Newsgroup sci.archaeology 51278

Directory

The boat in its present condition should stay afloat about as long as
goofies...er groovies dilapidated ideas.

In article , petrich@netcom.com says...
>
>In article <581lvl$ej9@fridge-nf0.shore.net>,
>Steve Whittet  wrote:
>>In article , petrich@netcom.com says...
>
>        [Sanskrit "just emerging as a language"...]
>>>        How would it be "just emerging as a language"?
>
>>I may see language a little differently than some linguists do. 
>>What reason do we have to suspect that no languages are independently
>>invented? What would we mean by the word "invented" in this case?
>
>>Just as ethno-cultural clusters of people tend to collectively work 
>>out agreements on norms, mores, rules and laws, building consensus and 
>>homogeneity so as to come together as states; ethno-linguistic groups 
>>tend to work out grammatical arrangements so as to make language more 
>>consistent.
>
>        Can you give us examples of this alleged process? And something 
>like the Academie Francaise does not count, since most societies simply 
>do not have such organizations.
What would you call the process by which a parent teaches a child
to speak?
The first step: Lullabies, stories, tall tales, myths, the oral 
history, who the grand parents and great grand parents are and 
where they came from and thats who you are; religious chants, 
rituals rites and celebrations, santa claus, the easter bunny,
songs, dances, all the stuff you learn at home at your mothers 
knee. Your mother explains what your expected role will be.
The second step: Peers, brothers and sisters, friends, chums, 
cousins, aunts and uncles, the extended family, teach you
other neat stuff they think you need to know.
The third step: Rights of passage, the village elders initiate
you into adulthood and teach you the norms, mores, rules, laws,
rights and privledges, responsibiliites and obligations of being
an adult.Your father teaches you his trade.
You are born, you grow up, have a family, pass on to them what was
passed on to you and then you die.
Now if you live in a very small village that may be the end of it.
The extent of the language you need to know to function.
Urbanization adds a few steps more on besides.
Education
Employment
Fun, Travel, Adventure (Military Service)
The more you do with your life the more groups there are teaching
you stuff, and a lot of what you get taught is what to call things,
what the right words are.
Culture carries this a step further, you have to add the right
inflections and body language. You have to say it just so.
>>Working against the emergence of language, just as factionalization 
>>tends to break down states, dialects tend to break down languages.
>
>        However, there is a joke that stats that a language is a dialect 
>with an army.
Like most humour, what makes it funny is that there is an essential
element of truth to it.
>
>>Urbanization helps bring enough people close enough together so that
>>at an event horizon there is sufficient critical mass to create a chain 
>>reaction. That's what I mean by the emergence of a language.
>
>        However, even people at Paleolithic levels of technology, like 
>many of the New World peoples, have had language.
They also had fire. We have the same fire they did, we just do more
with it.
>
>>>        What would it have emerged from???
>
>>The Indus Valley culture which had been homogeneous and urban for
>>more than a millenia at the time in question, was in the process of
>>social disintigration. I would propose Sanskrit may have been an
>>attempt by scholars to preserve some of its culture right at the
>>very end. It appears to have
> a strong litterary and grammatical
>>tradition.
>
>        The trouble here is that the Indus Valley culture is rather 
>un-Vedic; the Vedas picture a rural, pastoralist society, instead of an 
>urban, agricultural one. And the IV writing system did not survive it.
That's why I am drawing a distinction between the upper and lower
Indus. The seven rivers region, the headwaters of the Indus, the
region called the Punjab from Harrapa to Rupar, was forested much 
like the amazon was a century ago. Slash and burn agriculture made 
pastures for cattle at the price of the soil washing away and major 
flooding. Eventually the river changed its course.
>
>>A lot of the Sanskrit literature consists of poems preserving the norms, 
>>mores, attitudes, values, rules and laws of the Vedic period. Who better
>>to entrust a culture with, than an aristocracy of warrior nobles?
>
>        A priestly caste more likely.
What makes you think the warriors were not priests? Isn't that exactly
the martial arts tradition?
>
>>Why do they turn up in Mesopotamia? Because that was the largest
>>and most advanced remaining culture known to the Indus valley.
>
>        Huh?
c 1500 BC If you lived on the Indus and your river changed its course
leaving your civilization without any visible means of support, where
could you go? Mesopotamia with which the Indus was engaged in trade
throughout the previous millenia, seems like a likely choice.
>-- 
>Loren Petrich  
steve

Thanks Nick. Where's that website?
Roh

I'm desesperatly looking for information about egyptian coffin of the
Ptolemaic period.
Especially one coffin kept in the Louvre Museum named Teos or Tahos.
There are very few information.
If you could be of any help, thanks.
Greg: gtrow@imaginet.fr

In article <57ten5$hcf@news.alaska.edu>, GREENWALT ART E
 writes
Snipping of some rubbish from Conrad, and a very sensible, patient reply
from Art.
>  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 poi^^^^^^^^^
nts, 
>tools, even flutes and needles.  
> More snipping, as above.
Yuk! I nearly threw up on the keyboard!
Seriously, Art, did they actually eat the stomach contents?  Surely
caribou eat grass, would it really have been that important to them?
-- 
Kathy McIntosh
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."  
Robert Byrne.

It could have been from this source:
http://www.planetarymysteries.com/sphinxmars.html
"We may soon know the answer. Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities has 
announced that an attempt will be made later this year to open the 'door'
at the end of the Sirius shaft."
As I've said before, the last few years of schedules, announced
discoveries, REPEATED declarations that Haiwass was fired and/or resigned,
and unannounced delays and/or reschedulings have the stench of
disinformation about them. 
There is a similar and increasingly related stench surrounding remote 
viewing, "Martians" and UFO's.  
This is not to say there is nothing of importance to be discovered here 
-- but it seems to me the "spin doctors" are working over-time these days.
-- 
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
                 Change the tools and you change the rules.

I am looking for any and all information regarding the archaeologist
currently looking for the grave of Alexander the Great - supposed to be
near Siwah.
Please forward all relevant info to VZVY50A@Prodigy.com
Thank you in advance!
Stormie Filson

Okay, okay.  We got the point.  According to you any scientist who thinks
that humans who arrived in North America by way of the Bering Strait are
idiots and fools.  You've made this same point over and over.  What I want
to know is if I'm such fool for thinking the Bering Strait theory could be
true and you're so smart for not believing it, then how did humans come to
be on North America?  Did they swim? Fly?  If you have an ideas that can
be backed up with research then I'll consider it, but until then please
keep your opinions about other peoples intelligence to yourself.
-ka
On 29 Nov 1996, Ed Conrad wrote:
> 
> Whoever came up with the theory that man arrived in 
> North America by crossing the Bering Strait is certainly a prime
> candidate for science's Dunce of the Century Award.
> 
> 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?
> 
> 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?
> 
> 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?
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Problem is, there are many many many newsreaders, almost as many as 
unsubstantiated or tiring claims (which tend to be the same).  I was 
going to post how I do it in my newsreader (NewsExpress 2.0: Open the 
article you want to block off, like Conrad, or Whitaker, or Elijah, or 
whoever drives you nuts, and then, from the menu, click Article/Add 
killfile , and then you select if you want to get rid of the subject, 
author, any of those, etc.).
Try the following:
1. Help menu
2. RTFM
3. Ask your favorite computer geek around.
4. Change newsreader to something that may give you this capacity.
It can be done in any serious newsreader.  And it really makes a 
difference!!
Domingo.
P.S. I do know that this post does not quite belong here but in 
news.help or whatever it is called.  However, it is just one more little 
out-of-place posting which, by indirect ways, may even contribute to the 
quality of the discussion in these 3 newsgroups.
Domingo Martinez-Castilla
agdndmc@showme.missouri.edu

On Tue, 3 Dec 1996 16:02:40 GMT, hmccullo@ecolan.sbs.ohio-state.edu (Hu
McCulloch) wrote:
> Bart_Torbert@piics.com (Bart Torbert) writes:
>>dweller@ramtops.demon.co.uk says...
>
>On the Grave Creek stone from W. Va, identified above as a "famous fraud"
>by Doug Weller,  see Terry 
>A. Barnhart, "Curious Antiquity?  The Grave Creek Controversy Revisited," 
>_West Virginia History_, 1986, 103-124.  Barnhart, an historian formerly with 
>the Ohio Historical Society, concludes that there is no serious reason to 
>doubt that the stone came from the mound as reported.
How does he deal with Matthew Read's account, in which he says that he wrote
to P.B. Catlett, who claimed to have discovered it, and Colonel Wharton, who
said he saw the discovery, and they both agree it was found in a pile of dirt
dumped from a wheelbarrow. Yes, the site owner, Tomlinson, denies this, but
evidently his account of the diggin doesn't match any statements made by any
of those who observed the excavations.
[SNIP]
>I know it's Olmeco-Shang, per the title of this thread.  The letters do 
>look somewhat Mediterranean, however, per Fell's reading.
>
>David Kelley, the well-known proponent of the phonetic nature of the 
>Mayan glyphs  (I guess that's the link here to sci.arch.mesoam?), 
>in his devastating review "Epigraphy and Other Fantasies" 
>of Stephen Williams' book _Fantastic Archaeology_ in 
>_The Review of Archaeology_ 15, #2, 4/19/95, discusses at length Williams'
>treatment of Grave Creek.  Kelley  concludes, "I have a hard time criticizing 
>the view [espoused by Williams] that the inscription is non-alphabetic, for 
>that seems _to me_ an obvious fantasy.  I think that anyone who could
>not recognize that obvious fact should, _ipso facto_, disbar 
>himself from any serious discussion of  the problem." 
I presume he backs this up some how. How does he deal with Read's experiment
getting 4 people to draw 20 arbitrary symbols with straight lines, and
supposedly ending up with inscriptions with equal claim to be alphabetical and
with characters that looked Cypriotic or Phoenician, Coptic, runic, etc.
And surely Williams is spot on in saying that Fell's suggesting that this
extremely tiny stone - 1.75 inches long - is a royal commemoration -- is
ridiculous.
It still doesn't sound to me that there is any definitive proof that it was
found in situ. btw is Kelley suggesting that it is the only surviving fragment
of an unknown form of writing?

Kevin A Lewis (100446.3371@CompuServe.COM) wrote:
: Roman Elevators - Bizarre concept
: 
: You could try referring to Ancient Inventions by Peter James 
: which is quite an exhaustive treatment of the subject of its 
: title. If anything is known of 'Roman Elevators' I would expect 
: this tome to cover it.
: 
: Regards
: 
: Kevin
While you are there, look up Greek airplanes and Egyptian
microwave ovens.
    ------- Paul J. Gans  [gans@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]

whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>There is, in other words, a correspondence between the present day
>ethno-linguistic distributions and the ancient territories of
>various civilizations. 
Yes, it is called "geography".
>The sphere of influence wielded by Elam
>is well demarkated by the area in which modern Bakhtari is spoken.
No.  Elamite was spoken over a much wider area, corresponding
approxiamtely to the original distribution of Farsi (of which Bakhtiari
is a dialect).  The nucleus of Susiana itself, however, is now Arabic
speaking.
>Despite the fact that Hawaii and Massachusetts are both parts of the
>United States which share some common identities such as a tendency 
>to vote Democratic, they have retained their own ethno-linguistic 
>identities underneath. 
This is ridiculous.  The predominant language in Hawaii and
Massachussetts is English now, where it used to be Hawaiian and
Massachussett.
>>* Brahui falls just off the map in Pakistani Baluchistan.  It has
>>absolutely nothing to do with Baluchi.
>Most Nrahui speakers are bilingual in Baluchi which is the secular
>language while Brahui is mostly litterary. 
Brahui is unwritten.
>>  Linguistically, Elamite is closest to Brahui,
>>Brahui to Dravidian.
>This is another one of Mallory's fantasy's and he get's it from McAlpin.
I suppose you have studied the facts then?
>In rebuttal here is some information available on the web.
>http://www.sil.org/htbin/ethcodes/gopher/ethnologue/?
>TEXT=R1206480-1207126-/gopher_root/ethnologue/ethnolog12/eth12eua.db
>"Part of the Ethnologue, 12th Edition Copyright © 1992, SIL Inc. 
>Ethnologue Record: Paki.BRAHUI.BRH, Country; Pakistan; Language name 
>BRAHUI: Alternate language names: BRAHUIDI, BIRAHUI, KUR GALLI 
>Dialect names: JHARAWAN, KALAT, SARAWAN: Genetic affiliation
>Dravidian, Northwest:Geographical region: South central, 
>Quetta and Kalat region, east Baluchistan and Sind provinces 
>Population: 1,500,000 in Pakistan (1981), 1.2% of the population; 
>200,000 in Afghanistan (1980 Dupree); 10,000 in Iran (1983); 
>1,710,000 total 
>Bilingual in Baluchi: Country 2: Afghanistan: Country 3: Iran 
>Printings of whole books of Bible: 1905-1978 Status of linguistic 
>and translation work: Work in progress 
>Remarks: Literary language with a small body of literature. Nastaliq 
>script used. Some bilingualism in Baluchi 
This is wrong.  The Arabic script has been used to write down some of
the oral literature.  That does not make Brahui a literary language.
>Subsistence type: Pastoralists 
>Total speakers: 1,710,000 
>Religion: Muslim 
>Website Copyright © 1996, Summer Institute of Linguistics, Inc."
>A literary language spoken as a second language by 1,500,000 bilingual
>Pakistanis (out of a total population of 65,000,000) has 200,000 additional
>speakers in Afghanistan, (mostly Pakistani immigrants around Kabul) and
>another 10,000 speakers in Iran, most of whom are shepards who use Baluchi
>as a secular language and Brahui to study their religious doctrines.
Nonsense: there are no "religious doctrines" in Brahui.
>>1. The Iranian languages:
>>   * North-West Iranian (Baluchi, Kurdish and the Caspian dialects),
>Baluchi is south east Iran with no connection to the Kurds in
>North west Iran or the Altic dialects of the Caspian
Baluchi is NW Iranian.  They did migrate from the Caspian area.  You can
see it on the map (there are Baluchi speaking pockets all the way from
the Caspian to Baluchistan).  How can you say there is _no connection_
when you are totally ignorant on the issue?
>The Altic Turkish languages are constrained to a belt along the Caspian
>which is overlain by the more recent Persian. 
Bullshit.  The Altaic Turks, as the name "Altaic" indicates, originate
in the Altai and neighbouring parts of Mongolia.  The Huns were the
first Turkic people to move west.  At the time, the Persians had been in
Iran for at least a millennium.
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal                     ~ ~
Amsterdam                   _____________  ~ ~
mcv@pi.net                 |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig

Laurie Davison (ldavison@pop.uky.edu) wrote:
> Excuse me, but... "*He* and *his* other *lesbian*(????) kind..."???? 
> Sorry - new to this list and struggling with the "logic":)
> Laurie
I too am new here.  And as best as i can tell there was no logic in that
post.  Some rantings made by some one who has, sadly lost touch with reality.
Chad
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing.
Chad "Top Gun" Geraghty
Carleton University
Email address: cgeraght@chat.carleton.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello,
I've got a question concerning a project I'm working on for a lithics class 
this semester.  The project involves performing impact tests on obsidian 
prismatic blades at various angles to determine the energy required to 
fracture the blades.  I'm curious as to how long the obsidian "edges" of 
wooden Mesoamerican "swords" (macuahuitl or macanas) would last in 
hand-to-hand combat before they essentially became just wooden clubs.  
Anyway, I'm trying to locate some information on the potential impact forces 
that can be generated by a human arm.  If anyone has some suggestions, I 
would greatly appreciate it.  You can post a reply here or email me at 
mharmon@gnn.com.  Thanks.
Marcel Harmon
Graduate Student, UNM

Yuri Kuchinsky (yuku@io.org) wrote:
[snip]
: 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.
I have examined the Kelley 1966 reference. If Needham is using this to
make a case for diffusion then he is smoking something he shouldn't. There
is zilch, zero, nada here that suggests diffusion, which even Kelley IN
THIS ARTICLE suggests:
[begin quotes from Kelley]
"...on present evidence it seems to me that the elements are simple enough
so that they afford no presumptive evidence of Egyptian influences by
themselves." 
"I have not been able to recognize affinities to any other script with
which I am familiar either in the Old World or the New World" (p. 745)
[end quotes from Kelley]
I got the following from this article:
1. There is no real archaeological context for the piece; it was a surface
find from a site with no hint otherwise of diffused traits.
2. There is no evidence from script, design, material, or style which
would lead anyone to suppose that this seal has anything to do with the
Old World. Kelley is perfectly happy to deal with it as an interesting
and completely indigenous development.
3. Needham's use of this article as evidence for diffusion renders his
scholarly pretensions suspect, if you have accurately represented his
views.
I have not seen the other article yet. I am not hopeful. This one was a
waste of time, and is *exactly* the kind of crappy diffusionist reference 
I was talking about -- misinterpretations of out of context small finds.
How about a real site? Where are the ceramics?
Actually, this whole discussion is silly. Most diffusionists have an
answer in search of a problem. They are sure something diffused sometime,
without ever being able to say who diffused what, when or where.
Everything in the New World can be explained by developments in the New
World; there is no need to look elsewhere, and no call to do so until
compelling evidence is offered to suggest otherwise. 
Ben

In article <581vfv$p1f@csu-b.csuohio.edu>, scott@math.csuohio.edu	 
says...
>
>In article <57upda$llg@fridge-nf0.shore.net>, whittet@shore.net says...
>
>[snipping and reformatting]
...snip...
>Steve, you completely misunderstand what I'm getting at.  You offered 
>the relationship between bodies of water and the ends of land routes 
>as evidence for your theory that transportation by water was primary.
It helps to have some of the background. Sabatino Moscatti has
made a study of sites and found that some of them (Punic Sites)
are not designed to suopport agriculture or pastoral momadism.
It turns out these sites have a lot in common and are found
all over the world, not just in the Mediterranean. 
It is certainly true that one reason to settle on a river
is to use its waters for agriculture or its fish for food,
but another reason may be trade. In support of that, lets
look at some sites located on water where agriculture is
not practical. 
The issues, principal premises and the evidence for them are as follows:
I.)Water was an important factor in transporting people and goods
as well as in support of agriculture.
A.)Most early settlements were on rivers
B.)There were few roads
C.)Many cargos were bulky and not well suited to dragging overland.
	1.Lumber
	2.Metals and their ores
	3.Grains
	4.Oil
D.)There is evidence that boats were used
	1.For ferrying people across rivers
	2.For carrying freight up and down stream
	3.For carrying large bulky cargos long distances
II.)Settlements: There were reasons for selecting sites
Some people (seapeople) made their living on the water
just as other people (landfolk) made their living on the land.
A site which is located for other than agricultural use of a river
probably has some interest in using it for transportation.
A.) Punic sites (seapeople)
	1. Settlements on small rocky islands 
	2. Without arable land
	3. Without pastures
	4. With good harbors
	5. Strategically placed for trade
B.) Agricultural sites
	1. River valleys with irrigation for crops
	2. Focused on an agora or market
C.) Nomadic pastorialist sites
	1. Mountain pastures
	2. Without timber resources
	3. Without Mining resources
	4. Not of strategic importance
I.) Riverine sites
	1.Urban sites
		a. where the river is not primarily used for agriculture
		b. Focused on trade, protection, religion, or manufacture
	2.) Exploitation of resources, Mining or Lumbering
		a.) Fortresses (rocky "Belly of Hagar" on the Nile)
		b.) Temples 
		c.) Trading Posts 	
>I think, on the basis of the little that I know of the subject and 
>the evidence offered in this forum, that you're simply wrong, but I 
>wasn't arguing the facts. 
It generally helps to bring some facts to bear.
> I was merely pointing out that the relationship in question 
>is *not* evidence for your theory because it can as easily be 
>explained by exactly the opposite view.
Explain why almost all early sites are located on rivers, or
coasts even when the principal settlement may be on a small
rocky island where no agriculture is possible.
>This is so no matter *what* the actual facts may be. 
I am attracted to contradictions in terms; lets look at some of
the evidence you have to support your view that it doesn't matter
what the facts are.
> Since it's the facts 
>that are actually of interest, and others have much more to contribute 
>on that score, I'm going to let the matter drop now.
Yes
>
>Brian M. Scott
>
steve

The Hab wrote:
> 
> Troy Sagrillo  wrote:
> >I would like to invite anyone interested in ancient Egypt, especially
> >those of you in Canada, to come visit the SSEA homepage at:
> >
> >http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/1456/
> >
> >There is a calendar of our free public lectures (held in Toronto; open
> >to all) and membership information.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Troy Sagrillo
> >
> >Department of Near & Middle Eastern Civilizations
> >University of Toronto
> >Toronto, Ontario
> >Canada
> 
> I recommend this Society...and I may even be at the Thursday December the
> 5th.
> 
> The Hab
**
**On that note...I'll pass!
AUSAR (LORD OF THE PERFECT BLACK)

In article <581m0a$ahq@news1.io.org> yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
>Hu,
>
>Thank you for your informed and relevant contribution. I suppose we're
>getting closer to identifying some real "smoking guns" here!
>
>Now that we're on the subject, I'd like to quote these potential "smoking
>guns" that are given in MAN ACROSS THE SEA, the scholarly volume I already
>quoted extensively in these groups.
Why do you need to feel that every time you use this as a reference you need
to point out to everyone that this is a "scholarly volume"?  Should I do this
for every reference which I have used to refute arguments of yours - since
all these too came from "scholarly volumes", and in most cases "more up-to-
date scholarly" volumes than the ones you've used?  If you insist on calling
this a scholarly volume it might be nice if you would refer to it as a 
"scholarly volume from a *1968* archaeological conference."  IMO that 
more accurately portrays its status in a *1996* discussion of the topic.
>"In a few cases, claims have been made for the pre-Columbian New World
>occurrence of actual objects of Old World manufacture, including a cache
>of Roman to early Medieval coins from Venezuela, a late Roman torso of
>Venus from Veracruz state, Mexico (Heine-Geldern, 1967: 22), and "a cache
>of Chinese brass coins said to be dated 1200 b. c. [sic]" from British
>Columbia (Larson, 1966: 44). The most convincing case is that of a third
>century a. d. Roman terra-cotta head in apparently unequivocal association
>with a twelfth century a. d. tomb in the state of Mexico (Heine-Geldern,
>1967). ... In addition to these objects, various rock inscriptions have
>been attributed to the Phoenicians (see esp. TIME, 1968b; Gordon, 1968)
>and the Norse." (p. 30)
You really shouldn't take things out of context like this.  The article 
continues to say:
"Since few of theese objects or inscriptions have been discovered and reported 
in a fashion that permits confidence in the dating or even in the genuineness 
of the sites, these finds cannot be accorded much significance.  Even *if* one 
assumes that all such claims are genuine, their small number prevents them 
from being particularly impressive evidence of contact."
When the quotation is accurately put its reading is much more equivocal 
than your selective rendering would suggest - and this in a volume which is 
dedicated to the idea of Old World - New World contact.
>All these lend credence to the theory (that I subsribe to) of numerous
>small scale contacts that contributed to "cross-pollination" of ideas,
>cultural traits, and technologies across the oceans in earliest antiquity. 
>Yuri.
The only ones which would lend "credence" to your theory would be ones whose 
authenticity could be verified.
Peter van Rossum
PMV100@PSU.EDU

Kathy McIntosh  wrote:
>In article <57ten5$hcf@news.alaska.edu>, GREENWALT ART E
> writes
>
>Snipping of some rubbish from Conrad, and a very sensible, patient reply
>from Art.
>>  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 poi^^^^^^^^^
>
>nts, 
>>tools, even flutes and needles.  
>> More snipping, as above.
>
>Yuk! I nearly threw up on the keyboard!
>
>Seriously, Art, did they actually eat the stomach contents?  Surely
>caribou eat grass, would it really have been that important to them?
Well Kathy, I think that at least in winter, caribou eat lichens and such
not grass.  While the contents of a caribou's stomach might sound pretty
unappitizing, I think a dose of scurvy and such (Very common in cases
where some "fresh" veggies arent availble!  Remember why your sailors
are sometimes called "limeys"?) might change your opinion of the Chez 
Caribou salad bar!  8-))
If you want something REALLY tasty sounding, check out the fine old
Scottish recipe for "haggis"!  Now THAT will leave your lunch on your
keyboard!  8-)))
Regards
bk

If this constitutes an unwanted ad, I apologize in advance...
A major new dig at Tel Rehov in Israel, sponsored by Hebrew University of 
Jerusalem, is looking for volunteer workers for next summer. There will 
also be college credit available through a field school. For details and some 
pix, check our web page at:
http://www.rehov.org
Thanks
JC

In article <582fmn$8pi@halley.pi.net>, mcv@pi.netÁ says...
>
>whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>
>>There is, in other words, a correspondence between the present day
>>ethno-linguistic distributions and the ancient territories of
>>various civilizations. 
>
>Yes, it is called "geography".
If you agree there is a correspondence between the territories
held by ancient civilizations and the distribution of modern
day languages and want to furher correlate it to such natural
geographic markers as mountains and rivers, will you go so far
as to admit it is likely that modern languages have replaced
ancient languages according to ethnic groupings constrained by 
geography?
>
>>The sphere of influence wielded by Elam
>>is well demarkated by the area in which modern Bakhtari is spoken.
>
>No.  Elamite was spoken over a much wider area, corresponding
>approxiamtely to the original distribution of Farsi (of which Bakhtiari
>is a dialect).  The nucleus of Susiana itself, however, is now Arabic
>speaking.
What is your evidence for that statement? Can you place a homogeneous 
population corresponding to the original distribution of Farsi in the
period c 2000 BC with some consistent set of artifacts? Can you show
that Elamite survived as a language after the 1st millenium BC?
The question is really do we have independent city states in the 3rd 
millenium BC, or do we have an earlier form of the Persian empire?
You apparently wish to present the case for empire.
Aproximately 1400 Proto Elamite tablets have been in Susa and Anshan.
One has been found at Shar-i Sokhte. On the basis of this one tablet,
in a language which has not yet been deciphered are you prepared to
claim that a settlement which barely covered 50 hectares and another
settlement covering another 50 hectares 450 miles away define the
territory of ancient Elam?
"The largest known proto Elamite settlement was Tall-i Malyan, 450 km
east southeast of Susa in the region of Fars. In later periods Malyan
was called Anshan and both Susa and Anshan were included among the 
boundaries of the kingdom of Elam. In the Banesh period, about 
3400-2600 BC, Malyan occuppied 50 hectares." Michael Roaf, CAM page 78
If you read the preceeding post several independent kingdoms were
joined together in this union c 2000 BC. In the early dynastic
period when Shari-i Sokhte grew to more than 45 hectares (quite
impressive for a city in a desert like the Dasht-e Lut), there
was little evidence for settlement in Fars and Anshan was deserted.
Ibid, page 88
A better case can be made that this was the sphere of influence
of a trading consortium of the states of Dilmun, Makkan and Meluhha
which controlled the Gulf for a millenia or more.
"In the early dynastic period Dilmun supplied timber to Ur-Nanshe of 
Lagash. Later texts from Lagash mention the import of copper ore and 
exports of wool, cloth, silver, fat and [Frankincense ]resin."
"Sargon (2334-2279 BC boasted that Ships of Dilmun, Makkan and Meluhha
moored at the docks of Agade."
"Inscriptions from Ur showed that the trade with the Gulf was conducted by 
merchants who were financed by the temple of Nanna in UR and that the trade 
was mostly with Makkan which also served as an enterpot of goods from 
Meluhha."Ibid page 110
Alternatively you could look at the Elamites in the 12th century BC
when they conquered Babylonia. Between 1165 and 1154 BC Elam was a
power. Then it is not mentioned again for the next three centuries.
>
>>Despite the fact that Hawaii and Massachusetts are both parts of the
>>United States which share some common identities such as a tendency 
>>to vote Democratic, they have retained their own ethno-linguistic 
>>identities underneath. 
>
>This is ridiculous.  The predominant language in Hawaii and
>Massachussetts is English now, where it used to be Hawaiian and
>Massachussett.
So when the Boston Brahmin gets off the plane in Hawaii do they
say Aloha to him or not? Does he go surfing?
>
>>>* Brahui falls just off the map in Pakistani Baluchistan.  It has
>>>absolutely nothing to do with Baluchi.
>
>>Most Brahui speakers are bilingual in Baluchi which is the secular
>>language while Brahui is mostly litterary. 
>
>Brahui is unwritten.
Gee, that's not what the Ethnologue says...
I quess they have it all wrong.
>
>>>  Linguistically, Elamite is closest to Brahui,
>>>Brahui to Dravidian.
>
>>This is another one of Mallory's fantasy's and he get's it from McAlpin.
>
>I suppose you have studied the facts then?
Somewhat, I have read Mallory and can cite him citing McAlpin 
if you like. I have checked Roaf on Elam and that doesn't wash.
I checked out the ethnolouge on Brahui and I got the "People
of Iran" ethno-linguistic map to look at the distributions.
>
>>In rebuttal here is some information available on the web.
>
>>http://www.sil.org/htbin/ethcodes/gopher/ethnologue/?
>>TEXT=R1206480-1207126-/gopher_root/ethnologue/ethnolog12/eth12eua.db
>
>>"Part of the Ethnologue, 12th Edition Copyright © 1992, SIL Inc. 
>
>>Ethnologue Record: Paki.BRAHUI.BRH, Country; Pakistan; Language name 
>>BRAHUI: Alternate language names: BRAHUIDI, BIRAHUI, KUR GALLI 
>>Dialect names: JHARAWAN, KALAT, SARAWAN: Genetic affiliation
>>Dravidian, Northwest:Geographical region: South central, 
>>Quetta and Kalat region, east Baluchistan and Sind provinces 
>
>>Population: 1,500,000 in Pakistan (1981), 1.2% of the population; 
>>200,000 in Afghanistan (1980 Dupree); 10,000 in Iran (1983); 
>>1,710,000 total 
>
>>Bilingual in Baluchi: Country 2: Afghanistan: Country 3: Iran 
>
>>Printings of whole books of Bible: 1905-1978 Status of linguistic 
>>and translation work: Work in progress 
>
>>Remarks: Literary language with a small body of literature. Nastaliq 
>>script used. Some bilingualism in Baluchi 
>
>This is wrong.  The Arabic script has been used to write down some of
>the oral literature.  That does not make Brahui a literary language.
No, but apparently something does, at least so far as the ethnolouge 
is concerned.
>
>>Subsistence type: Pastoralists 
>
>>Total speakers: 1,710,000 
>
>>Religion: Muslim 
>
>>Website Copyright © 1996, Summer Institute of Linguistics, Inc."
>
>>A literary language spoken as a second language by 1,500,000 bilingual
>>Pakistanis (out of a total population of 65,000,000) has 200,000 additional
>>speakers in Afghanistan, (mostly Pakistani immigrants around Kabul) and
>>another 10,000 speakers in Iran, most of whom are shepards who use Baluchi
>>as a secular language and Brahui to study their religious doctrines.
>
>Nonsense: there are no "religious doctrines" in Brahui.
If the speakers are Muslims I doubt there is much they say or write
which is not religious doctrine.
>
>>>1. The Iranian languages:
>>>   * North-West Iranian (Baluchi, Kurdish and the Caspian dialects),
>
>>Baluchi is south east Iran with no connection to the Kurds in
>>North west Iran or the Altic dialects of the Caspian
>
>Baluchi is NW Iranian.  They did migrate from the Caspian area.
No, they migrated north from the Gulf of Oman. You can tell this 
because the massing is greatest at the Gulf and then branches outward.
What you are claiming is equivalent to saying a tree grows from the 
leaves down. In the area of the Gulf the clustering is homogeneous.
It forms the trunk and branches. The few small pockets farther north
are just leaves.
>You can see it on the map (there are Baluchi speaking pockets all 
>the way from the Caspian to Baluchistan).  How can you say there 
>is _no connection_when you are totally ignorant on the issue?
What we are discussing is the distribution of languages on an
ethno linguistic map. I gave you the map. I am looking at it as
I write. The description as a tree with leaves is a fair one.
What connection do you wish to establish from this? That the
Aryan invasion came into India? Via the Dasht-e Lut desert?
This could define the phrase you can't get there from here.
The connection from the Gulf goes through Baluchestan and
Afghanistan from Zahedan at the northernmost corner of Pakistan
to Zabal at the southernmost corner of Afghanistan following 
a chain of lakes and a river to Farah. This is the trunk of 
the tree. The first leaf is at Nehbandan a satellite of Zabol
and the next is at Birjand following a modern road north to
Sabsevar. (You may need to get some more maps to see the 
rivers and roads)
>>The Altic Turkish languages are constrained to a belt along the Caspian
>>which is overlain by the more recent Persian. 
>
>Bullshit.  The Altaic Turks, as the name "Altaic" indicates, originate
>in the Altai and neighbouring parts of Mongolia.  The Huns were the
>first Turkic people to move west.  At the time, the Persians had been in
>Iran for at least a millennium.
The point is that the Persians clearly overlay an earlier ethnic 
distribution which happens to be closely tied to rivers and seas.
This probably happened c 600 - 580 BC
The Altai mountains are at the east of Kazakhstan where the Tarim 
basin connects east and west. This connection was made about the 
time of Alexander, c 326 BC. 
By this time the Persian expansion from Tehran had overlain the 
lands Herodotus claims were the Hereditary lands of the Scythians
and Samartians for about three centuries. 
The Huns began to move c 500 AD from the Altai east and west
following rivers like everybody else. Their languages show up 
on the Central Asian Ethno Linguistic Map which I sent you.
My expectation would be that the Huns language goes back to the
time of the Scythians. That it spread through the territory of 
the Scythians is no big suprise. Why should we be suprised that
it also spread to the east? "Atlas of World History", page 95
>
>
>==
>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal  
steve

Posted only to sci.archaeology
There is an RFD for soc.history.ancient in process right now.  The
question about a FAQ for that group is now under discussion.  I've
been asked to start a thread here about such a FAQ.  In my opinion, if
a FAQ for ancient history does get put together some sub-set of it
ought to be posted here as well.
I'd like to outline what I think this kind of FAQ ought to consist of.
I'd start with a book list:  general beginners books on ancient
history and specific books for each area.  Then I'd like to see
questions and answers for those questions that beginners frequently
come into history (and archaeology) newsgroups to ask (over and over
and over again).  That would allow regulars to just send a pointer to
the FAQ online, and possibly an excerpt from the FAQ in e-mail.
Any comments?
Stella Nemeth
s.nemeth@ix.netcom.com

Check the letters regarding the Tell Amarna collection of M. A. Mansoor.
New letters are posted regarding the position of KMT re the collection.

"AUSAR ( LORD OF THE PERFECT BLACK )"  wrote:
>The Hab wrote:
>> 
>> Troy Sagrillo  wrote:
>> >I would like to invite anyone interested in ancient Egypt, especially
>> >those of you in Canada, to come visit the SSEA homepage at:
>> >
>> >http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/1456/
>> >
>> >There is a calendar of our free public lectures (held in Toronto; open
>> >to all) and membership information.
>> >
>> >Regards,
>> >
>> >Troy Sagrillo
>> >
>> >Department of Near & Middle Eastern Civilizations
>> >University of Toronto
>> >Toronto, Ontario
>> >Canada
>> 
>> I recommend this Society...and I may even be at the Thursday December the
>> 5th.
>> 
>> The Hab
>**
>**On that note...I'll pass!
>
>AUSAR (LORD OF THE PERFECT BLACK)
No loss to the Egyptological community...or humanity.
The Hab

Ben,
You are absolutely right.  Furthermore, the indigenous Americans who are
being alleged as the recipients in these threads had higher civilizations
than the proffered "diffusers".  I have tried to point out that a catamaran
full of Polynesians would be no match culturally for the high civilizations
of the New World.  Even the Chinese at the time of Shang were a fractous,
warring group who would have been so consumed with domestic problems that
they wouldn't have time to go gallvanting around the world. 
Paul Pettennude
Benjamin H. Diebold  wrote in article
<582k23$kjf@news.ycc.yale.edu>...
> Yuri Kuchinsky (yuku@io.org) wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> : 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.
> 
> I have examined the Kelley 1966 reference. If Needham is using this to
> make a case for diffusion then he is smoking something he shouldn't.
There
> is zilch, zero, nada here that suggests diffusion, which even Kelley IN
> THIS ARTICLE suggests:
> 
> [begin quotes from Kelley]
> 
> "...on present evidence it seems to me that the elements are simple
enough
> so that they afford no presumptive evidence of Egyptian influences by
> themselves." 
> 
> "I have not been able to recognize affinities to any other script with
> which I am familiar either in the Old World or the New World" (p. 745)
> 
> [end quotes from Kelley]
> 
> I got the following from this article:
> 
> 1. There is no real archaeological context for the piece; it was a
surface
> find from a site with no hint otherwise of diffused traits.
> 
> 2. There is no evidence from script, design, material, or style which
> would lead anyone to suppose that this seal has anything to do with the
> Old World. Kelley is perfectly happy to deal with it as an interesting
> and completely indigenous development.
> 
> 3. Needham's use of this article as evidence for diffusion renders his
> scholarly pretensions suspect, if you have accurately represented his
> views.
> 
> I have not seen the other article yet. I am not hopeful. This one was a
> waste of time, and is *exactly* the kind of crappy diffusionist reference
> I was talking about -- misinterpretations of out of context small finds.
> How about a real site? Where are the ceramics?
> 
> Actually, this whole discussion is silly. Most diffusionists have an
> answer in search of a problem. They are sure something diffused sometime,
> without ever being able to say who diffused what, when or where.
> Everything in the New World can be explained by developments in the New
> World; there is no need to look elsewhere, and no call to do so until
> compelling evidence is offered to suggest otherwise. 
> 
> Ben
> 
>