from lakes and vegitation taken from mummy and skeletal and
: fossil teeth bear this out. Similar evidence exists for the plains and
: the Great Basin. If the loss of the "main grazer" (mammoths?) caused
: trees to move in then those trees should have moved into the great plains.
Ever heard of trees needing certain amounts of rainfall?
: Further, it is hard to imagine mammoths plodding around in the muskeg and
: bogs of Alaska
No reason to since there is lots of other space.
: or wandering around the deserts of Arizona and Utah
: etc.
Have you seen the National Geographic show on the elephants in
Namibia. I think the area they live in is drier than large
parts of Utah and Arizona.
:
: >Now this is getting really weird. Why should mammoths have to live
: >in Arizona, when there is land enough for them to continue their
: >habits? Of course the animals have to change their range
: >according to their habitat. But since the grassland and the forrests
: >did not disappear altogether, there is no reasons why these
: >animals should have.
:
: My point, is that mammoths used to live in Arizona and many other parts of
: the world where I doubt they could survive today because the food they ate
: is no longer available. Some areas may remain that could support a
: mammoth. For example, bison have been reintroduced successfully to
: Alaska. However, the bison are limited to south facing wind blown slopes
: in a few isolated areas and some are raiding farms for food or recieve
: supplemental feeding. They are not increasing or spreading although they
: are not hunted in a way that would prevent this in non-private areas. The
: point here, as with the mammoth, is that, while areas remain, they are
: spread apart and isolated and incapable of supporting a gene pool for a
: viable population of mammoths. Extinctions occure this way.
:
That bisons don't do that well in Alaska is not very surprising.
It takes time to get used to changed condtions. And given the
large variety of environments that elephants (or horses (equus))
live in today there is no reason to assume the habitat of
the mammoths (or horses) would be fractured now.
: >But we could make experiments, we could introduce close relatives
: >of species whose niche was not filled after the extinctions, and
: >see how they do. We could introduce horses to America, wait that
: >happened, and they thrived. Any idea why the equids disappeared,
: >if they can make a living now? Did anybody ever try how camels
: >would do in the Southwest? I don't see a problem, why did
: >camelops disappear then? Should we put Indian elephants in the
: >jungles, and train them on the food. Any idea why mastodons became extinct?
:
: (See bison example above) As explained in the other posts you are
: confusing the concept of niche. Horses DISPLACED, they did not fill a
: niche.
Evidence that they can not get along with the animals there please.
Even if they can displace these animals (without having to adapt)
why were they themselves displaced by them?
Franz
Subject: Sanskrit: was: Re: Etruscans [was: Re: The Coming of the Greeks]
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 22 Nov 1996 00:51:27 GMT
In article <572o70$9ku@frysja.sn.no>, kalie@sn.no says...
>
>whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>
>>>OK - I realize that you have not read your basics, so I will give
>>>you a few hints of what to find in these two books. Neither of
>>>them present theories. Neither of them is outdated. Krahe present
>>>the basic comparative grammar of IE languages.
>
>>Excuse me, but since this is not theoretical, or so you inform us,
>>and must therefore be based not on some theoretical reconstruction
>>of IE but on the evidence of some IE text, and since I have skipped
>>my basics and apparently missed the reference to said IE text, would
>>you be kind enough to cite it for me?
>
>There is no IE text involved here, and I never said so.
Do you have some other form of proof to offer which will explain
why the theory you favor should be granted some more sacrosanct
status?
> In order to discuss the dispersal of IE languages, you first of
>all need a sound basis of knowledge about the said languages.
Not necessarily. The thing about it, is that languages are spoken
by people. That makes a sound knowledge of the movements of people
in the period under discussion equally valuable to a good theory
as to the rules which govern their linguistics and that is where
archaeology gets to put its two cents worth in.
>If not, you will continually build your theoretical edifices
in thin air.
We both have theories which we are working with. Yours is
based on a number of speculations about language and how
it should be reconstructed. Mine is based on the artifacts
people left behind them.
To show that one people influenced another, linguistically or
otherwise, you first need to find a mechanism which allows
them to come in contact with one another. The only acceptable
evidence of that mechanism is archaeological, not linguistic.
>You must understand the varying forms of the words in related
>languages, see how vowels and consonants change according to
>deducable sound laws, see how grammatical patterns correspond,
>etc. Krahe - or some other basic comparative grammar of IE - will
>give you the basic facts from the known IE languages. These are
>the bare facts.
Thats all very nice, but first do step one. Show who contacted
whom, where and when, and provide some archaeological evidence
to prove the contact existed.
> You will also be given reconstructed PIE forms,
>which of course should be called theoretical
Thank you, now we will begin to make some progress.
>- but once you know the existing forms and understand the laws
>of sound changes, the theory becomes transparent to you, and you
>can easily evaluate it for yourself.
Religions make the same argument, which is essentially,
"I believe in this theory, you must also."
I am not a believer
>
>I repeat: this is the basics that you have to know for yourself
>if you wish to have any reasoned opinion on these questions. From
>everything you write, it seems very obvious to me that you have
>not bothered to absorb these basics. Correct me and accept my
>apologies if I am mistaken here.
Here is how I size this discussion up. You are a specialist
in your field of expertise. You are someone who has learned
more and more about less and less until you now know almost
everything about linguistics.
I am a generalist. A generalist is someone who learns
less and less about more and more until eventually
they know nothing about everything.
Lets stipulate that you know everything and I know nothing.
I thus stand to learn a lot from you, and you will get to teach.
This is a win - win situation for both of us.
In order to get the dialectic moving here I propose that we
stop lecturing each other about what we respectively need to
know and just engage in asking and answering questions.
Let's start with what your evidence is for who was in contact
with whom; when and where did this contact occur?
We are agreed, I think, that archaeology provides the best answer here.
>>You will pardon me if I continue to consider the evidence of the
>>archaeological artifacts. Stamp seals from Mesopotamia in India
>>and stamp seals from India in Mesopotamia weigh heavily against
>>such speculative reconstructions.
>
>It is quite proper to consider the archaeologigal evidence, if
>you know your archaeology (let others comment upon this). It is
>also quite proper to consider linguistic evidence, if you know
>your linguistics.
Shall we begin with Dr Rao?
> It is, however, a most difficult task - and a
>task fraught with pitfalls and dangers - to assign language to
>archaelogical artifacts. Those stamp seals, for instance - do
>they carry inscriptions in Sanskrit? Do they give any evidence of
>being carried by Sanskrit speaking persons?
No. They do not. They simply demonstrate a mechanism whereby
the people of India were in contact with people who became
IE speakers, the people of Syrio-Anatolia. This is step one.
To counter it show a similar mechanism whereby the people of India
were in contact with IE speakers at some other time and place.
>
>You have yourself again and again tried to prove your points by
>linguistic arguments. Now that I put a little pressure on your
>linguistics, please do not try to flee into archaeology.
Most of my linguistic arguments are based on the foundation
of establishing a mechanism which allows there to be contact
between peoples.
>
>>> Porzig presents the distribution patterns, carefully recording the
>>>similarities and differences between IE languages.
>
>>Ok, lets stipulate there are similarities and differences. If the
>>evidence for this comes at least initially from written records,
>>often from rather late periods, how does this help show us what
>>the diffusion pattern was in the 3rd millenium BC unless we at
>>least give some consideration to correlating the archaeological
>>record with the linguistics?
>
>No - we do not stipulate similarities and differences. We should
>rather study them as they are, and dive into all those tedious
>little details that you try to avoid. Once you understand the
>basic grammar, study Porzig for the geographical and historical
>patterns of distribution.
Ok, whatever the similarities and differences, may be, do you agree
they are meaningless unless you can demonstrate there was some contact?
What relevance do historical patterns of distribution have if
you are discussing a prehistoric epoch and you have no historical
proof of contact? You might answer they help establish what the
trade routes were. In India the trade routes were the Indus
and the Ganges and their tributaries.
They dominate trade in India from c 7,000 BC up to about 300 BC,
with a shift in importance from the Indus to the Ganges occuring
about 1000 BC.
If you have another route into India in the 3rd millenium BC
which to want to discuss I am very eager to hear about it.
Then we can go on to discuss your theory of linguistics.
>
>>I'm sorry, you did say it was not a theory, cite the record
>>where somebody says "I brought the Sanskrit language to India"
>
>An analysis of the geographical distribution of the entire family
>of IE languages will show you how wildly improbable an Indian
>origin for the IE language family is.
But nevertheless we are agreed it is a theory, are we not?
>
>>Thank you, now its time to put up your cites in rebuttal.
>
>Disconnected cites will be meaningless if you do not understand
>the basics. I have showed you a few places where you can find
>this basic knowledge. Loren Petrich and others have given lots of
>other referances. Now it is up to you to master the nuts and
>bolts before you go further with airy speculations.
Let's take it one step at a time. First demonstrate there
was contact. Show me who was in contact with whom, when and where.
>
>If not, there is a real possibility that Ibsens ironical sentence
>from Peer Gynt will continue to be a most apt description of your
>writings:
>
>"Hvor Udgangspunktet er galest, blir tidt Resultatet
>originalest."
Chu'wng taa she' doy.^Awng she'chiw
tr'aaik-nyi^am `ve ny~ung g'oy na`ay.
>
>
>______________________________________________________________
>
>Kåre Albert Lie
steve
Subject: Re: Etruscans [was: Re: The Coming of the Greeks]
From: Holoholona <" bmoore"@qualcomm.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 15:33:20 -0800
Saida wrote:
>
> Holoholona 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.
> > In your rush to condescend and insult Alan, it is you who have failed to comprehend > _his_ meaning
>
> Are you kidding? Hus meaning usually is to flame someone.
>
> . 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.
>
> 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?
Nothing that winning the lottery wouldn't cure. ; )
But seriously, I _know_ the KJV isn't a literal translation. We all do. But a literal
translation would be unreadable. Besides, that's not really the gist of what you said:
> > > > 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.
The gist of what you said is that the KJV is not simple prose, but rather, fancy,
stilted language. I'm saying that it _is_ simple prose, and not fancy at all.
>
> 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).
>
> Oh, really? You mean the Elizabethans didn't really talk that way?
> Then how do you know the Jacobeans did?
As Daniel suggested, there is a difference between writing and speaking styles.
Definitely a difference between the styles of Shakespeare and the KJV translators.
{snip}
> > Newer English translations of
> > the Bible, which use modern prose, read easily.
>
> Again, so what? What does it have to do with my original point about
> the difference between Jacobean English and Hebrew?
Newer English translations are simple prose to modern readers, just as the KJV was
simple prose to the readers of 1600s. Your point was that the Hebrew version was simple
prose and the English version was not.
> > 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.
>
> 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. I can't understand what you're making such a fuss about.
I like Dan's point about "literal" and "faithful" translations.
{snip}
> Something tells me you are not very familiar with this newsgroup or the
> people in it. Aloha!
Depends on which newsgroup we're talking about. I've read sci.lang for years. No
problems there. My experience with sci.archaeology leads me to believe that I can have
more informative and far more pleasant conversations elsewhere.
Thanks for responding,
maluhia,
Holoholona
Subject: Re: The Yo-Yo "convention." or He loves us, he loves us not.
From: Marc Line
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 19:28:07 +0000
Hello Saida
I wrote:
>> Were those of us who take great exception to sharing the group with the
>> kind of disgusting life-form which is capable of producing the material
>> seen here in recent days, along with that which can be seen by anyone
>> interested enough to refrain from comment until such time as they are in
>> possession of all pertinent data, (reference Dejanews), we should,
>> perhaps, be justifiably likened to those who chose to turn a blind eye
>> to events in Germany some 50 or so years ago.
To which you replied:
>Marc, I wasn't going to say anymore until I read your line about
>Germany. With all due respect, I don't think it's fair to make a
>comparison between the silliness going on in this newsgroup right now
>and what happened in Germany a generation ago. Richard Schiller is not
>Hitler.
You are entitled to your opinion and I respect that. I suppose it
rather depends upon whether one considers these things as matters of
degree or of principle. You would seem to be viewing it from the former
perspective whilst I am more inclined to view it from the latter. I
suspect, therefore, that we shall have to agree to differ on this one.
I did not make the comparison of Schiller with Hitler. Herr Hitler did
not _personally_ commit all of the atrocities which were perpetrated in
the name of the reich. Ordinary people, swept along on the popular
wave, committed unspeakably barbaric acts, largely because there were no
dissenting voices able to speak out against the doctrinaire refuse of
the propaganda machine. Why not? Because all of the social groupings
which would have been inclined and able so to do, were systematically
removed from the equation whilst others stood and watched, basking in
the, "I'm all right Jack", "It couldn't happen here/to US" mentality.
That it DID happen to them and that they were NOT alright Jack, is the
lesson of history.
They came for ..... and I did not speak up for them.
They came for ..... and I did not speak up for them.
...
They came for me, and there was no-one left to speak up!
I'm sure you see my point.
>He is merely a crackpot who is not likely to influence anyone.
Whilst I should agree that he is not likely to influence any mature,
reasoning person, Usenet is not a medium frequented solely by mature,
reasoning people. The fact that Schiller is here in the first place
proves that. Some of the audience may be influenced, particularly if
the garbage is allowed to remain unchallenged. "Silence gives consent"
is a phrase I learned many years ago. It is as true today as it was
when it was first coined.
History is replete with examples of the genre. The "Rev." Moon for
example, Oswald Moseley(sp), or perhaps one David Koresh. Blind eyes
are so often turned with unhappy results.
>I haven't seen anybody write in anything resembling a post that says
>"Schiller for President or Dictator" .
I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that he is being made
to look the fool that he is. That might not have been immediately
obvious to everyone in the beginning. It is patently obvious now,
however. In that, I feel that all those who have spoken out against his
malicious ravings, have performed and are performing a service to the
group as a whole which, whilst it may have been a temporary annoyance,
will hopefully pay dividends in future months. The message is clear and
I too, do not see anyone speaking up for Schiller.
>To keep replying to him is
>hardly the tactic to make him go away, as he obviously likes the
>negative attention he is receiving.
I agree partly with that. However, making him go away, is not, for me,
the primary consideration here, as I have already indicated. It would
be very pleasing were he to cease his ranting, though I strongly
suspect, given his mentality, that he would consider lack of opposition
a vindication which would spur him on to even greater abuse than that
which he has perpetrated hitherto. I should urge you, once again, to
refer to dejanews. There are several posts there which I'm sure you
would find particularly obnoxious.
>Be that as it may, the whole thing
>is getting to be too much and now has no relevancy to sci.archaeology,
>if ever it did.
I agree. So many things here have no relevance, to some. I am one of
the worst offenders, to some. I seem to remember recently posting in
support of the contention that linguistics has a place in archaeological
discussion. Not everyone agreed.
>In fact, what's being posted in this group suddenly has
>become too much for anybody's kill-file to deal with.
Well if you kill-file everyone who has been offended by Schiller and
said so, how many posts would there be to read of a day?
>Half of the posts
>now have absolutely nothing to do with archaeology, linguistics,
>anthropology or any known science.
Except maybe psychology. From that angle it is very interesting though
I grant that it is little to do with archaeology per se.
>It's all a mess of cross-posting.
Yes, and where does *that* finger point?
>Right now, I am going to mark the whole sci.arch newsgroup as "read"
>(even though I didn't) and hope for a better tomorrow.
May your hopes be realised.
>You know how to get rid of Richard. Put him in your kill-file and ,
>when he gets tired of talking to himself, he'll wander off.
Would that it were so easy.
Thanks for your comments Saida. I shall continue to consider what you
have said. I fear, however, that on this one, we shall have to agree to
differ and leave it at that. That said, I am finished with him as of
today. The point is made.
Yours, em hotep!
Marc
XX
Subject: Re: Etruscans [was: Re: The Coming of the Greeks]
From: kalie@sn.no (Kaare Albert Lie)
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 23:21:38 GMT
whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>>OK - I realize that you have not read your basics, so I will give
>>you a few hints of what to find in these two books. Neither of
>>them present theories. Neither of them is outdated. Krahe present
>>the basic comparative grammar of IE languages.
>Excuse me, but since this is not theoretical, or so you inform us,
>and must therefore be based not on some theoretical reconstruction
>of IE but on the evidence of some IE text, and since I have skipped
>my basics and apparently missed the reference to said IE text, would
>you be kind enough to cite it for me?
There is no IE text involved here, and I never said so. In order
to discuss the dispersal of IE languages, you first of all need a
sound basis of knowledge about the said languages. If not, you
will continually build your theoretical edifices in thin air. You
must understand the varying forms of the words in related
languages, see how vowels and consonants change according to
deducable sound laws, see how grammatical patterns correspond,
etc. Krahe - or some other basic comparative grammar of IE - will
give you the basic facts from the known IE languages. These are
the bare facts. You will also be given reconstructed PIE forms,
which of course should be called theoretical - but once you know
the existing forms and understand the laws of sound changes, the
theory becomes transparent to you, and you can easily evaluate it
for yourself.
I repeat: this is the basics that you have to know for yourself
if you wish to have any reasoned opinion on these questions. From
everything you write, it seems very obvious to me that you have
not bothered to absorb these basics. Correct me and accept my
apologies if I am mistaken here.
>You will pardon me if I continue to consider the evidence of the
>archaeological artifacts. Stamp seals from Mesopotamia in India
>and stamp seals from India in Mesopotamia weigh heavily against
>such speculative reconstructions.
It is quite proper to consider the archaeologigal evidence, if
you know your archaeology (let others comment upon this). It is
also quite proper to consider linguistic evidence, if you know
your linguistics. It is, however, a most difficult task - and a
task fraught with pitfalls and dangers - to assign language to
archaelogical artifacts. Those stamp seals, for instance - do
they carry inscriptions in Sanskrit? Do they give any evidence of
being carried by Sanskrit speaking persons?
You have yourself again and again tried to prove your points by
linguistic arguments. Now that I put a little pressure on your
linguistics, please do not try to flee into archaeology.
>> Porzig presents the distribution patterns, carefully recording the
>>similarities and differences between IE languages.
>Ok, lets stipulate there are similarities and differences. If the
>evidence for this comes at least initially from written records,
>often from rather late periods, how does this help show us what
>the diffusion pattern was in the 3rd millenium BC unless we at
>least give some consideration to correlating the archaeological
>record with the linguistics?
No - we do not stipulate similarities and differences. We should
rather study them as they are, and dive into all those tedious
little details that you try to avoid. Once you understand the
basic grammar, study Porzig for the geographical and historical
patterns of distribution.
>I'm sorry, you did say it was not a theory, cite the record
>where somebody says "I brought the Sanskrit language to India"
An analysis of the geographical distribution of the entire family
of IE languages will show you how wildly improbable an Indian
origin for the IE language family is.
>Thank you, now its time to put up your cites in rebuttal.
Disconnected cites will be meaningless if you do not understand
the basics. I have showed you a few places where you can find
this basic knowledge. Loren Petrich and others have given lots of
other referances. Now it is up to you to master the nuts and
bolts before you go further with airy speculations.
If not, there is a real possibility that Ibsens ironical sentence
from Peer Gynt will continue to be a most apt description of your
writings:
"Hvor Udgangspunktet er galest, blir tidt Resultatet
originalest."
______________________________________________________________
Kåre Albert Lie
kalie@sn.no
Subject: Re: Why Satan is released
From: vondraco@telerama.lm.com (VonDraco)
Date: 21 Nov 1996 20:48:14 -0500
>> oh what a sad day, for death and distruction do walk the same path... to
>> think that if everyone had everything they desired and could do whatever
>> they wanted
Ah, yes, a beautiful picture is it not? Well, we're halfway there: we can
already do whatever we want to, in order to achieve our Desires. However,
I think that if we actually *got* everything we desired, we would then
stagnate. There is no point to existence if there's nothing to hope
for, nothing to dream about, nothing to strive toward.
If I thought that there was any reality to the Christian mythology about
heaven and hell, I'd probably be tempted to say that hell would be better
off, since they could always hope that maybe YHVH would grant them some
mercy. What would the people in heaven do? Sit around all day and...do
what? Learn to play the harp really well?
>> the world would be in a much worse situation for most
>> people, rape, and murder would go through the roof
You really have a low opinion of humanity, don't you? Or perhaps you
just have a low opinion of yourself, so you just make yourself feel
better by believing that we're all despicable perverts like you.
>> stopped to look at the Bible then you would know that God doesn't limit
>> you as to what you can do or even how to do it. He tells you to do it
>> with LOVE,
Hmm. So YHVH doesn't care if I mow down a playground full of pre-schoolers
as long as I do it with love? I mean, if I believed that children went
to heaven automatically, I'd be protecting them from ever growing up and
possibly making the wrong choices and ending up in hell. Since I want
all the kids to go to heaven, I'll kill them now and make certain.
>> if you think the world would be a better place with the
>> devil running around take a look and see what he has done because he is
>> already there helping you type hoping someone else will loose what
>> little bit of hope they have left of a moral world.
And you think that YHVH would do a better job? Hell, that bozo couldn't
even figure out that if you don't want people to eat the fruit from a
certain tree, then you DON'T plant it in the middle of their freakin'
garden! They should take away his permit after the mess he made here.
> I think such people have become perverted in some way and
> we should try to educate them.
Feel free; however, I'd rather not spend my time and money trying to
rehabilitate everyone that's dangerous. I'll try with a new batch,
the kids, and try to teach them not to make those mistakes. Some
adults are beyond reasonable hope, and should be eliminated.
> However, I also believe that it is the fault
> of education and your so-called moral world that
> leads these people to become involved in such
> acts.
Not education per se, just the *type* of education that we have
prevalent in the modern world. The kind that gets kids to believe
in spooks like God, morality, justice, etc.
> This, I fear is the consequence of living in a moral
> world where people, as I stated, act on reason
> (which is intellectual arrogance) and dogmas
> introduced externally by society and in particular
> Christian teaching, rather than their desire which
> is internal and totally natural.
Well, yes, I *am* an arrogant bastard, both intellectually and
otherwise. You seem to be equating "natural" with "better," an
equivocation that I don't necessarily agree with. The use of
reason has brought us to a world where we don't have to spend
95% of our time trying to find our next meal while avoiding becoming
someone else's next meal. I'd rather not go back, thank you.
I disagree that Christianity teaches people to act on their
*reason*. I think that it encourages them to act on their fears,
their insecurities and their weaknesses. If anything, reason
destroys the very foundations of Christianity -- this despite
the valiant efforts of such apologists as Aquinas, Lewis and
McDowell. Christianity is a form of childish wishful thinking,
not mature logical reasoning.
> because the moment you act upon reason,
> you are being unnatural to yourself and that is as
> bad as being a murderer or a rapist.
Why? I take great pride in my "unnatural" intelligence and see
no reason (sic) not to use that to my advantage. In other words,
I'm agreeing that the human intellignece is unnatural, but
disagreeing that because of that we should not use it.
> I obviously am against people who are
> violent or seek to hurt others - I wouldn't be
> human if I wasn't,
Again, I ask why? I am not "de facto" against people who are
violent or seek to hurt others, and yet I am quite human. If
sufficiently provoked, I myself can be violent and seek to
hurt others. Why is that bad?
Subject: BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY CONT'D
From: sudsm@aol.com
Date: 22 Nov 1996 03:18:22 GMT
Jesus was born the night beginning 4 October 4 BC, by our (Gregor-
ian) calendar. The following is how that conclusion is arrived at.
.
DATING JESUS
"Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of
the commandment to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem unto the
Messiah the Prince (shall be) seven weeks, three score and two
weeks." [Daniel 9:25] The Divine commandment to rebuild the temple
came by Haggai the prophet "In the second year of Darius the king,
in the sixth month, in the first day of the month" [Haggai 1:1-8]
which by our Gregorian calendar (extrapolated back) was 22-23 Aug.
520 B.C. There were several earthly commands to rebuild and,
these have been used in different efforts to date Messiah, but
since we are dealing with "Divine prophecy" only the Divine
command to rebuild need concern us.
The problem is, how long was Daniel's Hebdomad (or "week")?
At one time, the Jews (according to Josephus) picked 9 lunar
months as the length of each of the "days" in Daniel's "week" or
Hebdomad. The mean lunar month is 29.530588 days, therefore 69
"weeks" of 9-month days is 69 x 7 x 9 x 29.531 days = 351.5 years.
And 351.5 years from Aug. 520 B.C. gets to 168 B.C. The Jews then
added to that, Daniel's 1260 or 1335 days (Dan. 12:11-12) or 3.5
to 3.75 years, to get to 165 B.C., the year in which the temple
was cleansed of Antiochus' desecrations by Judas Maccabeus. The
purpose was to identify Maccabeus as the Messiah. But "9" as a
number had little or no symbolic meaning to the Jews. A number
with greater symbolic significance, such as 7, 12, or 14, would
have been more impressive. Which calls for a brief explanation of
biblical numerical symbolism. The symbolism arises quite simply
(from the order of creation) as follows:
1, 2, and 3 = God the Father, God the Son (Christ), and God
the Holy Spirit; 4 = the world; 5 = man; 6 = man's labor or works
(666 the Beast); 7 = Divine intercession (the day of rest); 8 =
Jesus ("the Word" Incarnate) the "Octave" of Creation; 9 =
judgment; 10 = the Law; 11 (111, 1111, etc.) = the sign of God the
Father again; 12 = the Church, (the disciples); 13 =
"displacement" from redemption; 14 = the double-measure of Divine
intercession through redemption by Christ Jesus.
Also 286 or 22 x 13 symbolizes displacement of the material
from the spiritual world of Christ. In interpretations of
prophecy, 286 is often called the "displacement factor". 22, 222
&c.; is the sign of Christ again, and so with 33, 333, or 44 and
444, and so on. (Be careful not to confuse this symbolic use of
numbers with "numerology", which is a corruption of numerical
symbolism.)
The simplest interpretation of Daniel's week would make each
week 7 years. In that case the 69 weeks from Aug. 520 B.C. ends
in 37 B.C., and there is little doubt that the Jews expected the
Messiah in 37 B.C. As Sir Isaac Newton noted, with the Messiah
expected in 37 A.D., Herod the Great procured the execution of
Antigonus to make himself sole king of Judea in 37 B.C. The
Herodians of Matt. 22:16 and Mark 3:6 and 12:13 were Jews who had
identified Herod as the Messiah. The failure of Herod, and his
death, had discredited that idea. Apparently Daniel's hebdomad
did not mean seven 1-year "days".
The next possible symbolic day for Daniel's week is 14 lunar
months. The symbolic significance of 14 is the double-measure of
Divine intercession, which immediately connects the symbol with
the ministry of Jesus Christ. Not only that, but Daniel didn't
say three score and nine (69) weeks, he said seven weeks, sixty
and two weeks. Weeks with 14-month "days" makes each week =
98 "months", and 98 is recognized as the number of lambs
sacrificed during the week of the Feast of Tabernacles (Lev.
23:34, Num. 29:12-33).
If a Feast of Tabernacles is when our Lord was born--when
"the word became flesh and tabernacled [the Greek says]
among us" (John 1:14, literally) _ then we have an explanation of
Daniel's otherwise cryptic "seven weeks", sixty, and "two weeks" _
instead of simply three score and nine (69) weeks. His "seven
weeks" and "two weeks" reveals the numerical symbol 98 (7 x 14),
for the Feast of Tabernacles. With 98-month "weeks" Daniel's 69
weeks ended 13 May 28 A.D.
On 13 May 28 A.D. our Lord "suddenly" went to Jerusalem for
the unidentified feast (Pentecost, John 5:1) where, upon hearing
that the ministry of John the Baptist had ended with John's
imprisonment, he hurried back to Galilee. Malachi had said:
"Behold I shall send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way
before me; and the Lord whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his
temple" (Mal. 3:1). While in Jerusalem our Lord heard of the
imprisonment of His messenger (John the Baptist), and as suddenly
as he had "come to His temple" in Jerusalem, he hurried back into
Galilee.
Malachi's prophecy was fulfilled both as to the messenger,
and our Lord's sudden coming to his temple in Jerusalem. And
Matthew says that His hurried return to Galilee, fulfilled the
prophecy of Isaiah 9:1-2. Matthew says: "Now when Jesus heard
that John was cast into prison, he departed into Galilee * *
[saying] * * Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt.
4:12-17).
Mark is similarly emphatic that at this terminal of Daniel's
69weeks a time-prophecy had been fulfilled, for he says: "Now
after John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching
the Gospel of the kingdom of God. And saying, the time is
fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and
believe the Gospel" (Mark 1:14-15).
So we find that the end of Daniel's seven weeks and sixty and
two weeks began what we may call the intensive period of Jesus'
ministry. Another prophecy concerning His coming to Jerusalem yet
remained to be fulfilled. Zechariah said: "Jerusalem: behold thy
King cometh unto thee: He is just and having salvation; lowly and
riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass."
In the evening beginning 10th Nisan, six days before the
Passover of 30 A.D., Jesus lodged in Bethany where the lambs,
selected on 10th Nisan for the Passover sacrifice, were held. The
following morning, 10th Nisan was our Palm Sunday, and Jesus
fulfilled Zechariah's prophecy that day. The time between His
sudden coming to His temple for Pentecost (on the Sabbath, 13 May
28 A.D.), and His coming to Bethany on 9th Nisan (the Sabbath, 30
March 30 A.D.) was exactly 98 weeks--again the number of the
sacrificed lambs.
The three synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) are
quite clear that the day following the crucifixion was a Sabbath.
That does not necessarily put the crucifixion on Friday since
"Sabbath" applies to any of the appointed holy days of rest. Only
the regular weekly Sabbath on Saturday would make, the day before
the Sabbath, a Friday. But John 19:14, from which arises the
doubt that the day of the crucifixion was Friday, is actually what
demonstrates that it was indeed a Friday!
John says: "And it was the *paraskeue* of the Passover".
Unfortunately, since "paraskeue" means "preparation", the KJV
translates this "And it was the preparation of the Passover"
thereby making it appear that the crucifixion was on the day
before the "Feast" that John calls the Passover. At the time of
Christ, however, (and into at least the third century A.D.) the
day we call Friday was called Paraskeue. Properly translated,
therefore, John reads: "And it was Friday of the Passover".
Nowhere in contemporary records do we find "paraskeue" used to
identify the day before any Sabbath other than a Saturday, thus
confirming that "Paraskue" meant Friday.
You should also be aware that what John calls the Passover
Feast was actually the Feast of Unleavened Bread, during the
day following Passover. The Passover began on Thursday 14 Nisan,
and the paschal supper was eaten after sundown ending 14 Nisan.
The following day, 15 Nisan, was the day of the Feast of
Unleavened Bread _ when our Lord was crucified. When Matthew,
Mark, and Luke refer to the Passover they mean beginning with the
sacrifice of the lambs on 14 Nisan and the Paschal supper eaten
after sundown ending 14 Nisan _ the night beginning 15 Nisan.
But John follows the custom of the Jews, identified in Luke 22:1,
"Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh which is called
the Passover".
.
The Exodus followed the Paschal Supper in the night of the
full moon of 15 Nisan (15 Nisan began at sundown of 14 Nisan).
The Israelites (and a mixed multitude with them _ Ex. 12:38),
after the Passover meal, fled without eating again until they
reached Succoth where, having made good their escape, they paused
long enough to have their first meal, with unleavened bread.
Therefore 15 Nisan was commemorated as the Feast of Unleavened
Bread (Lev. 23:6). On the "Feast" day of the crucifixion, you
will recall, "the governor was wont to release unto the people a
prisoner" (Matt. 27:15). No other record of that custom has
survived, but it is clearly appropriate to the Feast of Unleavened
Bread which celebrated Israel's own release from bondage in Egypt.
But there is another, and independent confirmation that the
crucifixion was on Friday, at the Feast of Unleavened Bread. John
tells us that after questioning by the high priest Caiaphas, the
priests led "Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it
was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall,
lest they be defiled; but that they might eat the Passover." That
makes it definite that John is calling the Feast of Unleavened
Bread "the Passover" (which, as Luke says, was usual). Josephus
also notes that the Jews called the Feast of Unleavened Bread "the
Passover".
But the Feast of Unleavened Bread commemorated the unleavened
bread eaten at Succoth after an all-night flight. What is
commonly overlooked is that that feast must have been eaten during
the day, probably beginning at noon, but certainly not after
sundown, like the Paschal meal, since sundown began 16 Nisan. And
the priests who were afraid they would be defiled and unable to
eat "the Passover" had to be referring to a feast eaten before
sundown. That is necessarily so because anyone defiled by going
into the hall of judgment, had only to wash and "when the sun is
down, he shall be clean, and shall afterward eat of the holy
things" (Lev. 22:6-7).
The Passover lambs were selected on 10 Nisan (Ex. 12:3) and
held until 14 Nisan when they were to be sacrificed "between the
two evenings" (Ex. 12:6; see RSV footnote). The "two evenings"
expression is easily explained. We have two mornings. When we
speak of the "wee small hours of the morning" we mean the morning
that begins at midnight. Our second morning begins at sunrise.
Similarly, since (at the time of Christ) the Jewish calendar date
changed at sunset, the Jews had two evenings, the first beginning
at noon, and the second beginning at sundown.
At the time of Christ the selected Passover lambs were held
in Bethany, from 10 Nisan to 14 Nisan. Our Lord therefore lodged
in Bethany (with the lambs selected for sacrifice) from 10 Nisan,
as required by Ex. 12:3. But the lambs for sacrifice had to be
selected while still "a male of the first year" (Ex. 12:5). And
our Lord had been selected the sacrificial " Lamb of God", at his
Baptism, while he was still "a male of the first year", i.e. was
still not quite 365 months = 30 years of age.
The "first year" in the life of a man, but especially in the
life of a king or ruler, was always a "year of months" i.e. 365
months, or thirty years. That is when his fitness to be king was
first judged (and in early ancient Egypt his fitness was
affirmed at a "Sed Festival" every thirty years). Which is
why we are told that Joseph was elevated to become a ruler in
Egypt when he was thirty (Gen. 41:46) and why David was thirty
when he began to reign (2 Sam. 5:4).
Our Lord was selected to be "the Lamb of God" when he was
baptized and the heavens opened up and the Voice declared "This is
my beloved son, today have I begotten thee" (Luke 3:22; see RSV
footnote for "today have I begotten thee". Cf. Acts 13:33 and Ps.
2:7). This version seems to have been replaced in order probably,
to avoid the Ebionite heresy.
But it was not Divinity that Jesus received at His baptism
(as the Ebionites argued) but selection of the "Lamb of God" was
"begotten" that day. And Luke takes care to tell us that "Jesus
himself began to be about thirty years of age" a rather awkward
way of saying that Jesus was not quite thirty and therefore He was
selected while still a "male of the first year" not yet 365 months
old. Once again a seemingly gratuitous bit of information turns
out to be symbolically significant.
Daniel had said of Messiah that after sixty-nine weeks (from
the Divine commandment to rebuild Jerusalem) "shall Messiah be cut
off, but not for himself" (Dan. 9:26). I have noted above that
Daniel's 69th week ended on the day when Jesus suddenly came to
His temple in Jerusalem, and just as
suddenly returned proclaiming "The time is fulfilled!" _ at
that time beginning the final intensive period of His ministry,
prior to His crucifixion.
DARWIN IS BURIED IN WESTMINSTER ABBEY WITH OTHER CHURCH OF ENGLAND GREATS
