Subject: Re: Biblical arcgaeology
From: fmurray@pobox,com (frank murray)
Date: Sun, 01 Dec 1996 07:51:53 GMT
On Sat, 30 Nov 1996 07:37:14 +0000, Marc Line
wrote:
>> Then why have you not answered me, with respect to Gen. 4:14,
>>with a plausible alternative (to my) theory as to where and what was
>>called "the face of the earth"?
>
>Dear Archaeologia
>
>It would seem that the bendy, stretchy world of Non-Euclidean Geometry
>is soon to be shaken to its very foundations with the advent of a new
>construct, Noah's Arc!*
perhaps not so new...i remember seeing on the joe pyne show (early
sixties, as memory has it) a guy who had transposed the proportions of
noah's arc to a section of the earth, hull corresponding to surface,
and then built small three dimensional models of the shape...
these mini-arcs, roughly kayak in shape, if spun in one direction,
would slow down, rock up and down, and then reverse their direction of
spin...apparently a result of the slight skewing of the long
ellipsoidal axis with the long axis of the top...edmund sci. sells a
similiar shape...
as i remember (this was decades ago, and i was playing cards at the
time) the guy called the "hulls" of these little shapes: "the face of
the earth"...
btw...are there any here who might shed light on what ways the
original text of gen: 4.14 might be read??...
frank
Subject: THE POT IS CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK
From: edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad)
Date: 1 Dec 1996 12:19:27 GMT
Longrich@princeton.edu (Nick Longrich) wrote to talk.origins and
alt.fan.publius :
> Ed, you've become TRULY stupid. . . . (snip)
> What the hell is with you? How the hell did you ever become so ignorant
> and close-minded? This is a new low of stubborn, willful stupidity.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Nick:
Granted, it didn't come easy!
See, first I had to spend four long years in the School of Hard
Knocks which opens a person's eyes to the incredible scope
of dishonesty that currently exists in certain segments of science.
There, you develop an understanding of how easily truth can shoved
into a closet when subjected to pecking by Birds of a Feather Who
Flock Together.
Then I spent six years studying at the University of Uncommon Sense
where, as you can imagine, the highest marks went to the students who
had arrived brainwashed and therefore possessed the least bit of
common sense.
To give you some idea of our course of study, every six weeks we were
given a basic truth and, rather coyly, had to transform it into a
fabrication. In other words, we had to make it look like an outright
lie.
If you think it's easy, you're mistaken. I remember one time I had to
take a three-pound bag of truth and stuff it into a two-pound bag of
fabrication. This is why we were required to spent a full week each
fall carefully watching the packers a local sardine factory.
No mistake about it, Nick, it's no picnic developing a knack for
concealing evidence whenever it rears its ugly head. But I learned
rather quickly that it's not so hard if you train yourself to REFUSE
to follow Thomas A. Edison's advice:
> ``The right to search for truth implies also
> a duty; one must not conceal any part
> of what one has recognized to be true."
Later, when it was determined that I had reached the necessary plateau
of chicanery, I spent seven long years doing post-graduate work under
the watchful eye of some of the nation's most prestigious
anthropologists and paleontologists -- and, boy, did these guys know
their stuff!.
One of the best tricks they taught me was, when confronted by
individuals equipped with undeniable evidence, to simply snap your
fingers and utter the magic word: Concretion!
They say it serves as an excellent escape hatch each and every time.
Subject: AILING BRAIN CELLS BROUGHT BACK TO LIFE
From: edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad)
Date: 1 Dec 1996 13:07:40 GMT
jansh@online.no (Jan) wrote (to talk.origins, etc.):
>On 1 Dec 1996 04:41:59 GMT, edconrad@prolog.net
> (Ed Conrad) wrote:
>>Until the arrival of the Internet, facts and evidence that seriously
>>challenged established science's farfetched theories never really had
>>a fighting chance.
>There is some truth here. I grew up a creationist. Only when I came on
>the Internet and could see firsthand the enormous amount of hard
>evidence for evolution, and the plain dishonesty and nuttiness of
>creationists like yourself did I come to my senses.
~~~~~~~~~
Jan:
You poor soul.
Don't you realize, since you've been on the Internet, your brain has
been washed better than in a Maytag washer.
You've been fed pablum on a spoon and, undoubtedly, it has put
approximately 32,417 of your tiny brain cells in intensive care.
Fortunately, there IS a cure to regenerate them.
Slowly repeat after me.
There is no hard evidence for evolution.
There is no hard evidence for evolution.
There is no hard evidence for evolution.
There is no hard evidence for evolution.
There is no hard evidence . . .
There is no hard evidence . . .
Good! Jan, I think it worked.
I detect that your ailing brain cells have been invigorated
and have snapped back to life.
I'm pretty sure you're soon going to be your old self.
My heartiest congratulations!!
Cordially,
Ed Conrad
P.S. You can expect my bill in the mail.
Subject: Re: Biblical arcgaeology
From: Marc Line
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 12:16:36 +0000
> Sorry about the misspelling of Archaeology but, due to disability
>I type slowly, and with difficulty, offline. The name of the group,
>however, has to be typed in with no spelling corrector.
No need to apologise to me. Your finger-slip was a gift which was
received gratefully. :) Your physical (I presume) disabilities are of
no concern to me and I do not propose to admit them to your employ.
Callous SOB I am eh? :)
> You still have not answered Gen. 4:14 as to where and what was
>called "the face of the earth".
I do not answer to Genesis 4:14 and I was not aware that Genesis 4:14
had asked me a question!
Without access to the original documents such that I might translate
them myself, speculation as to what is meant would be foolhardy don't
you think? I have 5 bibles in this place and they contain 4 different
wordings. I don't place that much value in hearsay at the best of times
but when there is so much evident variation, well.
Message sent from the front, passed down the chain, man to man:
"Send reinforcements, we're going to advance!"
Message received at the front:
"Here's the three and fourpence, where's the dance?"
My colleague, has endeavoured to point out gently,that words are such
fragile things. The alteration of one single letter can allow for
numerous alternative interpretations. Face, race, dace, case, base,
lace, pace, do you see?
snipped a lot of irrelevance concerning Darwin and one of the Churches
of Man.
Re: Your obsession
>It
>is written about, and mapped, (Long. 75 to 95, along parallel 39) in
>Davidson's (1927) "A Connected History of Early Egypt, Babylonia, and
>Central Asia".
Which means? Many words have been written. I like Gulliver's travels
myself! :)
>It is adjacent to what we call "the roof of the world"
>(Tibet) by which we don''t mean a roof over the whole planet!
Thanks for the clarification.
> So, just where and what do you say, in view of Gen. 4:14, was the
>so-called "face of the earth" -- where the "Adamic nation" was
>destroyed in the Noachian flood?
Geography is surely irrelevant to the issue? As to what, I should have
thought it obvious, even without employing the seven.
So, given that you have pressed me into an answer, my answer is this.
The face of the Earth stands as the Countenance of Netjer. It is a
metaphor of rejection.
>With considerable confirming
>evidence, I have an answer. Do you?
Yes. :)
Marc
XX
PS I refer you to The Chapters Of Coming Into The Light
Subject: Re: Dravidians: was:"Out of India"
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 1 Dec 1996 14:17:20 GMT
In article <57qc6q$lig@halley.pi.net>, mcv@pi.netÁ says...
>
>lilandbr@scn.org (Leland Bryant Ross) wrote:
>
>>In a previous article, petrich@netcom.com (Loren Petrich) says:
>
>>> That's not the issue; the issue is where did that isolated patch
>>>of Dravidian in the Punjab come from?
>
>>How about Southern India ("Dravidia"?)? What reasons do we have for
>>assuming Dravidians didn't migrate? Isolate patches of Indo-European in
>>South Africa resulted from migration of Indo-Europeans, not of Bantu-
>>speakers, but this doesn't negate the existence of major Bantu
>>migrations. (Mutatis mutandem.)
>
>A small correction: the isolated patch of Dravidian (Brahui) is not in
>the Punjab but in (Pakistani) Baluchistan.
>
>A migration from Southern India has been suggested by some, especially
>by those who want to see the Indus Valley Civilization as Aryan, but has
>become untenable in the light of McAlpin's Elamo-Dravidian theory.
>According to McAlpin, Brahui (always the most divergent member of
>Dravidian) is not strictly speaking a Dravidian language at all, but
>occupies an intermediate position between (Proto-)Elamite and
>(Proto-)Dravidian.
I note that you are following Mallory closely in this, but as I see it,
he raises more questions than he answers.
The CIA Ethno linguistic map of Iran actually shows the greatest
concentration of Baluch/Beluch (Brahui) to the west of Pakistan
on the coast between the staraits of Hormuz and The Indus and
inland from Cha Bahar to Iranshah, Mahkran, Baluchistan, Sind.
In Persian times this was called Gedrosia. Michael Roaf gives
the region as Arachosia, and borders it on the west with Maka,
Sagartia and Drangiana. CAM p 209.
Munda is non IE and came in from the east. Baluch extends west
as far as Hormuz while what comes east to meet it is Persian.
The Elamites remain a single cluster of Bakhitari at the head
of the Gulf. I see no association of them with Dravidian.
Mallory points out that Dravidian languages occupy the coast of
India on both sides of the Indus. He concludes from this:
"The most obvious explanation of this situation is that the
Dravidian languages once occupied nearly all of the Indian
subcontinent."
I find this absurd. The presence of the language along the
coast is entirely consistent with settlement along the coast.
Having said that, it is obvious from the CIA map that the Baluch
followed coastal rivers inland over the coastal mountains to a
huge bowl shaped valley south of the Hindu Kush well west of
Pakistan, where there is a very solid concentration and the
Indus itself in spotty clusters inland as far as Mohenjo-Daro.
The fact that Brahui and Munda are associated respectively with
the Gulf of Oman and the Ganges should be some kind of a tip
that they are coming from different sources.
The pictographs Mallory mentions as being as far east as Tepe Yahya
(page 44) need to be viewed in terms of the distribution of chlorite
vessels across the Gulf. It is also interesting that Mallory, page 46
dates painted greyware to 1300-400 BC.
Here we have a Hamitic Semitic culture following the coasts of the
Persian Gulf.(see Michael Roaf CAM page 79; posted separately)
separating (or connecting)the IE speakers.
From about 1800- 1200 BC there is a notable decrease in trade along
this route. This corresponds to the period when Kassite occupation
levels are found throughout the territory of what was Babylons Sealand
Dynasty (southern Mesopotamia plus the Al-Hasa) and they are mentioned
as having been engaged in repairing its infrastructure.
Whatever the linguistic connection is, though the same language
may be spoken in both Elam and Gedrosia if that language is
Dravidian it has to deal with this discontinuity in both time
and space.
>==
>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
steve
Subject: Re: Biblical arcgaeology
From: Marc Line
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 13:34:57 +0000
On Sun, 1 Dec 1996, at 07:51:53, Frank cajoled electrons into this
snipped some
>these mini-arcs, roughly kayak in shape, if spun in one direction,
>would slow down, rock up and down, and then reverse their direction of
>spin...apparently a result of the slight skewing of the long
>ellipsoidal axis with the long axis of the top...edmund sci. sells a
>similiar shape...
Indeed and I have one on the desk in front of me as I type this. An
intriguing little device to be sure. :)
>as i remember (this was decades ago, and i was playing cards at the
>time)
Ah, a misspent youth Frank?! :)) Did you win?
>the guy called the "hulls" of these little shapes: "the face of
>the earth"...
>
>btw...are there any here who might shed light on what ways the
>original text of gen: 4.14 might be read??...
As I've suggested earlier, one must first decide which particular
interpretation or incarnation of the text to work with. Perhaps Suds
would be so kind as to transcribe the version on which he/she is basing
all this stuff such that we might be able to share a common frame of
reference in which to formulate opinion?
I doubt the "original" text is available, unfortunately. :(
Regards
Marc
Subject: Re: Shang script among Olmecs
From: pmv100@psu.edu (Peter van Rossum)
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 18:27:50 GMT
In article <57psbk$g66@news1.io.org> yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
>Hello, both Ben and Peter,
>
>Well, at last I have been able to spare some time and to get to those
>books and do some more research. Now I can give those refs about the seals
>that Needham was using.
>
>Here are the publications he cites in his TRANS-PACIFIC ECHOES, p. 16:
>
>D. H. Kelley, A CILINDER-SEAL FROM TLATILCO, American Antiquity, 31
>(1966), p. 744.
>
>George F. Carter & S. Heinemann, PRE-COLUMBIAN SELLOS: Another Artifact
>Showing Possible Cultural Contact and Trans-Pacific Diffusion,
>Anthropological Journ. of Canada, 15 (no. 3), (1977), p. 2.
>
>I have not (yet) gone and looked at these publications.
>Yuri.
Thanks for the references, Yuri. I'll try to look into this in the future,
but that probably won't be till at least mid-Dec. Again, thanks for supplying
the citations since it at least gives a starting point.
Peter van Rossum
PMV100@PSU.EDU
Subject: peanut in ancient China (_Arachis hypogaea_). (was: Re: Shang script among Olmecs
From: yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky)
Date: 1 Dec 1996 17:30:09 GMT
Here's the information about the peanut that was requested by Peter and
others. It seems that the peanut satisfies Peter's definition for a
"smoking gun" even better than I thought possible before I looked up these
references, myself. (I'm talking about the "smoking gun" type of evidence
that would indicate that ancient peoples were exchanging cultural traits
across the Pacific well before Columbus.)
I have two references for the discovery that peanut, originally native to
S. America, was present in ancient China before Columbus. This discovery
was made in the process of legitimate and monitored archaeological
excavations. There are actually _two_ separate finds. The peanuts were
found in undisturbed strata.
Here are the refs (coming from J. Needham's TRANS-PACIFIC ECHOES):
Chang, Kwang-Chih, THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF ANCIENT CHINA, Yale UP, 1977, pp.
167, 181.
Chang, Kwang-Chih, EARLY CHINESE CIVILIZATION: ANTHROPOLOGICAL
PERSPECTIVES, Harvard UP, 1976, pp. 7, 15, 45.
The two dates that are given by radiocarbon testing are (B.C.E.):
2750 for Ch'ien-shan-yang site, and
2335 for P'ao-ma-ling site.
I have the latter of the cited books at hand, and in it Chang says:
"Because it was thought that peanuts ... should not be found in China at
such great antiquity, according to our present knowledge of their ...
histories of cultivation, Ho (1969: 205-9) questions the stratigraphy of
the remains at the Ch'ien-shan-yang site. This obviously is not a question
that can be settled by reading or interpreting the original report, which
gives no reasonable ground for doubt in stratigraphical issues. Note that
peanuts were also found in Hsiu-shui from the same cultural level and time
period." (p. 45)
(Peanuts were tested together with some other plant remains found at this
and the other site.)
Below, you will find Peter bringing up the idea of carbon-testing the
finds. Well, it turns out that this has been done already!
Well, it seems like the ball is in your court now, Peter.
Yours as always,
Yuri.
Peter van Rossum (pmv100@psu.edu) wrote:
: In article <57cs8r$n8u@news1.io.org> yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
...
: >I think you exaggerate this "smoking gun" thing. I'm really skeptical that
: >such a smoking gun will do anything. My skepticism is based on the
: >knowledge that many such smoking guns have been suggested -- Old World
: >artifacts found in the New World -- and none made a significant impact.
: >Look at peanut diffusion, for example. Peanut was found in China in a
: >genuine old stratum. But did it persuade anyone? (Of course someone will
: >inevitably come along and claim it's not *really* a genuine old stratum.)
...
: While the laws of stratigraphy are in theory very straightforward, anyone
: who has ever excavated knows that there are many cases where they can be
: violated. The real world just isn't as neat and tidy as a naive reading
: of this peanut example would indicate. In this case, however, I suggest
: that interested parties should see if the peanut in question is still
: available for analysis. If it is, they might want to cough up the couple
: hundred dollars to send it to a radiocarbon lab for dating. If the date
: comes back as pre-16th century I'd be very interested, if it doesn't
: then we've got another example of mixed context.
...
: BTW can
: you give me a ref. so I can look it up - its not that I don't believe
: you I'd just like to see if I could find out more specifics).
#% Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto %#
-- a webpage like any other... http://www.io.org/~yuku --
The world is governed more by appearance than by realities, so
that it is fully as necessary to seem to know something as it
is to know it ========= Daniel Webster
Subject: Re: White tribes of Olde America
From: dolmen1@ix.netcom.com(Leonard M. Keane)
Date: 1 Dec 1996 18:43:30 GMT
In <32a8e640.34587063@news.demon.co.uk> dweller@ramtops.demon.co.uk
(Douglas Weller) writes:
>
>On 27 Nov 1996 16:17:46 GMT, dolmen1@ix.netcom.com(Leonard M. Keane)
wrote:
>
>>>>>> What I do know for fact, because I have researched it for many
>>>>years,...
>Douglas:
You say:
>NEARA specializes in 'ancient american' claims, I don't know what The
>American Institute for Archaeological Research, Inc. is, anyone else
>know?
>
Having sustained putdowns on other subjects in other fora, I am
naturally leery of anything that smacks of a pre-judgment.- L.K.
I have not been a member of NEARA for years, so I don't know what they
might now "specialize" in. As for "The Institute", it is am amateur
archeological group which does not specialize in any "claims", but
merely has put on record findings (which few professional group seems
inclined -should I say "courageous enough" - to do.). I have been on
its Board of Directors for a long time. No need to put out a call to
others. I suppose I can answer any questions about it.- L.K.
I do not have a Ph.D. in Archeology, merely a B.A. in History. So, if
that deficit puts me out of the discussion in the n.g. please say so up
front. I however will decide whether to linger on. - L.K.
>I suspect the poster means northeast quadrant of the US, not
northwest,...
Yes, I explained (I hope sufficiently) that intentional typo! - L.K.
>In any case I can assure people neither is 'literally covered' with
>stone of any description, unless the meaning of 'literally' has
>changed a lot. There has been a lot of nonsense written about stone
>structures in New England - most of which you can find building
>instructions for in 18th and 19th century farm journals. - L.K.
Douglas, if you had worn out as many pairs of boots as I have mapping
the stuff I think you might have other ideas about that. You seem to
have read certain obscure farm journals, but not the material from
NEARA authored by me, or the "Institute" material authored by me.
What I am talking about has absolutely nothing to do with colonial
farms! - L.K.
Len.
Subject: Re: peanut in ancient China (_Arachis hypogaea_). (was: Re: Shang script among Olmecs
From: "Paul E. Pettennude"
Date: 1 Dec 1996 19:46:47 GMT
Group,
In recent issues of Archaeology Magazine and National Geographic caucasian
mummies dating to 3000 B.C. (and possibley earlier) were found in China
indicating that ancient Chinese culture probably benefited from contact
with people from "Western Europe". This would indicate that the Chinese
were more recipients of diffusion than purveyors orf it.
Furthermore, I have tried to point out on at least five occasions in this
newsgroup that the Olmecs are no longer considered the mother culture of
Mesoamerica and any alleged contact by outsiders with them would not have,
by absorption, spread to the other builders of Mesoamerica.
All of this talk about insignificant items such as peanuts, coconuts,
gourds, etc. having an impact on Mesoamerican civilization is nothing more
than grasping for straws where there are none. None of these items played
any role in the dietary or trade models of the inhabitants of Mesoamerica.
Their basic cultigen was corn/maize followed by beans and an assortment of
peppers (chili type). That coconuts floated over is nice to know but
coconuts were not part of the Mesoamerican diet as evidenced by the study
of coprolites. Yams/sweet potatoes were not a consumable either. On a
parallel note, Dennis Puleston tried before his death to prove that
breadfruit was utilized in times of famine, but this too failed. That the
Maya, for example, had very restrictive food type intakes has been proven.
For most of the masses protein was plant derrived, with the upper strata of
society having access to animal protein.
I again repeat, unless a cultigen can not reproduce by itself, it can not
be proven that its distribution did not occur naturally. Corn/maize, for
example, is a plant whose survival depends on human intervention. You can
look at the geographical distribution of corn and see where the diffusion
occurred. Coconuts float. One only has to walk the beaches of Yucatan to
see them. They wash up on shore and start to sprout. Corn will not do
this. The husk needs to be removed and the kernels planted. A mouse or
bird may distribute a small amount of kernels, but only a human can grow a
field of corn. Find me another "corn" and you'll have an example of
diffusion.
Paul Pettennude
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in article <57sfb1$jjn@news1.io.org>...
> Here's the information about the peanut that was requested by Peter and
> others. It seems that the peanut satisfies Peter's definition for a
> "smoking gun" even better than I thought possible before I looked up
these
> references, myself. (I'm talking about the "smoking gun" type of evidence
> that would indicate that ancient peoples were exchanging cultural traits
> across the Pacific well before Columbus.)
>
> I have two references for the discovery that peanut, originally native to
> S. America, was present in ancient China before Columbus. This discovery
> was made in the process of legitimate and monitored archaeological
> excavations. There are actually _two_ separate finds. The peanuts were
> found in undisturbed strata.
>
> Here are the refs (coming from J. Needham's TRANS-PACIFIC ECHOES):
>
> Chang, Kwang-Chih, THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF ANCIENT CHINA, Yale UP, 1977, pp.
> 167, 181.
>
> Chang, Kwang-Chih, EARLY CHINESE CIVILIZATION: ANTHROPOLOGICAL
> PERSPECTIVES, Harvard UP, 1976, pp. 7, 15, 45.
>
> The two dates that are given by radiocarbon testing are (B.C.E.):
>
> 2750 for Ch'ien-shan-yang site, and
> 2335 for P'ao-ma-ling site.
>
> I have the latter of the cited books at hand, and in it Chang says:
>
> "Because it was thought that peanuts ... should not be found in China at
> such great antiquity, according to our present knowledge of their ...
> histories of cultivation, Ho (1969: 205-9) questions the stratigraphy of
> the remains at the Ch'ien-shan-yang site. This obviously is not a
question
> that can be settled by reading or interpreting the original report, which
> gives no reasonable ground for doubt in stratigraphical issues. Note that
> peanuts were also found in Hsiu-shui from the same cultural level and
time
> period." (p. 45)
>
> (Peanuts were tested together with some other plant remains found at this
> and the other site.)
>
> Below, you will find Peter bringing up the idea of carbon-testing the
> finds. Well, it turns out that this has been done already!
>
> Well, it seems like the ball is in your court now, Peter.
>
> Yours as always,
>
> Yuri.
>
> Peter van Rossum (pmv100@psu.edu) wrote:
> : In article <57cs8r$n8u@news1.io.org> yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky)
writes:
>
> ...
>
> : >I think you exaggerate this "smoking gun" thing. I'm really skeptical
that
> : >such a smoking gun will do anything. My skepticism is based on the
> : >knowledge that many such smoking guns have been suggested -- Old World
> : >artifacts found in the New World -- and none made a significant
impact.
> : >Look at peanut diffusion, for example. Peanut was found in China in a
> : >genuine old stratum. But did it persuade anyone? (Of course someone
will
> : >inevitably come along and claim it's not *really* a genuine old
stratum.)
>
> ...
>
> : While the laws of stratigraphy are in theory very straightforward,
anyone
> : who has ever excavated knows that there are many cases where they can
be
> : violated. The real world just isn't as neat and tidy as a naive
reading
> : of this peanut example would indicate. In this case, however, I
suggest
> : that interested parties should see if the peanut in question is still
> : available for analysis. If it is, they might want to cough up the
couple
> : hundred dollars to send it to a radiocarbon lab for dating. If the
date
> : comes back as pre-16th century I'd be very interested, if it doesn't
> : then we've got another example of mixed context.
>
> ...
>
> : BTW can
> : you give me a ref. so I can look it up - its not that I don't believe
> : you I'd just like to see if I could find out more specifics).
>
> #% Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto %#
> -- a webpage like any other... http://www.io.org/~yuku --
>
> The world is governed more by appearance than by realities, so
> that it is fully as necessary to seem to know something as it
> is to know it ========= Daniel Webster
>
>
Subject: Re: peanut in ancient China (_Arachis hypogaea_). (was: Re: Shang script among Olmecs
From: August Matthusen
Date: Sun, 01 Dec 1996 11:21:45 -0800
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>
> Here's the information about the peanut that was requested by Peter and
> others. It seems that the peanut satisfies Peter's definition for a
> "smoking gun" even better than I thought possible before I looked up these
> references, myself. (I'm talking about the "smoking gun" type of evidence
> that would indicate that ancient peoples were exchanging cultural traits
> across the Pacific well before Columbus.)
>
> I have two references for the discovery that peanut, originally native to
> S. America, was present in ancient China before Columbus. This discovery
> was made in the process of legitimate and monitored archaeological
> excavations. There are actually _two_ separate finds. The peanuts were
> found in undisturbed strata.
Hmm, from this we can deduce several working hypotheses:
China was settled by migratory peoples from South America,
China was settled by migratory peanuts from South America,
or China was settled by migratory Kung Pao Chicken or Shrimp
from South America (of course, this does not rule out the
possibility of a take-out food order).
Seriously, thanks for the references, Yuri. My local library
has several editions of Chang, Kwang-Chih, THE ARCHAEOLOGY
OF ANCIENT CHINA. I'll have to see if I can get there
to see if he had anything new to say in the later editions.
Regards,
August Matthusen
Subject: Re: Shang script among Olmecs
From: bdiebold@pantheon.yale.edu (Benjamin H. Diebold)
Date: 1 Dec 1996 19:25:45 GMT
Peter van Rossum (pmv100@psu.edu) wrote:
[snip]
: Ben,
: Given that you familiar with Near Eastern but not Mesoamerican archaeology,
: while I am familiar with Mesoamerican but not Near Eastern archaeology, maybe
: we could combine our efforts. Would it be possible for you to do some research
: on the timing, form and purpose of Near Eastern seals, while I do the same for
: Mesoamerican seals?
: To be honest I won't be able to get around to serious research till mid-Dec.
: But maybe we could each do our own work and by early Jan. post our results
: to see to what degree to the two seal traditions do, or do not, coincide.
: If you're game I am.
: Peter van Rossum
: PMV100@PSU.EDU
Sounds okay. I'm kind of busy here getting ready for qualifying exams (and
preparing for another season of fieldwork), but I wouldn't mind looking
more closely into seals. The January time frame is better for me, also.
I'll try to find Yuri's references, but again, they both sound like
isolated finds and single objects. I'd like to see a conjunction of
architecture and ceramics. Despite the whining of another poster in this
thread, that standard is possible, and has been reached many other times
in other parts of the world. I'll be happy to provide examples of that to
reassure anyone that the International Archaeological Conspiracy (tm) is
not covering everything up. Controversial paleo-Hebrew "inscriptions"
from poorly excavated sites which are clearly not otherwise Hebrew is not
adequate. Sorry, but strong claims require strong evidence. If contact on
a scale sufficient to impact New World culture actually occurred, there
ought to be meaningful evidence for it.
Ben
Subject: Re: White tribes of Olde America
From: dweller@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Douglas Weller)
Date: Sun, 01 Dec 1996 20:28:13 GMT
On 1 Dec 1996 18:43:30 GMT, dolmen1@ix.netcom.com(Leonard M. Keane) wrote:
>In <32a8e640.34587063@news.demon.co.uk> dweller@ramtops.demon.co.uk
>(Douglas Weller) writes:
>>
>
>>Douglas:
>
>You say:
>>NEARA specializes in 'ancient american' claims, I don't know what The
>>American Institute for Archaeological Research, Inc. is, anyone else
>>know?
[SNIP]
>
>I have not been a member of NEARA for years, so I don't know what they
>might now "specialize" in.
Am I wrong then in thinking that when you were a member at least one main
focus of attention was 'ancient american' claims/findings whatever.?
As for "The Institute", it is am amateur
>archeological group which does not specialize in any "claims", but
>merely has put on record findings (which few professional group seems
>inclined -should I say "courageous enough" - to do.). I have been on
>its Board of Directors for a long time. No need to put out a call to
>others. I suppose I can answer any questions about it.- L.K.
I'd actually find input from others useful, although you might have included a
few details since I asked about it. The difference between 'findings' and
'claims' can be a narrow one.
>I do not have a Ph.D. in Archeology, merely a B.A. in History. So, if
>that deficit puts me out of the discussion in the n.g. please say so up
>front. I however will decide whether to linger on. - L.K.
Certainly no problem with that.
>>I suspect the poster means northeast quadrant of the US, not
>northwest,...
>
>Yes, I explained (I hope sufficiently) that intentional typo! - L.K.
If you did, it didn't reach my server.
>>In any case I can assure people neither is 'literally covered' with
>>stone of any description, unless the meaning of 'literally' has
>>changed a lot. There has been a lot of nonsense written about stone
>>structures in New England - most of which you can find building
>>instructions for in 18th and 19th century farm journals. - L.K.
>
>Douglas, if you had worn out as many pairs of boots as I have mapping
>the stuff I think you might have other ideas about that. You seem to
>have read certain obscure farm journals, but not the material from
>NEARA authored by me, or the "Institute" material authored by me.
>What I am talking about has absolutely nothing to do with colonial
True, I don't recall reading anything by you. Then you aren't claiming Mystery
Hill to be pre-colonial?
Subject: Re: peanut in ancient China (_Arachis hypogaea_)?
From: pmv100@psu.edu (Peter van Rossum)
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 22:44:00 GMT
In article <57sfb1$jjn@news1.io.org> yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
[Yuri's post re-ordered for clarity]
>Well, it seems like the ball is in your court now, Peter.
Well served, Yuri. Here's my return.
>Below, you will find Peter bringing up the idea of carbon-testing the
>finds. Well, it turns out that this has been done already!
[my post deleted, Yuri accurately summarized it.]
>
>(Peanuts were tested together with some other plant remains found at this
>and the other site.)
I think you are misreading this, it is not at all clear that the peanut
remains were used for C-14 dating as I suggested. If you look in Chang
1979 (p. 45), you will see that for both the P'ao-ma-ling and Ch'ien-
shan-yang sites, only a single (i.e. one) radiocarbon date was obtained.
There is no indication from any of Chang's volumes that the dates were
obtained from peanut remains. Unfortunately the original reports are
written in Chinese so I cannot verify that they weren't used for dating
but the likelihood, given early 1960's radiocarbon limitations, is that
they were not. So I repeat again that maybe Needham should come up with
a few hundred bucks to try to submit a portion of one of the actual
peanuts for AMS C-14 dating.
>Here's the information about the peanut that was requested by Peter and
>others. It seems that the peanut satisfies Peter's definition for a
>"smoking gun" even better than I thought possible before I looked up these
>references, myself. (I'm talking about the "smoking gun" type of evidence
>that would indicate that ancient peoples were exchanging cultural traits
>across the Pacific well before Columbus.)
>
>I have two references for the discovery that peanut, originally native to
>S. America, was present in ancient China before Columbus. This discovery
>was made in the process of legitimate and monitored archaeological
>excavations. There are actually _two_ separate finds. The peanuts were
>found in undisturbed strata.
>
>"Because it was thought that peanuts ... should not be found in China at
>such great antiquity, according to our present knowledge of their ...
>histories of cultivation, Ho (1969: 205-9) questions the stratigraphy of
>the remains at the Ch'ien-shan-yang site. This obviously is not a question
>that can be settled by reading or interpreting the original report, which
>gives no reasonable ground for doubt in stratigraphical issues. Note that
>peanuts were also found in Hsiu-shui from the same cultural level and time
>period." (Chang 1977, p. 45)
>Yuri.
There is no indication again, that the peanuts came from undisturbed
strata. If you read the Chang quote more carefully you will see that he
doesn't say that the strata were undisturbed only that you can't figure
it out from the original site report. From a source cited in Chang, I
found this:
"Integrated evidence from a variety of sources indicates the peanut
originated as a crop in South America, where it is not at present
documented archaeologically until *after* Lungshanoid times. Furthermore,
the introduction of the peanut into China is rather well documented
historically, and there is no mention of it in Chinese literature until
the 1530s (Ho 1955). Its appearance in the Chinese Neolithic is suspect
to say the least. According to Ho (personal communication), the site
report of the Ch'ien-shan-yang indicates a stratigraphy so confused and
unreliable that there is essentially no evidence for early peanut at all.
Yet the report is repeatedly cited as if this item of evidence bore as
much weight as an integrated body of evidence." (Harlan & de Wet 1973:54).
So at least some Chinese archaeologists are claiming that the Ch'ien-shan-yang
stratigraphy *is* mixed. Also the type of mixing I mentioned due to
natural or animal action moving just a small number of small objects can
be very difficult to pick up while an excavation is in progress. So even
if there is good evidence of largescale non-mixing of a stratum the
possibility of an intrusive small object still exists.
In Sauer I found the following:
"The only report of archaeological peanut material in Mexico is from
the Tehuacan caes where some peanut shells were found in the top levels,
which may date from after the Spanish conquest. One seed was found in
a lower level, dated before 750 A.D. Standing alone, this must be
suspected of being intrusive through disturbance." (Sauer 1993:81).
See how easily Sauer (and I'd go along with him) is willing to accept
disturbance rather than diffusion for a region which is land-linked to
South America because it stands out as an anomaly. Without a direct
date on the peanut in question, or a wider body of corroborating evidence
the possibility of disturbance rather than spread seems more likely
(to me and Sauer at least).
Also the other objection in the quote above is that *if* the Chinese
dates are correct, then people have found domesticated peanuts in a
Chinese context which are OLDER than the dates we so far have for the
earliest domesticated peanuts in the New World. Maybe someone will find
an earlier date for the peanut in the New World, but at present it does
seem strange to find a domesticated plant EARLIER in a DIFFUSION context,
than in its supposed hearth of domestication.
Here's my final objection (at least so far) to Needham's conclusion. Chang
has written at least 3 revisions of "The Archaeology of Ancient China."
In version one (1968) he wrote of the peanut "At Ch'ien-shan-yang...the
peanut, a well know early American species" [was found] (p. 157).
In this draft there is no questioning the accuracy of this find.
In version two (1977) he wrote, "At the P'ao-ma-ling site, four peanut
seeds were reported..." (p. 167), and "At Ch'ien-shan-yang"...the peanut,
a well know early American species" [was found] (p. 181). But now he
also adds the footnote "The stratigraphy of the remains of the peanuts
has been questioned - rightly it now seems from the radiocarbon
disconformity - by a number of scholars who are skeptical of the early
date of peanuts in China....But see the earlier discussion of peanuts at
P'ao-ma-ling in Kiangsi." (p. 181)
So now Chang seems to be quibbling with the accuracy of the find, although
he's not out-and-out rejecting it.
In verion three (1986) I couldn't find any mention of the peanut in the
index or in the body of the text. The only mention of the peanut is now
in a footnote: "the original report [of Ch'ien-shan-yang] lists, in
addition, the peanut, sesame, and beans. The provenance of these finds,
as well as the remains of silk, has been questioned; see..." (footnote
on p. 254).
You can draw your own conclusions but to me it appears that as more time
passes, without the appearance of more corroborating evidence, Chang is
becoming much more equivocal of his acceptance of the idea of an early
peanut introduction.
Admittedly this last objection is not real strong, but it looks like
Needham is relying on Chang for his data on this topic but Chang is does
not appear to have the same strong convictions as Needham. Given that
Chang seems to have read the original reports and followed the discussion,
he appears (IMO) to be in a better position to judge its quality than
Needham.
So now it looks like the ball is back in your court Yuri. I think you'll
need to find some new material than Needham to refute this stuff.
Good luck,
Peter van Rossum
PMV100@PSU.EDU
Chang, Kwang-Chih,
1968 THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF ANCIENT CHINA, Yale UP,
1977 THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF ANCIENT CHINA, Yale UP,
1986 THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF ANCIENT CHINA, Yale UP,
Chang, Kwang-Chih,
1976 EARLY CHINESE CIVILIZATION: ANTHROPOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES,
Harvard UP,
Harlan, Jack R. & J.M.J. de Wet
1973 "On the Quality of Evidence for Origin and Dispersal of Cultivated Plants,"
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY, vol. 14, no. 1-2, pp. 51-62.
Sauer, Jonathan D.
1993 HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY OF CROP PLANTS: A SELECT ROSTER. Boca
Raton: CRC Press.
Subject: Re: A Demand for the Kennewick Man's Remains
From: itsd1@teleport.com (Thomas L. Billings)
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 16:33:47 -0800
In article
,
rejohnsn@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Nov 1996, Stella Nemeth wrote:
>
> > rejohnsn@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu wrote:
>
> (Lots of stuff that we both agree on snipped)
>
> > >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 come to the real question. Why is the claim of a person who
> > happens to be "Euro-American" (only God knows if the man is or is not
> > of European background alone) more "proprietary politicking" than the
> > claims of Native Americans. This skeleton is thousands of years old.
> > The likelihood that the particular group of Native Americans which
> > claimed it being descendants of this skeleton is not great. In fact
> > it is probably quite unlikely.
>
> Yes, but it's a question of grouping rather than lumping. Look at all of
> the p.c. terms for Americans of various descent: African-, Native-,
> Asian-, Mexican-, &c.; Very often, when people (probably mostly
> Euro-Americans) say "American," they are thinking of Euro-Americans. I
> say Euro-American in a conscious effort to avoid defining Americans as
> Euro-Americans. But that doesn't mean I'm always successful (see below).
How grouping is done is dependant on what people want out of the act. I
would suggest that the "Euro-American" grouping is done within academia to
set up conflicts that otherwise would be far less sharply drawn. The
culture becoming dominant in world-wide, which has spent 200 years growing
up, and coming more and more into prominence, is NOT dominated soley by
any one traditional ethnic group in the world. It is an INDUSTRIAL
culture. That is the culture that Science, including Archaeology and
Anthropology properly belongs to, not some "Euro-American" mishmash.
>
> So in terms of NAGPRA, what we see happening in the politics of it is
> that Euro-Americans (which self-annointed defenders of archaeology
> frequently are) identify as a single group but require the Native
> Americans to act as separate cultural/tribal entities. If you read
> NAGPRA and the rules & regs surrounding it, you find that its remedies
> are only available to Federally-recognized tribes. Further, you find
> that cultural affiliation must be determined before the bones go to
> anyone -- but cultural affiliation is understood to be tribal.
This was indeed what was desired by many from those seperate groups at the
time, if those I have spoken to here in Oregon are correct.
> We have a
> double standard -- people who are Euro-American are just Euro-American;
> whether we're Scottish, Irish, French, German, or whatever-American is
> irrelevant because it's the "Euro" that matters more than the particular
> country. Besides, given all the intermarriage, country is hard to identify.
Not so! Some families just off the boat from the back country farms of
Russia, or any other less industrial area of Europe have distinctly
different attitudes than those living in industrial America or Europe for
several generations. What you seem to be complaining about is the
relative unity of much of the archaeological/anthropological scientific
community, an industrial network, which has seen substantial influence
from outside of Europe/America by now. It is a world-wide network.
> Native Americans, however, are not given the latitude to act as a united
> group of people.
They don't act as a united group of people for the most part. Like the
rest of us, they're busy, adapting to an industrial environment. The
"latitude to act" is being witheld from political groups desiring
political power, through the union of the First Nations as a political
coalition. Kennewick-Man is another "issue" for them.
>When you're talking about someone who is 9,000 years
> old, though, modern tribal distinctions are likely irrelevant.
Then why give power over the knowledge (artifacts, remains, etc.) to
someone from any of these groups, or even more so, to the political groups
seeking power thereby?
> What
> matters is not what tribe(s) the person may be most closely related to,
> but that the person is Native American.
That is what I don't agree with. This particular grouping,"Native
American", is done for NO other reason than to hand political power to a
particular political group (representing some, but not all, and maybe not
even a majority, of those they "speak for") that may have affinities with
many of the political causes of academia.
> The differences between the
> person's living beliefs and those of any extant Native American group are
> probably pretty big -- but they're still probably much more similar to
> any extant Native American group than to any Euro-American group.
The differences between industrial culture and any 9,000 B.P. culture are
probably very large, but the farming, fishing and hunting communities in
the Pacific N.W. at even 500 B.P. had an environment with little
similarity to that of 9000 B.P. Neither they nor we would probably be
readily understandable to, or understanding of, our friend from 9000 B.P.
> When
> you get back into times where modern groups won't hold, maintaing the
> divisions between such groups is ridiculous.
Indeed, maintaining either divisions or putative similarities here is
risky at best, and virges on insanity when stretching things to 9000 years
without other strong motivation. It is that strong motivation for doing
this that so many such as myself are concerned with. I see this as yet
another attempt to inflate the political groups opposed to industrial
culture, and it's neccessary freedoms, including the intellectual freedom
to proceed with scientific enquiry, including anthropological,
archaeological, and paleontological examinations of our 9000 B.P.
neighbor.
> This is just
> another means to exercise control.
When the intellectual freedom to pursue scientific investigation is called
"control", then either you are saying that the freedom is being abused,
and false knowledge disseminated, or you're saying that the freedom is a
threat to some other factor you'd like to see enhanced. That other factor
wouldn't be the political power of some group, would it? Or is it that
you believe the scientific groups that would perform the investigations to
be either morally or intellectually corrupt? The view that the whole
enterprixe is corrupt has been expressed of course, by people ranging from
Vine Deloria to Pat Robertson, but I don't think either of us are in that
"grouping".
> Why? United they stand,
> divided they fall. This is a big reason you see so much `respect' among
> archaeologists for Native American cultural traditions when it comes to
> NAGPRA. It's a way to maintain power by keeping the opposition unbalanced.
You have painted this as a vision of a virtuous "opposition" held down by
somebody, somewhere, somehow. For some reason, "they" must have control
over the remains of Kennewick-Man to keep some portion of such repression
from occurring again. In fact, this is just another group of politicos,
saying that their politics should limit the type kind and degree of
scientific enquiry. Any political group saying that should be deeply
suspect.
Inspite of my disagreement wih your views, I thank you for your coherence
and thoroughness in expressing them.
> Rebecca Lynn Johnson
> Ph.D. stud., Dept. of Anthropology, U Iowa
Regards,
Tom Billings
--
Institute for Teleoperated Space Development
itsd1@teleport.com(Tom Billings)
ITSD's web site is at, http://www.teleport.com/~itsd1/index.html
Subject: Re: White tribes of Olde America
From: dolmen1@ix.netcom.com(Leonard M. Keane)
Date: 2 Dec 1996 01:40:06 GMT
In <32b1e998.12368572@news.demon.co.uk> dweller@ramtops.demon.co.uk
(Douglas Weller) writes:
>
>On 1 Dec 1996 18:43:30 GMT, dolmen1@ix.netcom.com(Leonard M. Keane)
wrote:
>
>>In <32a8e640.34587063@news.demon.co.uk> dweller@ramtops.demon.co.uk
>>(Douglas Weller) writes:
>>>
>>
>>>Douglas:
>>
>>You say:
>>>NEARA specializes in 'ancient american' claims, I don't know what
The
>>>American Institute for Archaeological Research, Inc. is, anyone else
>>>know?
>[SNIP]
>>
>>I have not been a member of NEARA for years, so I don't know what
they
>>might now "specialize" in.
>Am I wrong then in thinking that when you were a member at least one
main
>focus of attention was 'ancient american' claims/findings whatever.?
>
>As for "The Institute", it is am amateur
>>archeological group which does not specialize in any "claims", but
>>merely has put on record findings (which few professional group seems
>>inclined -should I say "courageous enough" - to do.). I have been on
>>its Board of Directors for a long time. No need to put out a call to
>>others. I suppose I can answer any questions about it.- L.K.
>
>I'd actually find input from others useful, although you might have
included a
>few details since I asked about it. The difference between 'findings'
and
>'claims' can be a narrow one.
Well, both groups are amateur organizations and thus should not and
cannot be held to PhD standards of investigation. Unfortunately, in
the views of some professionals, that's unacceptable. Amateurs running
around their turf! And moreover, finding things that they never seem
to find, yet claim to know all about. Just a bit annoying to people
like me! No disrespect intended to anyone, professional or amateur, but
of all the physical findings reported on by "The Institute" (I cannot
now speak about NEARA)I am not aware of any followup or acknowledgement
by people with professional credentials.- L.K.
By "findings" I mean things discovered or new information reported on;
a "claim" would to me carry a connotation of something already
established or proven, whereas that has not happened. Amateur
archeologists need assistance from professionals who are interested in
furthering scientific inquiry. - L.K.
>
>>I do not have a Ph.D. in Archeology, merely a B.A. in History. So,
if
>>that deficit puts me out of the discussion in the n.g. please say so
up
>>front. I however will decide whether to linger on. - L.K.
>Certainly no problem with that.
OK. I will contribute, I hope, as time allows. - L.K.
>
>>>I suspect the poster means northeast quadrant of the US, not
>>northwest,...
>>
>>Yes, I explained (I hope sufficiently) that intentional typo! - L.K.
>
>If you did, it didn't reach my server.
If the analogy is needed I will get into it again. I was taliking about
extensive interlocking geometrical patterns based on large stone
placements throughout much of New England, and why they cannot be
random or glacially placed. - L.K.
>
>>>In any case I can assure people neither is 'literally covered' with
>>>stone of any description, unless the meaning of 'literally' has
>>>changed a lot. There has been a lot of nonsense written about stone
>>>structures in New England - most of which you can find building
>>>instructions for in 18th and 19th century farm journals.
>>
>>Douglas, if you had worn out as many pairs of boots as I have mapping
>>the stuff I think you might have other ideas about that. You seem to
>>have read certain obscure farm journals, but not the material from
>>NEARA authored by me, or the "Institute" material authored by me.
>>What I am talking about has absolutely nothing to do with colonial
>>farms - L.K.
>True, I don't recall reading anything by you. Then you aren't claiming
>Mystery Hill to be pre-colonial?
I honestly don't know what to make of Mystery Hill. I understand there
is a carbon-14 dating of about 4000 B.C. I also recognize some solar
alignments and stone placements there. There are also said to be lunar
alignments. I'm not sure. I always wanted to check the surrounding
area out to about 5 miles in all directions, but ever had a chance.
Mystery Hill is not as extensive (so far as I can tell) as what I have
found in northeast Mass. - L.K.
I think back copies of my articles may be available from NEARA and/or
"The Institute". - L.K.
Subject: Re: CROSSING THE BERING STRAIT? How ridiculous!
From: sxaeg@aurora.alaska.edu (GREENWALT ART E)
Date: 2 Dec 1996 02:25:41 GMT
Ed Conrad (edconrad@prolog.net) wrote:
: Let's be realistic and use a little common sense!
: What tribal leaders, in their right mind -- from wherever they were --
: would search for ``greener pastures" by heading so far north?
Actually, the wouldn't be heading north nor would they be seeking
greener pastures. All it takes is a culture dependent on migratory
animals such as caribou.
Here in Alaska we often see smaller herds split from the parent herd,
the most recent event being a splinter herd of some 80,000 animals
breaking off from the Western Arctic Herd (around 450,000 caribou) and
heading southwest. They eventually rejoined the main herd after a month
but it is by no means the first such splintering.
Too, they can and do change their migration routes radically. In 1992
we had a very early snow here in the Interior. As a result, the herd
which normally ranges the Alaskan Range foothils about 60 miles south of
Fairbanks actually came through Fairbanks (even through town itself) and
stayed in this area most of the winter.
Caribou are unpredictable in what routes they will take sometimes and
the thought of a herd in the Russian Far East giving rise to a splinter
herd moving across the land bridge is very plausible. Equally, the
thought of a group of people following that herd is just as plausible.
Nomadic hunters go where the food is and the competition for that food is
the least.
: True, they may not have realized they were heading north (assuming
: there were no maps or compasses), but they'd soon realize it was
: getting colder and more hostile the further they traveled.
: Why would they continue? Why would they start off in the first place?
: How would they know that -- if they ever completed their trip --
: they'd be much better off than they were before?
They wouldn't necessarily be heading north. Given the size and
placement of the land bridge, more likely they would be heading east,
towards the sun, towards the source of heat, possibly following the
caribou, mammoth, bison, horse, saiga and the multitudes of other
huntable species which made up their diet.
Nor would it necessarily be colder. Very likely the climate they would
be accustomed to in the Russian Far East would prevail across the land
bridge, given its breadth. In that case they would notice very little
difference in the climate.
As to why they would make such a trip, how would they know they would
be better off? If they were following the caribou herds those would be
moot points. They'd make the trip because the herd was making the trip.
And as along as they are near the herd, they are well-off. A caribou
herd supplied a pre-contact Alaskan with just about everything they
needed. Sinew for cord, bowstrings, fishing line, etc. Fur for
incredibly warm parkas, pants, boots, mittens. Meat and vegies (stomach
contents). The bones could be formed into ladles, projectile points,
tools, even flutes and needles.
In short, with caribou around there's very little they would need for.
: What would they have done for food? Once their supply of food was
: exhausted, what did they eat? Where did they find the additional food
: they most certainly would have had to have?
See the above. Any group wandering across the land bridge was most
certainly not alone when it comes to prey species. Too, there would be
berries along the way and other edible vegetation in the summer.
A reasonable model for life on the land bridge might be the North
Slope, where you have a treeless expanse populated by musk ox, caribou,
bears (polar and grizzly), wolves. That's about it for the large
animals. But don't discount the arctic hare which can, at times, explode
in population over a couple years. Along the edges of the land bridge
whaling and seal-hunting could take place, adding to this larder. Indeed,
winter is prime seal-hunting season and icefishing can provide quite a
bit of protein for little effort.
: How about the trip itself? If it happened (which it obviously didn't),
: how did they protect themselves from the elements? After all, even if
: they made the trip in record time, they'd have spent many, many
: nine-to-10-month ``winters" in a most hostile environment.
They'd have no more trouble than did the pre-contact cultures on the
North Slope of Alaska. Indeed, given the likely range of climatic bands,
a model also exists for the interior of the land bridge: the Interior of
Alaska. Cultures have adapted to its -65 temperatures quite well, the
few hours of daylight in the depths of winter, traveling over deep snow.
: This litany of absurdities could go on and on.
: The plain and simple fact is that it never happened.
: Let the scientists who cling to this ridiculous idea give it a try to
: prove their point that it IS possible. But let them make the trip
: without themal clothing, battery-powered heaters, a stockpile of food,
: directional finders, etc., etc., etc.
: May then -- ONLY then -- they would realize how prepostrous
: the theory is.
: As I've said, all it takes is a bit of common sense to realize that
: the earliest man to inhabit of North America certainly didn't make
: the trip by cossing the Bering Strait.
: Naturally, such a ridiculous theory was originally presented because
: of an inability by the scientific community to explain man's presence
: on the North American continent.
: It was just one of many flights of fantasy by dreams and hallucinators
: who think, while you can fool some of the people all of the time and
: all of the people some of the time, you can't fool all of the people
: all of the time.
All you have to do to see how very feasible and plausible the concept is
is to look at the boundaries of the land bridge. It was wider than most
of Alaska's mainland. Given that, I would turn the question back and ask
why, if ancient cultures were able to survive the range of climate and
terrain Alaska represents why would they not be able to survive a very
similar range on the land bridge? The easiest way to look at the whole
concept is not Russian Far East here, Alaska there and this hunk of land
connecting them but one massive piece of land,
RussianFarEastLandBridgeAlaska.
Other animals species moved back and forth along this immense area; why
not humans? The technology was already in place, the ability was already
in place. Probably to the first Americans it was not really different
from life in the Russian Far East.
And once the land bridge sank, crossing the straits is still no
problem. Until the Soviets halted all visitation, Alaskan natives would
frequently visit villages in the Russian Far East. Indeed, the boundary
between the former USSR and Alaska divided familes, families able to keep
in touch with relative ease.
So land bridge or watery straits...that area has never posed much of a
problem to human movement. History and prehistory indicates it was
common and with the technologies adapted to those areas, rather easy.
....Art, in Alaska
Subject: Re: Sanskrit: was: Re: Etruscans [was: Re: The Coming of the Greeks]
From: scott@math.csuohio.edu (Brian M. Scott)
Date: 2 Dec 1996 05:51:24 GMT
In article <577lrg$8bp@fridge-nf0.shore.net>, whittet@shore.net says...
>In article <577eao$5id@csu-b.csuohio.edu>, scott@math.csuohio.edu
>says...
[snips]
>Let me attempt to make that clearer for you then.
>[1.)First you need to perceive that ]languages are spoken by people.
>[2.) Then you need to consider what that requires you to have
>in order to measure, weigh and judge its processes]
>a sound knowledge of the movements of people
>[3.) You need to consider what the constraints are]
>in the period under discussion
>[4.) You need to consider how the study of a culture and its
>language work together and are] equally valuable to a good theory
>[5.) You need to consider whether the basis of a theory
>about a culture should start with a study of the culture
>as a whole, or a part of it only.] as to the rules which govern
>their linguistics
>[6.) And I concluded] that is where archaeology
>gets to put its two cents worth in.
>>You merely said that it was just as important to know about
>>the movements of the people as to know about the languages.
>I rarely "merely say" anything. What I expected you to get
>as you read and thought about what I said were all of the
>above points and a few more besides.
I am not going to waste everyone's time demonstrating that in
context my statement was correct. In fact, it's a fair enough
summary of your expanded version above. And *if* you actually
meant what you've said - that ideally one should examine the
whole culture, not just the languae - I'd have small reason to
quarrel. But you obviously *don't* mean that. You want to
ignore all of the linguistic evidence.
>>As Loren said, this is a rather elementary point.
>Perhaps linguistics should begin with these elementary points
>(about which no one apparently agrees), and then having established
>a firm foundation of facts related to the movements of peoples on
>which we can all agree, move on to discuss how these movements
>allowed various languages to influence one another.
See? Suddenly we're not trying to look at the whole culture
at once, but rather only at the movements of peoples. Only
then, you imply, should we look at the linguistic evidence.
>> Subsequently you seem to argue the rather different position
>>that the movements are *more* important than the
>>languages.
>I said they were "equally valuable to a good theory"
This may be an exact quotation; I haven't bothered to check, since
it's obviously not an accurate description of the position that you're
actually trying to maintain.
>> This seems rather absurd when the objects under study
>>are in fact the languages themselves.
>You need to consider whether the basis of a theory
>about a culture should start with a study of the culture
>as a whole, or a part of it only.
One has to start somewhere. You wish to start with migrations
and hard archaeological evidence and bring in linguistic evidence
as an afterthought; how is this studying the culture as a whole?
Others begin with the linguistic evidence and try to correlate it
with archaeological data.
[snip]
>On reflection, I take it you mean my argument is dishonest
>because it attacks Mallory as a weak link in the chain of
>reasoning which you or any other well informed individual
>would know how to properly bolster against my assault.
No. I mean that it's *your* obligation to learn enough of
the relevant linguistics to decide whether you're attacking
received wisdom, a straw man, a tenable but controversial
hypothesis, etc. You want to talk about how languages
change(d). A great deal is known about the subject. Even
an amateur like me can tell that you know very little about
this subject; you're fatally handicapped to start with.
>>>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.
>>Nonsense. You need to begin the argument by showing that there are
>>linguistic grounds for considering the possibility.
>Well then, lets consider how there can be linguistic grounds for
>considering the possibility (of a linguistic influence), when it
>cannot be shown that there was any contact of any sort between
>the two cultures? Can you explain that to me?
Learn some linguistics. Several people have shown you in some
detail some of the kinds of linguistic reasoning that provides
such grounds; in short, there *are* such grounds, whether they
have archaeological support or not. Asking how such grounds can
exist merely betrays your lack of understanding of the reasoning
and evidence involved. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the
answer to your question is rather obvious even without any
linguistic background: there are vast holes in our archaeological
knowledge, and lack of evidence is not the same as negative
evidence.
>>>>>>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.
>>This *is* step one: the systematic relationships have been demonstrated.
>>*Now* you may try to figure out what produced these observed relationships.
>Your systematic relationships are a fantasy until you show an
>archaeological connection.
If you don't understand the reasoning, just say so.
>Sorry but the burden of proof rests with the prosecution here.
Anyone offering a theory that is contradicted by a substantial
body of evidence is under an obligation to refute that evidence;
you seem rather to ignore it.
>It is not enough to claim the defendant meets the profile.
>In terms of an Aryan invasion of India my client has an alibi
>your honor, at the time in question he was otherwise engaged
>elsewhere; quietly sitting in a little village on the banks
>of a river 3500 miles away and thus, cannot have done this thing.
>There is no witness, no evidence, no opportunity which has been shown.
>Since you cannot place the defendant at the scene of the crime,
>or show some evidence of his presence or motive or opportunity,
>you have no option but to find there is no probable cause and
>dismiss the case.
You have perhaps heard of circumstantial evidence?
[snip]
>Either you can make a case or you can't? Which is it?
It's not my argument. I'm neither an archaeologist nor a linguist;
but I understand enough of the linguistics to find your willingness
to dismiss it simply preposterous. *You're* the one trying to make
a case while ignoring a large chunk of the evidence. So far you
haven't even demonstrated an understanding of that evidence, let
alone offered any direct refutation.
Brian M. Scott
