Newsgroup sci.archaeology 50592

Directory

Longrich@princeton.edu (Nick Longrich) wrote:
>   As tends to be the case with mass extinction, the question of survivors
>is difficult. With such a "wave of destruction" postulated, why did any
>large animals- e.g. elk, moose, bison, deer, caribou, pronghorn, sheep-
>survive when horses, saiga, etc. went extinct? Why did the South American
>camelids survive? Even if humans were responsible in part or whole for
>some, most, or all of the extinctions, it's hard to pick out the pattern
>to these survivals. The extinction of big, slow-moving animals like
>sloths, glyptodonts, rhinos, mammoths, mastodons, etc. is a little easier
>to picture. They're all really big and kind of slow (Well, then again,
>rhinos can gallop like sons of b----s) so you have a common thread. Note
>also that even if the mammoths habitat disappeared, you still have to
>account for some way to take out the mastodons, which were browsers, not
>grazers. 
Some have postulated that North America is big and that animals would pack 
their bags, hop in the Chevy and road trip to a new habitat if their own 
babitat changed.  I would argue that individual herds and animals migrate 
historically, true, but if their migration routs and habitats were 
disrupted by ecosystem changes, they would not just pick up and move over 
to 1) a place that remained like their old system or 2) a place that was 
changing into a place like their old system.  To simplify an analogy, 
imagine North America as a checker board of different systems of, say, 
four or five different types of habitat.  Then imagine that climate 
changes caused the squares on the board to shift to different locations.  
Now even assume that all the types remained but that they did not remain 
where they used to be.  Toss in the variables like mountain ranges, 
oceans, rivers, new deserts, new forests new expanses of prarrie which 
would all act a blocks to the old road trip for some species who were not 
adapted to travel in the block.  Of course this did not happen over night 
but when individual herds in certain localities become isolated from 
others of their type they could either morph or experience genetic 
problems, inbreeding and extinction.  Finally, if these areas become as 
"islands" with small vulnerable populations, then man could act as he did 
on the islands and wipe the few remaining animals out.  What irks me about 
the extinction by hunting folks is their continued refusual to give any 
credit to the climate for creating the situation that allowed man to 
arrive in the first place and for reducing the populations to a point were 
a primitive guy with a spear might CONTRIBUTE to the extinction.  Africa 
did not have the whole sale climatalogical changes that North America had. 
 Further, it would appear that the African checker squares were larger and 
more linear in relation to each other. I think this is a possible answer 
to the browser/grazer problem.  

In article , petrich@netcom.com says...
>
>In article <572tef$g2g@fridge-nf0.shore.net>,
>Steve Whittet  wrote:
>>In article <572o70$9ku@frysja.sn.no>, kalie@sn.no says...
>
>>>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?
>
>Extrapolation. Mr. Whittet, why don't you compare Latin and the 
>Romance languages some time, or else read the abundant literature on this 
>subject? There is a gap in written records between Latin and the Romance 
>languages, but you can find out how it is possible to extrapolate forward 
>from Latin and backward from the Romance langs to fill this gap.
What, is there no difference in meaning between the words extrapolate
and interpolate in your view?
>
>>> 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.
>
>There you go again, Mr. Whittet, tediously spouting a whole lot of
>elementary exposition.
Actually if you examine the two statements you will see that
there is a difference of perspectives as to where to begin;
and, if it's so elementary, why are you always arguing with me?
> Why don't you look at the literature on language 
>spread some time? And language change? 
Does, ummm Mallory... happen to be in this category do you suppose?
You remember, the guy you reccomended I read. The one who thought 
Renfrew was wrong, Diakonov was wrong, the Aryans coming into India 
was all wrong, and then tried to conect the Afanaseivo with the Yammaya,
despite their being rather widely separated in both time and space,
because that was what his theory needed to do to function.
>If you suspect anything bogus in any of it, then make your case 
>instead of whine about how the orthodox oxen won't take you seriously.
You can call yourself whatever names you like, I will ask you again.
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 than that it is just another theory?
My position is that you need to begin a linguistic argument
to the effect that one group influenced another by showing a 
mechanism whereby they had contact of such a nature that it 
would allow such an influence.
Satisfy me that you can do that first, then I will listen
to why you think the influence was from one group to the
other exclusively rather mutually interactive.
>
>>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.
>
>        That's elementary whining.
Good, then you can deal with it expeditiously by presenting
your facts and we can move on. Otherwise your bluff is called.
>
>>>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.
>
>Good Grief! What would *you* consider acceptable evidence, Mr. 
>Whittet? 
Well, first off, if you had the evidence I am looking for, I
doubt you would have to ask me what it was.
1.) Name the two cultures you expect were in contact
2.) Give a list of their archaeological sites, the dates,
the artifacts indicating contact, ie; list the artifacts 
of each group present in the sites of the other group.
3.) Show why one group would influence the other exclusively
rather than there being an interactive relationship.
4.) Show the route whereby the contact occured and the
progression of sites with artifacts of exchange along the route.
5.) Demonstrate that there were not other connections with
better grounds for having been the mechanism whereby language 
diffused.
6.) Demonstrate that the common language was not picked up 
by mutual contact with a third party; ie that you have given
the primary and principle interests involved.
7.) After having answered the above questions, provide cites
to back up what you have said from both archaeological and 
linguistic sources.
Now, when you have done that we can move on to the next step...
>-- 
>Loren Petrich 
steve

On Mon, 18 Nov 1996, PAZUZU wrote:
> How can myths do anything? 
	What a silly question. Myths are one of the most powerful things
in the world, for good and bad.
	Oh, you were trying to get a rise out of christians?
	Your rapier wit is unassailable.
	Good luck...
dave milloway

Bart Torbert/Jean Dupree wrote:
> In article <328bd41a.3053635@news.iserv.net>, miles@mail.iserv.net says...
> >While researching in school I had read a book that mentioned the fact
> >that Romans had steam powered elevators?!?
> >Is this true, was it a bad dream, can anyone shed some light?
> I do not know about elevators, but ---
> I don't know how many stories they got to, but the Romans did invent the
> Urban Apartment Building.  I think these were at least 4-5 stories
> tall (from some of the pictures of reproductions I have seen).  Maybe
> someone can enlighten us on just how high they got.
> Anyone who has lived in an apartment on even the second floor will tell
> you how neccesary these are.
A surviving Roman document tells of roman engineers not to be allowed to 
build more than 70 feet high,because higher buildings tended to collapse.
So they must have been building higher than ten stories high,because 
otherwise it would not have been illegal.
Ronald
Faculty of Archaeology,Leiden,Netherlands
"Lister: For the first time in my life ,I'm going to use my brains.."
"Kryten:Considering the circumstances,do you really think that's wise?"

On 20 Nov 1996, M. Hensler wrote:
> 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.
And fundamentally wrong. It was a translator's error in the bible that
associated Lucifer with Satan. That is not satan's name. In fact, I don't
think Lucifer was even among the Fallen. 
Interesting interpretation though. Very imaginative.
dave milloway
****************************************************************************
Hey! Check out my new comic strip called THE BASICS at:
http://www.uncg.edu/~dgmillow			(Comments appreciated)
****************************************************************************

Peter van Rossum (pmv100@psu.edu) wrote:
: In article <56q8fn$p1q@news1.io.org> yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
[a quote from Needham:]
: >      ...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,
Peter,
Needham made a valid point about the similarity between the Meso-American
cylinder-seals and those in ancient Babylonia and the Indus Valley. Where
do you see a problem that's supposed to "trip warning bells"? The
similarity in ideograms is a _separate issue_. Sure, you try to achieve
some comic effect by conflating these issues, but this is only an
indication of your well-known penchant for abrasive confrontationality.
: and
: 4-1st century B.C. writings are similar to those of the 16th century
: A.D. Aztecs?
Do I have to explain to you that many of those 16 c. ideograms are based
on very ancient prototypes?
: It's this sloppy mishmosh of cultural traditions that makes me question 
: the validity of so much of this diffusionist research.
You're welcome to question any research here, but your credibility can
only be enhanced if you will offer serious criticisms.
Yuri.
--
           **    Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto   **
  -- a webpage like any other...  http://www.io.org/~yuku  --
Most of the evils of life arise from man's being 
unable to sit still in a room    ||    B. Pascal

Saida wrote:
[vast snippage]
> Thou shallt not kill        Lo tirtza'ach    (Not will you kill)
> Thou shallt not commit adultery    Lo tinaf   (Not will you commit
> adultery)
> Thou shallt not steal       Lo tignov  (Not will you steal)
> 
> Actually, the "lo" simply means "no" and the verbs are in the form of
> the second person singular, future tense.  That is the nature of the
> Semitic languages--economy of words but a complicated grammar to learn
> and remember.
Your translation is word-for-word equivalent to the King James
translation, with different word order:
  thou = you
  shalt = will
  not kill = not kill
The modern English translation could be more like:
  Don't kill.
  Don't commit adultery.
  Don't steal.
That seems to have an economy of words that matches the Hebrew pretty
well.
-- 
Mike Wright
____________________________________
email: darwin@scruznet.com
WWW:   http://www.scruz.net/~darwin/language.html

** POSTING FOR SOMEONE ELSE - PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS EMAIL
ADDRESS **
ALIDADE and PLANE TABLE for sale; Keuffel & Esser 81214; used, with 
extension leg tripod and 24"x18" plane table. Excellent condition, 
$2300 (US$). 
CONTACT: Lost World Trading Company, c/o Thomas Banks, P.O. Box 365, 
Oakdale, CA 95361, USA.  Phone: 209-847-5393 or FAX 209-847-6383.
** POSTING FOR SOMEONE ELSE - PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS EMAIL
ADDRESS **

In article <32938B0D.2B82@PioneerPlanet.infi.net>,
Saida   wrote:
>Daniel von Brighoff wrote:
>> --
>>          Daniel "Da" von Brighoff    /\          Dilettanten
>>         (deb5@midway.uchicago.edu)  /__\         erhebt Euch
>>                                    /____\      gegen die Kunst!
>
>
>He, he, he.  What a clever analogy.  Too bad it doesn't have any 
>relevancy here.  Dinsmuir doesn't know any German or French and couldn't 
>point the way to a duck flying south for the winter.  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!
>
>Votre chere amie, Saida ;->
	I suppose, if your only intention is to start flamewars, there are
few more reliable means than calling someone a Nazi because his .sig
happens to be in German.  (FWIW, my .plan is in Finnish; I guess that only
confirms my Fascist inclinations.)  Although I'm taken aback by this
sudden turn, I can't say I'm surprised.  Most of all, I'm thankful:  Now I
know I needn't waste another moment of my life responding to you in any
fashion.
Servus!
-- 
	 Daniel "Da" von Brighoff    /\          Dilettanten
	(deb5@midway.uchicago.edu)  /__\         erhebt Euch
				   /____\      gegen die Kunst!