Subject: Re: "Out of India"
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 17 Dec 1996 02:40:54 GMT
In article <592n7n$ape@news.ycc.yale.edu>, bdiebold@pantheon.yale.edu"
says...
>
>Steve, there are many problems with your presentation, though I appreciate
>the fact that you have *finally* offered something approaching a testable
>proposition.
>
>1. You suggest that trade networks in the 3rd millennium were the means by
>which proto-Elamite/Dravidian was diffused. The problem is that all
>documentation about such trade comes well AFTER these languages are
>already in place. By the time you have evidence of big time Gulf
>trade in the 3rd millennium, people have gone right through
>proto-Elamite and into Elamite. Pretty big problem, I'd say.
I don't know of any evidence for Elamite before the 3rd millenium BC
unless you are refering to something I might categorize under another
label. My understanding is that Elam first came into existence in the
joining of Susa and Anshan in a loose federation c 2000 BC. The trade
begins with Mohenjo Daro moving up the Baluchestan coast before c 3000 BC
>
>2. You greatly exaggerate the extent to which the Gulf was engaged in
>long-distance trade, and the level of culture present in the Gulf. Writes
>Potts (1986: 127): "To sum up briefly, contact between Babylonia
>and the Central Gulf in the Gamdat Nasr period is hardly attested to by
>archaeological finds, although indicated in Uruk III lexical and economic
>texts.
The period of contact varies with which groups you are talking about.
Pre Chalcolithic contact almost certainly exists but to what effect?
Michael Road "CAM" gives a useful chronology on pages 8-9
Epipaleolithic c 12,000 - 7,000 BC small bands of hunter gatherers
Neolithic c 7,000 - 4,000 BC (Hassuna, Samarra, Halaf, Ubaid)
The plow, irrigation, boats, baked bricks, temples, faience,
cast copper, stamp seals.
Neolithic c 4,000 - 3,000 BC (Gawra, Uruk, Susa A)
Donkey, sledges, wheel, cities, writing, monumental architecture
Early Bronze age - Chalcolithic c 3,000 - 2500 BC
(Ninevah 5, Early Dynastic, proto Elamite)
Camels, Palaces, Metal axes and daggers, tin, bronze, cuneiform script
Akkadian c 2500 - 2000 BC (Old Elamite, Dilmun) Horses, Empires
Middle Bronze Age c 2000 - 1500 BC
(Mari, Hyksos, Old Elamite, Dilmun, Old Assyrian, Old Hittite)
Horse Bits, Chariots, Spoked Wheels, Ice Houses, early Alphabet
Late Bronze Age c 1500 - 750 BC (Mittani, Kassite, Sea People,
Hittites, Middle Elamite, Iranian Tribes) Chickens, Iron smelted
The periods in which trade provided a real mechanism for the diffusion
of language generally are in the 3rd millenium BC
Harrappa in contact with Mohenjo-Daro c 3500-1200 BC
Harrappa in contact with the Ganges after c 1500 BC
Mohenjo-Daro in contact with Baluchestan c 3500-1500 BC
Harrapans in contact with Makkan after c 3000 BC
Makkan in contact with Baluchestan after c 3000 BC
Makkan in contact with Dilmun after c 2500 BC
Makkan in contact with Tepe Yahya c 2500-2000 BC
Dilmun in contact with Southern Mesopotamia c 2500-1200 BC
Dilmun in contact with Susa c 2000 BC and c 1200 BC
Dilmun in contact with Tepe Yahya c 2500-2300 BC
Dilmun in contact with Mari c 2500 - c 1750 BC
Southern Mesopotamia in contact with Mohenjo-Daro c 2500-1800 BC
Southern Mesopotamia in contact with Susa c 2000 and c 1200 BC
Southern Mesopotamia in contact with Mari c 2500-1750 BC
Mohenjo-Daro generally gets the jump on Southern Mesopotamia.
The period of most extensive Gulf trade is c 2500-1800 BC
In this period Southern Mesopotamia is actively involved
both directly and through middlemen.
> There is substantially more evidence for contact in ED I-II
In the period c 4,000 - 3,000 BC there is an urban explosion
Roaf, "CAM", starting page 58. The transition took place in the
Early and middle Uruk periods c 4300 - 3450 BC
In the Jemdet Nasr and Early Dynastic I periods that followed
the same trends continued. In the 4th millenium Uruk was the
most important city in Mesopotamia.
Northern Mesopotamia developed its own local Gawra culture at
the end of the Ubaid period. Some of the Gawra tombs contained
Lapis Lazuli beads which evidence the trade coming up the Gulf
from Baluchistan.
In the Jemdet Nasr period c 3,100 - 2,900 BC, Jemdet Nasr pottery
made of Mesopotamian clays is found in Oman. This is the period
when Tarut, an island close to Mainland Dilmun, is engaged in the
IS trade with Tepe Yahya.
In the Early Dynastic period c 2,900 - 2334 BC cuneiform writing
becomes widespread
>as shown by the corpus of pottery from Abqayq,
I don't know what pottery you found in Abquaiq. What I found there
was pretty much the same as what I found in Dammam, Dahrahn, Al Khobar,
Tarut, Jubail, Manamma, Sar, Hofuf and Ain Dar.
A tall buff ware jar from a tomb at Sabkhah Hammam near Abquaiq
is similar to early Dynastic II-III types
There are some 40 sites in the Eastern province
(Burkholder and Golding 1971, Bibby, 1973, Masry, 1974)
Bahrain (Roaf 1974) (Oatts 1978)(Potts 1978)
Quatar (De Cardi 1974, 1978, Inizan 1980)
There is a chaff-tempered coarse red ware of local manufacture
found in association with imported Ubaid ceramic c 4,300 - 3,500 BC.
This dates from Ubaid 2, was most evident during Ubaid 3 and
continues into Ubaid 4. This material came from Sumer to the Gulf.
Since some of these finds come from islands it is evident they were
transported by boat.
Ubaid I or Eridu shards north of Dhahran (near Tarut)
date 6157+/- 238 years converted to 5057 BC +/- 288 years
(Burkholder 1972: 264-269)
Similarities with Mesopotamian pottery include the use of bitumen for
waterproofing (Potts nd and Piesinger 1983) There is also Jemdet Nasr
pottery.
> and in ED II-III times we have the evidence of the steatite and
>chlorite from Tarut, both carved anduncarved, for relations between
>the two regions.
Early Dynastic I c 2,900 - 2,700 BC
Early Dynastic II c 2,700 - 2,550 BC
Early Dynastic III a,b,c; c 2,550 - 2,340 BC
Tarut (north of Abquaiq) shows Early Dynastic I-III occupation.
Potts argues that a shift occured during the Early Dynastic
or early Akkadian times which made Bahrain the center of an
enlarged Dilmun that encompassed al Hasa, and that during the
end of the third Dynasty of UR Dilmun expanded north to incorporate
Failaka island.
> This is the time in which written sources from Ebla, Fara, and
>Lagash attest to such contact, as well...
The name Dilmun occurs early c 3,200-3,100 BC there are cuneiform
records predating the well known Early Dynastic IIIb account by
Ur-Nanshe of Lagas c 2520 BC. This is also the period when Lapis
begins to reach Egypt by sea. (There is an absence of pre Akkadian
references to Makkan.) There is an Early Dynastic II reference to a
Dilmun harp. Dilmun is linked to Mari in the period c 2,700 - 2,600 BC
>As we have seen, the Central Gulf was probably distinguished during
>the later fourth millennium B. C. by a largely hunting-gathering oriented
>population, using the so-called Qatar A-C-D flint tool kit."
Neolithic tools found on Bahrain date c 5020 +/- 130 BC
If you read some of the site reports in Nayeems "The Pre and Proto
History of the Arabian Peninsula" you will find many interesting items
regarding the occupation of the Gulf.
On the eastern slope of the Jebel Tuwayq trapazoidal blades made of a
fine grained chert of variuous colours ranging from 4 cm to 5 cm in
width have been found. They are about 5 mm in thickness and gently
curve longitudinally comparable with many of those in Kapel's B group
from Quatar, which have been radio carbon dated to the end of the sixth
millenium BC (Kapel 1968; 17)
>
>Now the ED I and II times are probably the 3rd millennium periods
>you have in mind, but as we've seen, that's really too late for you.
>And, as Potts suggests, there isn't much happening earlier.
There is occupation earlier but I agree that the mid third millenium
is where the action is. This is by no means too late but indeed just
right.
>
>Leemans in 1960 wrote a nice survey of what was then known about foreign
>trade. He suggests that "the evidence of the imports from Tilmun of all
>kinds of valuable articles (ivory, etc) from more distant countries date
>only from the reigns of the early Larsa kings Gungunum, Abisare, and
>Sumu-ilum, and is restricted to Ur" (p. 135). This is the very outgoing
>part of the 3rd millennium, much too late for your proposed diffusion
>timeline. Von der Mieroop's re-examination of the Ur texts has not
>substantially modified this view, that I know of. (Piotr?)
There has been a bit more work done in the last 36 years. In 1960
I was still in high school. The present dating shows that the
entire third millenium was a period of emerging trade relations.
>
>Finally, this trade declines during the second millennium to the point
>where almost nothing is happening.
Yes. After c 1800 BC it does decline. So does Mohenjo-Daro. This
is a very interesting period to look at. After having been in
business together for more than a millenia, things come to a
stop until after c 1200 BC.
>With the centralization of power under Hammurapi's dynasty
>the focus of exchange shifted to northern, overland
>routes.
Actually there was a lot of fighting which may well have disrupted
trade in this period, but its considerably to the north of the area
we are interested in.
What caused the decline in Dilmun and Mohenjo-Daro?
> Ur and Girsu declined, and were possibly abandoned. There may also
>have been some serious silting of these southern harbors (and now the
>shoreline is some 60 miles southeast of where it was in the 3rd
>millennium).
Yes. After rising for 15 millenia sea levels actually reached a point
slightly higher than they are today and then subsided. At Bahrain the
difference was 1-2 meters.
>In short, there is surprisingly little evidence for your
>great Gulf sea-culture, and what there is is of relatively short duration
>(perhaps 1000 years).
I find a trading relationship between the IVC and Mesopotamia
which lasts for more than a millenium during the period when
writing and urban centers are emerging interesting.
A culture focused on making its living from the
sea instead of by agriculture or the domestication of animals.
A culture which is using the very thing which limits other
cultures to its own advantage.
>3. I am annoyed by your continued suggestion that Piotr and other
>professionals (not me -- I'm not in that class) are narrow-minded
>disciplinarians who do not read widely.
I have never suggested this. I think Piotr is familiar with the
materials which bear on the field in which he specialises.
As it happens architects specialise in being generalists, so
that's what I'm familiar with. It does appear that sometimes
Piotr finds me connecting things together which he does not
feel have any relation to each other such as Mesopotamia and
the IVC.
> Piotr is known as one of the more imaginative thinkers in
>the field, who has brought in interesting ideas from disciplines
>outside the mainstream of Assyriology.
I don't doubt that. It should be apparent that we are engaged
in a dialog. If there was not some common ground that would
not be possible. I expect it takes a very imaginative thinker
to keep that dialog from becoming an argument.
> I have no doubt that he read more widely in college than you
>have ever done.
Perhaps,... I do read a lot but most of what I read has nothing
to do with either archaeology or linguistics...:
>He simply believes (as I interpret his posts) that there are simple
>standards of evidence that do not permit you to assert things that
>are in contradiction to what are basic facts of chronology and geography.
And I, who believe in nothing, expect that if the beliefs and
speculations that pass for facts, were indeed facts, then Piotr
would have no difficulty in stating them.
In many cases we just don't know. Piotr finds that frustrating.
He would like to say he knows I'm wrong, but he really doesn't.
If he doesn't have enough facts written down in cuneiform to
justify his making a hypothesis where do I get off? Where do
I get those weird ideas I come up with? I see him express that
frustration often.
>Reading deeply is not incompatible with reading widely, in
>fact, quite the opposite.
So, is reading widely incompatible with reading deeply?
>
>4. Your continued insistence that there was nothing happening
>in Iran is simply, and totally, incorrect. While it may be true
>that in the narrow area of the desert of southeastern Iran there
>are few remains, there is a whole lot elsewhere.
The sites listed to date all border on Mesopotamia. Where are
the sites that were supposed to be part of the wave of advance
heading for Pakistan c 8,000 BC? If you want to provide your
own list on non Mesopotamian sites, feel free to do so.
My objection is that the linguistic assumption ignores the cultures
that probably were in contact to look for a culture that doesn't
exist, on the grounds that the 3rd millenium BC is too late for
there to have been a common linguistic influence on both Elamites
and Dravidians. This is only true if you think it takes millenia
for linguistic influences to have an effect. In this case the
facts suggest otherwise.
> There is a substantial, and nearly continuous
>tradition of settlement in the Zagros, among other places, that has
>NOTHING to do with the "Mesopotamian neolithic".
List some.
>First, these sites are older than anything in Mesopotamia,
>by thousands of years (in fact, many of them date to exactly
>the time Miguel is suggesting).
Such as?
>Second, there is no "Mesopotamian neolithic", unless you mean the
>early Ubaid, which is not found in the Zagros.
Try again. Hassuna, Samarra, Halaf, Ubaid, Gawra, Uruk all fall
in the Neolithic in and around Mesopotamia.
The "Neolithic" has a couple of connotations. One is it serves
to broadly mark a range of dates. These dates are to some degree
dependent on where we are talking. A secondary implication is a
range of technology which we would expect to see artifacts evidence.
Neolithic sites in Arabia may not always evidence farming for example.
> These are basic facts which you need to get under control before
>any grand theories you might happen to form have much chance of making
>sense.
It helps to do your homework, I agree...
>
>5. You have stretched the wave of advance model to the breaking point.
Yes, it certainly looks broken to me.
>It need not be imagined as actually, historically being a uniform,
>perfectly gradual advance. That would be like imagining the Israelites
>crossed the Sinai by traveling 3 yards a day.
The Israelites didn't cross the Sinai, they crossed the Red Sea...:)
The capital of Egypt at the time of the Exodus was in Thebes.
>It is a model, a heuristic device,suggestive of certain patterns.
It doesn't work.
>It is not, as developed by Renfrew anyway, an explicit claim that
>this is how it works irrespective of other factors,
>like geography or the presence of other cultures.
I agree; actually, I like Renfrew. Where Renfrew used the
wave of advance model it worked reasonably well. In the case
of using it to support Mallory's extrapolations from McAlpins
hypothesis; sorry, its a different situation.
> Also, the wave of advance model was originally developed to
>offer a model for the movement of agriculture through Europe;
>the situation in the Near East, including Iran, is quite different.
Uum, that was my point Ben....
> There is agriculture in Iran at around 7500 BC, if not earlier.
Sure there is. On the Simerah river for example. Can you walk
it east? How far do you get? When do you get there? See my
point yet?
> Your questions about why there aren't indications of the
>wave of advance at Mari are simply nonsensical (if I remember your post
>correctly; in the interests of saving bandwidth I have decided not to
>include it), and have nothing whatever to do with what Miguel is talking
>about.
If there is a wave of advance of farming why would it advance away
from farmlands into mountains and desert?
>
>Piotr's point about Stein's work with the Uruk enclaves is very important.
>If you want to talk about the kinds of contact that suggests colonization,
>or the interaction of different ethnicities, this is the kind of data that
>is crucial. Haci Nebi (Stein's site) is a great site, and he is doing some
>neat stuff.
That is interesting. It is also a major digression. First lets
dispose of the proto elamite dravidians and the wave of advance.
Then we can look at what cultures were intermediate to to Elam
and the Dravidians. Once that is settled I will sit back and let
you tell me all about Haci Nebi.
>
>Ben
steve
Subject: POSTER LOSES MARBLES (during an intelligent discussion with Ed Conrad)
From: edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad)
Date: 17 Dec 1996 11:20:18 GMT
96631@figmnt.tayloru.edu wrote to sci.bio.paleontology:
>Ed, you're not going crazy, you're going sane in a crazy world.
>The pictures on your website are very poor. I can't see if
>there are sutures on the supposed "skulls" or anything. Also if
>those are femurs in those pictures then how come they all seem to be
>missing the neck of femur and why do they only look like rocks and
>not like the fossils we always see at regular dig sites? Do you also
>think that you can change the rate of decay of a radioactive
>substance with your mind?
>What if you are wrong, would you ever accept it?
>Stu Hobbs
~~~~~~~~~~
Stu:
Such a thought-provoking question certainly deserves a
thought-provoking answer.
Say you went to the hospital and had a CATSCAN. The next
day your doctor, shaking his head and pointing to a portion
of the X-ray, revealed that you've been getting those terrible
headaches because you're partially brain dead.
Would you keep it a secret? Would you tell anyone at work?
Would you inform your relatives? How about your friends?
Okay, would you tell the fellas on your bowling team? How about
the guys you drink with on Saturday night?
How about that sexy little blonde who drops over now and then to use
your copier? (You know, the one you ALWAYS try to help. Don't you
think SHE deserves knowing about your condition?)
Hmmm! Oh, you say it's perosnal and you DON'T think anyone should
know.
But, Stu, you've got to realize you're not exactl.y going crazy,
Actually, I think you're going sane in a crazy world. The image on
your negative may have been very poor, which may explain why there's
no sign of life in that region of your brain.
Personally, based on my experience with petrified brians, I suspect
your rate of cranial decay may not be as bad as you think. Even some
distance down the road, I still think you'll be able to tie your own
shoes, take a bath and even blow a few big bubbles with your wad of
Bazooka.
Now let's get back to my answer to the thought-provoking question
you've asked of me?
>What if you are wrong, would you ever . . .
(SWISH!!)
Hey, Stu, where do you think you're going? You CAN'T leave yet.
I still haven't answered your quest . . .
Hey, come back here!
Stu! Hey, Stu!
STOP THAT GUY! STOP HIM!
Grab him! PLEASE! Somebody grab him...
GRAB HIM!
Yea, the one wearing the beanie!
But watch it!. He's nuttier than a fruitcake . . .
thud.*&\+%)clunk+0$#@pow&^0(+0^*&#bam3&,|:?.#4
Okay, erverybody, give him some air. Let's keep him calm. Somebody
call the blonde who works in his office. WAIT! On second thought,
better call his wife...
,Okay, good! GOOD! Gee thanks, fellas! I think he'll be okay.
Maybe,as a precaution, you'd better stick around until they get here
. .
No, I don't know why he went berserk! Heck, when this posting started,
he really seemed rather sane. Something undoubtedly triggered it.
No, I don't! How am I supposed to know? I just met the man . . .
> (To be continued on Christmas Eve)
Subject: POSTER LOSES MARBLES (during an intelligent discussion with Ed Conrad)
From: edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad)
Date: 17 Dec 1996 12:32:47 GMT
96631@figmnt.tayloru.edu wrote to sci.bio.paleontology:
>Ed, you're not going crazy, you're going sane in a crazy world.
>The pictures on your website are very poor. I can't see if
>there are sutures on the supposed "skulls" or anything. Also if
>those are femurs in those pictures then how come they all seem to be
>missing the neck of femur and why do they only look like rocks and
>not like the fossils we always see at regular dig sites? Do you also
>think that you can change the rate of decay of a radioactive
>substance with your mind?
>What if you are wrong, would you ever accept it?
>Stu Hobbs
~~~~~~~~~~
Stu:
Such a thought-provoking question certainly deserves a
thought-provoking answer.
Say you went to the hospital and had a CATSCAN. The next
day your doctor, shaking his head and pointing to a portion
of the X-ray, revealed that you've been getting those terrible
headaches because you're partially brain dead.
Would you keep it a secret? Would you tell anyone at work?
Would you inform your relatives? How about your friends?
Okay, would you tell the fellas on your bowling team? How about
the guys you drink with on Saturday night?
How about that sexy little blonde who drops over now and then to use
your copier? (You know, the one you ALWAYS try to help. Don't you
think SHE deserves knowing about your condition?)
Hmmm! Oh, you say it's perosnal and you DON'T think anyone should
know.
But, Stu, you've got to realize you're not exactl.y going crazy,
Actually, I think you're going sane in a crazy world. The image on
your negative may have been very poor, which may explain why there's
no sign of life in that region of your brain.
Personally, based on my experience with petrified brians, I suspect
your rate of cranial decay may not be as bad as you think. Even some
distance down the road, I still think you'll be able to tie your own
shoes, take a bath and even blow a few big bubbles with your wad of
Bazooka.
Now let's get back to my answer to the thought-provoking question
you've asked of me?
>What if you are wrong, would you ever . . .
(SWISH!!)
Hey, Stu, where do you think you're going? You CAN'T leave yet.
I still haven't answered your quest . . .
Hey, come back here!
Stu! Hey, Stu!
STOP THAT GUY! STOP HIM!
Grab him! PLEASE! Somebody grab him...
GRAB HIM!
Yea, the one wearing the beanie!
But watch it!. He's nuttier than a fruitcake . . .
thud.*&\+%)clunk+0$#@pow&^0(+0^*&#bam3&,|:?.#4
Okay, erverybody, give him some air. Let's keep him calm. Somebody
call the blonde who works in his office. WAIT! On second thought,
better call his wife...
,Okay, good! GOOD! Gee thanks, fellas! I think he'll be okay.
Maybe,as a precaution, you'd better stick around until they get here
. .
No, I don't know why he went berserk! Heck, when this posting started,
he really seemed rather sane. Something undoubtedly triggered it.
No, I don't! How am I supposed to know? I just met the man . . .
> (To be continued on Christmas Eve)
Subject: Re: "Out of India"
From: joe@sfbooks.com (Joe Bernstein)
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 07:25:33 -0600
In article <58ung6$t2u@fridge-nf0.shore.net>, whittet@shore.net (Steve
Whittet) wrote:
>In article , piotrm@umich.edu says...
>>If you could
>>concentrate on one thing at a time, perhaps less confusion
>>would result.
>
>That is a reasonable request. I will try to concentrate on
>connecting my ideas together for you.
That would be very helpful.
I'd like to make a general comment about this thread. I've generally
avoided threads in which Mr. Whittet is involved, basically because as they
age the individual posts tend to become unreadable. Long chains of quotes
and replies almost inherently look disorganised. I'm currently testing a
new newsreader, which for whatever reason showed me all Mr. Michalowski's
replies to Mr. Whittet in this thread prior to showing me any of Mr.
Whittet's posts, and I can't describe to y'all how they made Mr.
Michalowski look - well informed, yes, but also, how to put it,
cantankerous, jumping on every single sentence to criticise, contradict, or
what have you, in a way that made it impossible to see the purpose of any
given post of his.
By contrast, I also saw (prior to any posts of Mr. Whittet's) an extremely
detailed post from Ben Diebold, in which he noted (from some post of Mr.
Whittet's, but I don't know which yet) with thanks the presentation of a
coherent view, and then proceeded to tear it to shreds in a series of
clearly written full paragraphs.
I am finding this thread rewarding, though it's costing time I'm not sure I
have. Mr. Whittet's wide-ranging assertions, whatever their truth,
evidently attract a range of interlocutors whom I'd normally have no reason
to discuss things with, given my South Asian focus. It's neat to get
something like Mr. Diebold's defense of the Elamo-Dravidian hypothesis, or
Mr. Michalowski's or Mr. Diebold's information about current digs in
Turkey. From this point of view, Mr. Whittet's domination of the non-kook
threads in this newsgroup is simply a natural outgrowth of his catalytic
role.
It's sad but evidently true (to put this in its worst possible light) that
trolling beats respectful questioning for getting information here. Moin
Ansari and I have both posted posts with clear subject lines saying 'Gee,
can we get any Harappa info?' and (while I do acknowledge gratefully Mr.
Diebold's reply at the time), didn't get that far. Not really a surprise,
but - ? By contrast, when he, or I, or Mr. Whittet posts a magnum opus
with a definite, possibly ill-informed stand - *look* at all the results!
So fine. I will try, gradually at least, to adjust to the need to do a bit
more trolling, or at least magnum-opus-posting, hereabouts. I *am* an
amateur. I do *not* have any legitimate access to any library whose South
Asian archaeology collection is particularly adequate. For me Usenet is a
logical tool to try to keep up with a field I once studied, and I'm likely
to keep at it whenever I'm free to use Usenet.
But I do have an idea for how we could *substantially* reduce the harm done
by a predominance (even after people like Ed Conrad are killfiled) of
troll-like threads here.
It would be a great deal easier to read these threads if people would pause
every so often to clarify; I think it would also go far toward reducing the
extent to which these threads help to drive off serious scholars from this
newsgroup.
For Mr. Whittet, this form of clarification would come in the form of (say)
a clear statement every week or so of that chunk of his overall working
hypothesis relevant to the thread in question. I'm fairly sure I saw, in a
thread ancestral to this one, a clear *overall* statement, some weeks ago;
but I don't know how much of it Mr. Whittet is still trying to defend. I
don't have any problem with someone's views changing over time, especially
if that person is an amateur like Mr. Whittet and me. My own first post
last month said "Sorry, but the evidence is in, the Aryans invaded" and
within a couple of weeks (though mostly because I went back to my sources
and looked more carefully...) I was back to my old hedging. All the same,
had anyone (Moin Ansari, say - or Mark Kenoyer, or Raymond Allchin, don't I
wish) been around arguing with me, at any given time that person would have
known what I was currently saying, and would have been in a better position
to argue with it, because every week or so I *did* post a sort of
"overview" post, sometimes putting it in sci.archaeology.moderated
specifically so as to make it clear that I was changing my ground. I don't
recall doing this during the argument Mr. Ansari and I had last winter, nor
did he, and in retrospect, it's not surprising that hardly anyone else
wanted to join in.
I would like to make it clear that *I* think, whatever the opinion of (say)
Loren Petrich, that Mr. Whittet has already gone far in the direction of
making his views more coherently accessible than they were when I first
came here a year ago.
For Mr. Whittet's interlocutors, given such periodic clarifications, the
appropriate response would be some careful attention to rhetorical purpose.
I realise that y'all have been talking with him a whole lot longer than I
have. All the same, I do feel free to express some preferences. And I'm
much happier seeing a post which lays out in moderate detail "Why X is
impossible, in eight paragraphs", which tells me a *great* deal about why
people believe not-X (there, I've learned something!), rather than one
saying "Well, you said X, but X is impossible, and you said Y, and Y is
ungrammatical, and you said Z, and Z is ignorant of established
terminology, and you said Q, and Q is squid ink, and you said R, and R is
silly please go read this reference ... "
I realise it's hard to see someone saying, on a newsgroup like this,
something about your specialty, and not reply when that person errs. (I'm
only grateful my specialty, to the extent I have one here, isn't Egypt!)
But there are ways to focus all the same. One can, for example, post
separately the details and the main point (once the nature of that main
point has been established by the erring person). Or one can construct
one's post (if one isn't averse to length) so that the main point comes
first, and then the details. Nothing requires you to respect the sequence
of sentences the previous poster used; if you think his logic is bad, then
you're likely to be better off rearranging, so long as that's done fairly
rather than disingenuously.
I think Ben Diebold, in this thread, has been notably focused, and I've
appreciated it.
I'm not trying to denigrate, in particular, Mr. Michalowski, who is to my
knowledge the single most reputable archaeologist *on* this newsgroup. I'm
just saying that I think *his* knowledge could be better shared with us...
I don't know of a really polite way to put that. But this thread doesn't
seem eager to die, and as long as "India" is in its subject line I'll
probably keep reading it, so self-defense required *some* such preachment
eventually.
Joe Bernstein
--
Joe Bernstein, writer, banker, bookseller joe@sfbooks.com
speaking for myself alone http://www.tezcat.com/~josephb/
But...co-proponent for soc.history.ancient, now back under
discussion in news.groups!
Subject: ``GOBBLE, GOBBLE" (They've sure said a mouthful!)
From: edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad)
Date: 17 Dec 1996 14:27:55 GMT
ndickover@ver.lld.com (Noel Dickover) wrote:
>In article 100000@login0.isis.unc.edu>, rabrown@email.unc.edu says...
>-snip-
>> But because he faces enormous opposition, Conrad's model leaves very
>> LITTLE room for criticism. In fact, I'd say almost none. The model needs
>> to support a mind but relies on tenuous links and threads. THIS leads to
>> some serious paranoia, and a world which I don't envy in the least.
>> Problem is, Ed has made some of his threads pretty sticky. There's no
>> doubt that he is completely stuck in his web...but I fear for others,
>> especially impressionable others.
>>
>> Constructed worldviews are fine, but Ed's is outstandingly uncritical and
>> largely paranoid. Unfortunately, he shows serious interest in propagating
>> his worldview, quite readily seized an opportunity when it appeared,
>> and shot out a sticky pseudopod to the nearest and easiest target. If
>> such blatantly manipulative behavior persists, I say we take action to get
>> him removed, somehow, from these groups. We don't need someone with the
>> massive authority of "science" posting things like this to high school
>> kids...
>>
>> Ryan Brown
>> UNC-Chapel Hill
>I think you are going a little far here. I don't think we need to
>reorganize USENET just because a pinhead with some pretty rocks in his
>back yard has learned how to type. I didn't see Ed's wonderfully written
>and thoroughly eloquent post, as I have put him on my newsreader's list
>of people whom I don't receive, but I got to imagine, that even an 8 year
>old (possibly even my three year old) could figure out he's a loon. I
>don't think we have anything to fear from an obviously bright and learned
>15 year old reading his posts.
>Best,
>Noel Dickover
-----------
What we have here, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, is a perfect
example of how a pair of seemingly intelligent individuals have been
brainwashed and, consewuently, how incredibly vicious they can
become.
They want no part of evidence.
They want to roam their own little world in their own little way,
defending a factless, fictional position
.
Sad to say but that young gal in Australia -- who started all of this
-- undoubtedly has more good old common sense than the two of them
together.
At least she seems openminded, certainly not yet anchored down by
nonsensical fabrication and a flagrant pack of lies.
Awful, isn't it, that these two turkeys wouldn't recognize -- or admit
-- a truth if they stumbled over it.
And, imagine the audacity of one (Ryan Brown of the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill) making the following snide accusation
followed up by a pretty powerful threat:
> ``This leads to some serious paranoia, and a world
> which I don't envy in the least . . .
> If such blatantly manipulative behavior persists,
> I say we take action to get him removed, somehow,
> from these groups. We don't need someone with the
> massive authority of "science" posting things like this
> kids . . ."
Now I don't mind if either of these wiseguys seriously question
whether my specimens are really, REALLY bone. This is their
perogative.
But their behavior -- as clearly evidenced in this posting -- is that
of a spoiled school kid, made much worse by their incredible display
of total arrogance.
The unfortunate part is that this arrogance certainly did not arrive
overnight. Because it never before had been seriously challenged, it
simply has just grown and grown and grown and grown and grown -- to
the point that it finds them in the pathetic position of being far
removed from being considered uprighteous scientists or honest
investigators.
Their brainwashing has been so thorough, it appears there is no hope
of ever straightening them out.
At least I can try by simply challenging either of them to present one
scintilla of undeniable scientific evidence that man evolved from a
pre-human primate.
Obviously, their only response will be rhetorical: a reaction from
their big mouths but nothing susbtantial to place on the table in
front of us as indisputable evidence.
On the other hand, two of the finest scientists who ever lived --
Wilton M. Krogman and Dr. Raymond Dart, experts in human antomy --
examined some of my specimens and were greatly impressed.
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury: Who should we believe: a couple of
turkeys quite annoyed their feathers are being plucked, reacting
the way they are because of vested interests and sour grapes.
We'll rest our case by recalling the words of John Adams, stated
while he was serving as defense attorney during the trial
following the Boston Massacre trial in 1770:
> ``Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be
> our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our
> passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and
> evidence."
Subject: Re: A question to Marc Line...
From: Saida
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 08:38:28 -0600
Katherine Griffis wrote:
>
> Saida wrote:
>
> Xina wrote:
>
> >(a big snip)
>
> >> > The truth is only good for those who want to believe it.
> >>
> >> Indeed. And until we find out without a shadow of a doubt what that > >> "truth" is, it really is a moot point. Modern day racial
dividing lines > need not apply. It seems rather odd that those the most
> >concerned over > the race of the Ancient Egyptians, just so happen to be > >Americans.
>
> T0 which Saida replied:
>
> >Xina, there is absolutely nothing odd about it whatsoever. There is not > >one Egyptologist in America disinterested in the matter to which
you > >refer. Why should they be? You seem to infer that there is
something > >wrong with wanting to know who the ancient Egyptians were.
How can that > >be? This is all part and parcel of the science of
Egyptology. Not > >being Elijah, I am not inclined to get into a
protracted argument with > >you, but I have to tell you that the ability
to discern race, to some > >degree, from blood, is around the corner if
not already here.
>
> I think that you misinterpret the issues of Egyptology, Saida, if you
> think that it is of primary interest as to what "race" the Egyptians
> were.
"Primary" is your word, not mine.
It is NOT a primary concern to anyone that *I* am aware of in
> the field,
You are not in a position to know. You are not an Egyptologist.
but that the issue has been blown out of proportion by both
> Afrocentrist and Eurocentrist thought (better called Ameri-centrist,
> as Miguel pointed out on sci.arch some months ago). Having just spent
> a better part of the month with several European and Canadian
> Egyptologists, I can say, with some certainty, that they find this
> whole issue somewhat confusing and *definitely* not an issue that
> **they** are and will be concerned with.
Tell that to Dr. Rosalie David of Manchester University. Also, did you
happen to read the issue of Archaeology ( Sept./Oct.) dedicated to the
study of DNA? Did you happen to see the article "The Great DNA
Hunt--Genetic archaeology zeroes in on the origins of modern human."?
Did you see the article by Prof. Scott Woodward? Here is an e-mail I
received from him a while back:
Organization:
Brigham Young University
To:
Saida
Dear Saida,
We do have enough information that we will probably publish within
the next couple of months concerning the mitochondrial DNA of some of
the 18th and 19th Dynasties. We do not yet have a comlete sampling
of all of the available mummies but do have an interesting group at
the beginning of the 18th and surrounding Rameses II in the 19th.
Concerning the ethinic origins of the rulers of the dynasties. One
of the things that we are trying to do is to determine just what
exactly is an Egyptian. It well may be that an Egyptian was a very
mixed and cosmopolitian group. Egypt has always been a place of
refuge from famines and other natural disasters. Peoples from a wide
area have always moved into the Nile valley. There is probably a
good chance that we will find a wide mix of people in the genealogies
of ancient Egypt.
I will keep you informed as soon as the paper is accepted for
publication. (end of letter)
I can't imagine which "Egyptologists" you were talking to. Perhaps they
had the same credentials as yourself.
> If the American line of
> thought to *you* seems predisposed to it, it is primarily in response
> to allegations made by the Afrocentrist scholarship, which is a
> uniquely American phenomenon.
Nonsense! Afrocentrist "scholarship" has nothing to do with any of the
studies now going on.
>
> When I stated earlier that the US Census defined term "white" was not
> properly used in talking about Egyptians of ancient times, you came
> back with the term "Caucasoid" as a reference to a group of people,
> and equating them as the same. This is fairly vague as a "racial"
> designation, as in speaking of remains, the term "caucasoid" refers
> primarily to bone and physical characteristics of groups of people who
> came (possibly) from a certain location (the Caucasus Mtns), and NOT
> to any *detailed* and definite "race" of people.
Wrong again. My dictionary says this: "designating one of the main
ethnic divisions of the human race; it includes Mediterranean, Alpine
and Nordic subdevisions and is loosely called the 'white race'. When
was the last time you heard somebody say, :I am a Caucasian--I come from
the Caucasus Mountains?
> Race, as far as > Egyptology has been concerned, is a term of **modern** socio-political > importance,
I thought you just said that it has no importance whatsoever. The above
statement is false.
> and not one of concern BY the ancient Egyptians (and
> likely the modern ones as well), who were know for their ability to
> assimilate peoples,
The ancient Egyptians are concerned about nothing. They are long dead.
As for the modern Egyptians, their ability to "assimilate peoples" has
its limits, too. Or have you forgotten all the persons who were forced
to leave Egypt during the Nasser era?
> and yes, this includes the Nubian groups you refer
> to earlier. The "fighting" you refer to is an ancient tussle over the
> use of the waterways and trade routes between the ancient Egyptians
> and Nubians, and I sincerely doubt (as would Bruce Williams, Lanny
> Bell, Donald Redford, among others), that it was based upon any
> so-called "racial hatred" of peoples, as you have somewhat implied,
> from what I have seen of your most recent posts.
I have implied nothing of the sort. Show me where I have said any such
things. And don't ever try to associate me with "racial hatred". I
have no interest in this topic.
>
> Further, you make reference in another post to Shaw and Nicholson's
> definition within "The Dictionary of Ancient Egypt" wherein they
> recount the **various theories** of where the ancient Egyptians have
> been theorized as coming from. Please note that this definition does
> NOT (repeat: NOT) say anything definitive as to any sort of "race"of
> the ancient Egyptains, but discusses merely the various theories that
> have been postulated over the many years of Egyptology, ie. from the
> 19th century CE onward. The so-called "dynastic race" theory of
> Emery, BTW, was disproved by Egyptologists in the early 1960's, and
> has not been considered a *valid theory* for many years.
Well, at least you have read my quote from the "Dictionary correctly.
>
> So, if you have *YOUR* theories as to your origin of the Egyptians,
> fine. But I find little evidence within your posts that reflect much
> of the *real* issues that concern Egyptologists,
Again, how would you know the *real* issues that concern Egyptologists?
The airs you give yourself are really quite ludicrous, Katherine.
as they work to fit
> together the puzzles of what is *still* not known about the ancient
> Egyptian culture and history, as in detailed timelines, etc....the
> question of "ethnicity/race/color" is of little or no importance to
> the professionals *I* am talking to.
"Ethnicity, race, color" all in one breath, eh? Why don't you just
stick with ethnicity as it refers to groups who might have settled in
the Nile Valley. I think Egyptologists are quite sufficiently
interested in those.
>
> Regards --
>
> Katherine Griffis (Greenberg)
> Member of the American Research Center in Egypt
In case anyone believes otherwise, the ARCE is an organization anyone
can join without having any particular knowledge of Egypt whatsoever.
>
> University of Alabama at Birmingham
> Special Studies
What are "Special Studies" and what have you to do with them?
>
> http://www.ccer.ggl.ruu.nl/ccer/PEOPLE2.HTML
Subject: Re: "Out of India"
From: "William Belcher"
Date: 17 Dec 1996 15:48:11 GMT
I would like to know what evidence you have for trade from Moenjo-daro
before 3,000 BC? As far as is know from the earlier excavations by Mackay,
Marshall, Dales as well as by the Government of Pakistan Department of
Archaeology and Museums, the early history and founding of M-D is not well
know at all, early levels when the urban center was a village were almost
impossible to get to due to the water table. Recent work by IsMeo and
Aachen have redefined some of the aspects of the city, but still its
development is sketchy, if not unknown.
Based on the settlement patterns, the earlier period (what Jim Shaffer
calls the Regionalization era), the trade was focused on overland routes
towards the Iranian and Afgahni highlands. It was only during the last part
of the Integration era (2,500 B.C. or so) that the settlement system
expanded along the Makrani coastal areas with the founding of Sutkagen dor
and other Harappan period coastal sites - but none of these have been
excavated except for testing by Dales in 1960. There are recent excavations
by Besenval near Pasni. The series of sites along the Baluchistan coast
were local cultures that became incorporated into the "Harappan sphere of
influence" well after 3,000 B.C.
See:
Mughal, M.R. 1990. Further evidence of the Early Harappan Culture in the
Greater Indus Valley: 1971-1990. South Asian Studies 6.
Jansen, M. 1991. Mohenjo-daro - a city on the Indus. In Jansen, M., Mulloy,
M. and Urban, G. (ed). Forgotten Cities on the Indus. Phillip von Zabern,
Mainz am Rhein, pp. 145-165.
Jansen, M. 1993. Pre-, Proto-, Early, Mature, Urbvan, Late, Post-Harappan:
Linearity, Multilinearity: "Babylonian Language Confusion" or Ideological
Dispute? In South Asian Archaeology 1991, edited by AJ. Gail and GJR
Mevissen, ppp. 149-164. F.S. Verlag, Stuttgart.
Jarrige, J.F. 1993. The Question of the beginning of the Mature Harppan
Civilization as seen from the Nausharo Excavations. In South Asian
Archaeology 1991, edited by AJ. Gail and GJR Mevissen, ppp. 149-164. F.S.
Verlag, Stuttgart.
Possehl, G.L. 1993. The Date of Indus Urbanization: a proposed chronology
for the pre-urban and urban Harappan phases. In South Asian Archaeology
1991, edited by A.J. Gail and G.J.R. Mevissen, pp. 231-249. F.S. Verlag,
Stuttgart.
Shaffer, J.R. 1992. The Indus Valley, Baluchistan and Helmand Traditions:
Neolithic through the Bronze Age. . In Chronologies in Old World
Archaeology, edited by R.W. Ehrich. University of Chicago Press.
