Subject: Virginia Pre-Clovis Site - News Article (long)
From: tuckahoe@pinn.net (Tom Apple)
Date: 17 Dec 1996 16:54:53 GMT
BY JANIE BRYANT, The Virginian-Pilot
Copyright 1996, Landmark Communications Inc.
SUSSEX COUNTY -- About 13,000 years before Moses led the
Israelites out of Egypt, people were gathering around a fire in
what is now Sussex County.
Or at least that's what two archaeologists believe. The two have
spent the past four years digging for clues to Virginia's
prehistoric past at a site called Cactus Hill.
With radiocarbon dates that place their finds as far back as
16,000 years, the site is one of the oldest found in North and
South America.
Many American archaeologists believe the earliest human occupation
of North America was 10,000 to 12,000 years ago.
Earlier human occupation would have been extremely scarce, and
finding signs of that occupation would be like looking for a
needle in a haystack, according to E. Randolph Turner, director of
the Virginia Department of Historic Resources' regional office in
Portsmouth.
Cactus Hill, Turner said, ``is one of a handful of sites dating to
this early period in all of North and South America. This is truly
unique -- it's of international significance.''
The department's statewide Threatened Sites Program, based in
Portsmouth, has funded much of the research and tests done on
materials found at the site.
In October, Cactus Hill was the lead story in The Mammoth Hunter,
a publication of Oregon State University's Center for the First
Americans.
``It's already pulled interest from some of the top people in the
discipline,'' said Michael F. Johnson, one of two archaeologists
excavating at the site. ``They're just waiting for more dates. And
I think there are plenty of them there.''
Johnson works for the Fairfax County Park Authority and surveys
Ice Age projectile points for the Archeological Society of
Virginia. He first heard about Cactus Hill from a collector who
wanted him to record some Clovis points she had found. The points
are named for the New Mexico site where they were first found in
association with the extinct mammoth of the Ice Age.
For decades, most archaeologists have believed those prehistoric
fluted points were the tools of the earliest people to live in
North America, Johnson said.
The collector told Johnson where she found them, and he contacted
Joseph M. McAvoy, a materials scientist whose company does
archaeological research in that area. The Cactus Hill site is
about 100 yards from the Nottoway River, near a sand pit in a
swamp-surrounded area owned by a large paper company and leased by
a hunt club.
McAvoy, who has written a book on Clovis settlement patterns,
already had done some excavation at Cactus Hill but also was
working on other sites at the Nottoway River.
McAvoy and Johnson began independent excavations on several areas
of Cactus Hill in 1993. Each had volunteer help from colleges,
chapters of the Archeological Society of Virginia, as well as
other individuals interested in archaeology.
``We found a really nice Clovis working surface where they had
dropped all the tools and points and stuff, but we didn't find a
hearth, and we went down to the next level below Clovis and we
did,'' McAvoy said. ``We found a scatter of white pine charcoal,
and we said, `Here's our hearth.' These guys must have been
digging little basins and building their fires down in these
basins below the primary working surface.''
McAvoy said they also noticed that there were some quartzite core
blades with the hearth.
``When the radiocarbon date came back, it wasn't at all what we
had expected to see in terms of a Clovis date,'' McAvoy said. ``It
was 4,000 years older than Clovis.''
At that point, the two researchers started taking a more careful
look at the levels below Clovis.
The ``basic tenet of American archaeology and most archaeologists
is that when you get down to Clovis, there really isn't anything
below it,'' McAvoy said. ``So when you get down to Clovis . . .
you're very satisfied, and the average archaeologist probably
wouldn't have a tendency to say maybe we should dig six feet
more.''
The rarity of such sites has made it hard to arrive at a consensus
among archaeologists about who were the first people in North
America.
``That's been the big fight in American archaeology for a long
time,'' Johnson said. ``In the 1970s, an archaeologist found this
sequence that we've got, up in the Pittsburgh area in a rock
shelter called Meadowcroft.''
It was difficult for those in the field who believed there were
people earlier than Clovis, he said, because there was nothing to
go on but the one site at Meadowcroft.
Cactus Hill, he said, ``is really sort of confirming what was
found way back then, and it's doing it in spades, since we have
found this sequence on several parts of the site.
``I'm into it now, whereas before I really didn't know,'' he said
of the theory that people were in North America long before the
Clovis period. ``I'll tell you, it changes your whole way of
thinking.'' Standing at the site, McAvoy says that thousands of
years of windblown sand probably rounded out what was once a
steeper ridge.
That ridge probably drew prehistoric people who were seeking a dry
camp site with enough wind to give them a reprieve from insects,
Johnson said.
During the Ice Age, a glacier was probably only 500 miles from the
site, and, in the summer, the wind blowing off the melting ice was
producing quite a bit of precipitation, he said.
``In the summertime back then, the bug problem would have been
awful,'' Johnson said. ``So, you're going to seek the most
windswept area.
``And the only soil around there that's really well-drained is the
sand, or would have been then. You don't want to be sleeping in
water -- particularly cold water.''
McAvoy believes the core blades -- the artifacts found in the
pre-Clovis level -- are an ``intermediate type of tool to produce
other tools from bone or wood.''
But the analyses that can tell how the tools were used has just
begun.
McAvoy said the Department of Historic Resources plans to publish
a 500-page volume next year on the research at the site.
A major symposium on the work will be conducted in March at the
1997 Middle Atlantic Archaeological Conference in Ocean City, Md.
Following a series of papers presented by scholars conducting
research at the site, Dr. Dennis Stanford, chairman of the
Department of Anthropology at the Smithsonian Institution, will
summarize and critique the findings.
``We learned a lot about change,'' McAvoy said. ``We learned not
only about how the material culture of people changed over, say,
15,000 years, but we learned a lot, too, about how the forest
itself had changed.''
The forests at the site, 15,000 or 16,000 years ago, were
apparently made up of conifers such as white pine, he said.
With the glaciers taking up much of the ocean water, the Atlantic
around that time was probably 80 miles farther to the east, he
said.
``So trees that might grow only now in the highest part of the
Appalachian Mountains, we could find then at Cactus Hill,'' McAvoy
said.
Then, with climatic changes, the forest changed to a series of
hard southern pines, he said. The findings from earlier hunting
cultures, from 4,000 to 9,000 years ago, were exciting, too,
McAvoy said.
``We found enough of those artifacts to indicate to us that Cactus
Hill was a fairly well-used location,'' he said.
Today, Cactus Hill is a remote area off winding roads that wrap
around swamp land not far from the rural town of Waverly.
But it isn't hard for the archaeologists to see how it drew people
thousands of years ago.
``You have to understand the area around Cactus Hill,'' McAvoy
said. ``It's primarily low and swampy, but here where the site is
located is a very high sandy hill.
``And it's right next to a `grocery store,' '' he said, referring
to the clay bottom wetland to the south. ``That natural basin
apparently for a long period of time has been an area that has
produced a variety of plant foods, which in turn would attract a
large number of animals.''
It appears from bones found in unearthed fire pits that early
Americans made meals out of everything from deer and fish to a
large cat -- probably a bobcat, McAvoy said.
They seemed especially fond of turtles and wild turkey, a bird
that still can be heard gobbling near the river.
Another draw to the site, in addition to food, was the materials
needed to make hunting tools. Quartzite cobbles were exposed in
the shoals and beds of the Nottoway River.
``It was very, very good quality quartzite for making stone
tools,'' McAvoy said. ``So now you see, that completes the picture
of just about everything these people needed.''
Beyond the amenities that Cactus Hill offered prehistoric people,
thousands and thousands of years later it would offer its own
blessings to archaeologists.
Over thousands of years, sand deposits that had overflown from the
river would be picked up by the wind and brought up to the top of
the ridge, where the sand would drop out and deposit over earlier
occupations, McAvoy said.
``Geologically, there are not many places where over a period of
time things just continue to build up,'' McAvoy said. ``Certainly
not in the eastern U.S. Things tend to want to build up and erode
and build up and erode.''
That buildup gave archaeologists the kind of stratified site they
needed to put their finds into context.
Now others will know what types of materials to look for in the
pre-Clovis time period.
``A preponderance of data is what will win the day on it, and what
we've done is, we've opened up a whole new direction for other
archaeologists,'' Johnson said.
--
Subject: Re: The Saxons - Who Are They, Why Are They Here?
From: vivacuba@ix.netcom.com(Doug Kihn)
Date: 17 Dec 1996 17:53:28 GMT
In Dominic Green
writes:
>
>
>The origins of the Anglo-Saxon Races have never been agreed upon by
>historians. The English, of course, came from England, but
conventional
>archaeological wisdom has always decreed that the Saxons came here
from
>across the North Sea in gigantic Rowing Boats such as those that have
>been discovered on the shores of the Baltic - TOTALLY IGNORING the
fact
>that no other great Rowing Civilization has ever been able to cross
the
>perilous twenty-mile stretch of water between Dover and Calais. The
>Inuits, for example, whom my Mercator Projection atlas tells me once
>occupied a region of northern Greenland ten times the area of the
Roman
>Empire, never dared to venture near the British Isles in their War
>Dayaks. In order to cross the Channel, it is necessary to either be a
>Sailing Civilization, or a fat man smothered in Chip Fat, and Alfred
the
>Great was neither. Such controversy has prompted scholars to ask the
>Question: Where did the Saxons come from? The conventional answer is,
>of course, that a Mummy Saxon and a Daddy Saxon Love Each Other Very
>Much. However, scholars have pointed out that the coast of Europe is
>not straight but Crinkly, and that Early Saxon Navigators, who were
>forced to Hug the Coast with Great Affection, would have had great
>difficulty negotiating these Crinkles, particularly since, on a
>microscopic scale, the Crinkles become still more complex and
difficult
>to Hug in a thirty-foot longboat*. This is one of the tenets of Chaos
>Theory. Chaos theory also states that Fierce Storms are caused in the
>English Channel by Butterflies flapping their wings across the Ocean
in
>New York.
>
>2. THE GIANT BUTTERFLIES OF NEW YORK
>
>These butterflies are huge and muscular, and mathematically Cannot
Fly.
>Of course, this is also what Mathematics said of the S.S. Titanic.
One
>must remember, furthermore, that as a Butterfly's Mass increases one
>thousand times, the area of its Wings will increase a hundredfold.
What
>does this prove? That BIGGER BUTTERFLIES have BIGGER WINGS.
>
>LET US RETURN TO THE SAXONS OF FIFTH CENTURY ENGLAND, PROFESSOR
>
>Ah, yes. Those Saxons. It is a fact that all Saxon Boats to date
HAVE
>BEEN DISCOVERED UNDERGROUND. Rather than shave bravely about the
>Hirsute Genitalia of Theory using Occam's Razor, however, blinkered
>Archaeology goes on to imagine that 'the Saxons Put Them There' for
some
>farcical reason. Why, indeed, would anyone want to bury a boat
>underground? What conceivable use would it be down there? No, the
>Saxon boats are Underground because THIS WAS THE MEDIUM OF THEIR
>EVERYDAY USE, and the Saxons used them to Row Underground between
Saxony
>and England, being possessed of an in-depth knowledge of Underground
>Water Courses. The vessels possessed oars instead of sails - Why?
>BECAUSE THERE IS NO WIND UNDERGROUND. I myself buried a feather in my
>back garden only a week ago, and when I unearthed it today it had not
>moved from that very spot.
>
>However, one counter-argument remains. If these Saxons all rowed here
>all those years ago, WHY ARE THEY NOT STILL HERE? My dear friend
>Professor Heridoth claims to be a Saxon, but is in fact only an
>Englishman who Cross-Dresses in Figure-Hugging Chainmail at Weekends
and
>'hangs out' in the Company of Like-Minded Saxons, 'quaffing' and
>'wassailing'**.
>
>
>Yours
>
>Reverend Colonel Ignatius Churchward Von Berlitz M.A. (Dom. Sci.)
Oxon.
>(Oklahoma)
>
>
>* Historical sources agree that it is, indeed, Difficult to Hug in a
>Thirty-Foot Longboat; the death of Ealdorman Blostmdeaw in a crowded
>vessel full of Fyrdsmen in the Ninth Century is attributed by the
Anglo-
>Saxon Chronicle to a failed attempt to instigate a Group Hug.
>
>** The activities of 'Quaffing' and 'Wassailing' are, for the
>inexperienced reader, defined in 'Doctor Alex Comfort's Joy of Saxon
>Sex', pages 17-18, with diagrams. The horned helmets, however, are a
>1970's fiction and should not be copied for fear of death or serious
>injury unless the Horns are Made Safe with prophylactics as one Quaffs
>one's partner.
God! That's got to be one of the funniest things I have ever read. I
just have to say it, between gales of laughter. You have GOT to be
British! No one else could possibly come up with this sort of total
lunacy! I like the way you sucked me in at the beginning.
By the way, liguistics shows very clearly that Anlo-saxons are really
just small version of Friesans.
Dr. Doug
Subject: Re: "Out of India"
From: piotrm@umich.edu (Piotr Michalowski)
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 15:47:05
In article joe@sfbooks.com (Joe Bernstein) writes:
>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.
When I first joined usenet I tried to be measured and explain things in
detail, with bibliography, etc. Long interaction with SW has probably made me
more cantankerous, and I should try to be more judicious, but I must say that
when faced daily with very long posts in which almost everything is
simplified, distorted, often simply wrong, one does not know where to start,
and so one just picks on one or two details and tries to point out errors etc,
before the discussion, built on errors, continues. Being constantly insulted
and branded a specialist, simply for insisting on checking information before
posting, does not help. It is very sad that the only way in which any
discussion of the ancient Near East and related subjects can take place here
is as a reaction to fantasy posts. Yes, I admit to losing patience sometimes,
but the level of the discussion often just gets the best of me. When
someone takes a quick look at a small reproduction of one side of a large
object, and the side that has no writing on it to boot, and goes on to lecture
me on writing on the basis of this, provides a fantasy reading of trade with
Egypt (even though these are well known cult symbols of Mesopotamian
deities) and then adds personal insults
when it is pointed out that what he is looking at is not even writing, one
does loose control. This then is used in two different posts to suggest
connections with the Phaistos disk on one hand and with Indus Valley script on
another, with all chronology, substance, etc. ignored, what do you do? You
note that there are almost a hundred such objects and that there is a
substancial literature on the subject, provide some bibliography and it has no
effect. The next day the subject moves to another similar surreal matter, so
one does loose all sense of what is known, what is not, what is up and what is
down; dates and places shift and move, all reality is gone. It is not simply
a matter of principle, but a feeling of helplessness, as one wonders how many
people out there, who may not have had reason to look into these matters, are
reading such disinformation and taking it seriously. I suppose you are right
and I should simply forget all of this and let others try to debate this
endless stream of fantasy. The problem often is that if you look at anything
from a great distance, without any detail, it is very easy to set up grand
schemes of history, ranging over the millennia and continents with ease. As
soon as you look a little closer, all of this blurs, and it turns out that
nothing is that simple. When the Annales school historians began to speak of
the longue duree, the long view of history, they bolstered this by writing
extremely detailed narratives about the Mediterranean etc., not by making
sweeping generalizations without any data to support them. A forum such as
this cannot take the place of detailed monographs, but one can expect a little
more logic, getting basic facts such as dates, languages, and places right.
We all make mistakes, but it is the cumulative effect of constant error that
drives us all over the edge and into the water.
Subject: Re: TIME Magazine (Nov 25) humans living 420 years
From: Monica Bower
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 13:30:01 -0500
Steve Courton wrote:
>
> In article <32b64b5b.125756538@news.ezo.net>,
> SteveB wrote:
> >
> >But don't fool yourself. Science is not as honest as you make it to be.
> >Science also proclaims what it believes to be "truth," often with
> >religious fervor. Take evolution, for example. Science proudly declares
> >this to be absolute fact, even though there are gaping holes in the
> >evidence and serious logical flaws with the theory. Why does science take
> >such a position? Simple -- to admit that evolution might not be true would
> >tear down the foundation of the world view that science has built for
> >itself. Rather than risk such a great crash, science takes the position
> >that evolution is unshakable fact... and the curious missing details will
> >somehow be worked out in time. That, my friend, is religion... not
> >science.
>
> Would you care to share these "gaping holes" and "serious logical flaws"?
> All the problems about evolution claimed by creationists have been
> dealt with and only strengthen evolution as a theory. These "claims"
> made by creationists are never presented in scientific journals since
> they know they are distorting science or even lying. They are intended
> to fool the ignorant masses.
>
> The theory of evolution passes ALL scientific tests perfectly. NO
> scientific evidence challenges it. The main argument in evolution
> is the process (gradual or in spurts). There is no argument that
> it occurred (except among the ignorant or greedy). Evolution has
> been subjected to more challenges than any other theory during
> the last 100 years and it has passed all tests.
>
> Creationists want scientists to have every transitional fossil for
> every creature that existed. Of course that is not possible since
> their were millions of species and even more transitions. Many of
> these were likely not preserved in locations where we can find them.
> Its not like there are millions of people digging up fossils.
>
> Creationists can't even find cities that existed thousands of years
> ago. Where are the bones of the huge race that produced Goliath?
> If they can't even find these recent things you can't expect every
> piece of the evolutionary puzzel to be found. Many of those pieces
> will never be found and many were likely distroyed.
>
> Steve
>
> >(1 Cor 1:19-25 NIV) For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the
> >wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." {20} Where is
> >the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age?
> >Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? {21} For since in the
> >wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was
> >pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who
> >believe. {22} Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, {23}
> >but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness
> >to Gentiles, {24} but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks,
> >Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. {25} For the foolishness of
> >God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than
> >man's strength.
>
> Even the authors of the bible knew that someday the wise would see
> through this crap, that's why to put in statements like this to
> continue to fool the ignorant. If the Bible was the word of God
> then it would be very clear and accurate and consistant. None
> of this is true in the Bible so it is not the word of God.
>
> >
> >You see, Morris, the foolishness you see in those who believe in Christ is
> >nothing new. God's power remains strong even 2000 years after this was
> >written. Take heed lest you find yourself on the wrong end of that power
> >someday.
>
> Another threat inspired by God. This is one of the major flaws in the
> Bible, everlasting torture from a "loving God"?
>
> >
> >We Christians acknowledge that what we believe appears foolish to those who
> >mock and reject God. But guess what? We don't care! There is far more
> >satisfaction in the glory of God than there is in the opinions of doubting
> >men.
>
> How did you chose your religion? How can a logical man chose among the
> religions when they all say their holy books are the word of God and
> none of them has any supporting evidence.
>
> >To an outside observer, gnats just might have more intelligence than
> >humans. Gnats do not kill each other for fun and profit. Nor do they
> >destroy their own environment in the name of "progress." Gnats just do
> >what they were created to do, which is faithfully being gnats. Pretty
> >smart critters.
>
> Gnats are not religious, they are not Christians. If they were then they
> might do the above things.
>
> >BTW, with all of your knowledge and proud achievement, can you create a
> >gnat?
>
> Neither can your God since he doesn't exist. At least we don't claim we
> can.
>
> >
> >> We have done a whole lot better than Gnats..I do not see any
> >>Gnat footprints on the Moon!.
>
> >But you see the very fingerprints of God when you look at the moon and the
> >stars and the infinity of all of creation. We have hopped from one speck
> >of dust onto another and planted a flag. Good. We're mighty!
> >Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt!
>
> I see the fingerprint of the Big Bang...No God. If I could go back
> 2000 years the primitive writers of the Bible would think I was a
> God.
>
> Steve
Evolution for the most part is a load of crap that requires far more
faith than any other scientific theory. In the hundred years we've
studied it, we've proven biological diversity and adaptation again and
again but NEVER EVER proven true speciation in any vertebrate (ie one
'breed' can't interbreed with another.) We have never come up with a new
species of anything, just new breeds of the same thing. Fruit flies.
Geraniums. Dogs. The question that must be answered negatively is Can
this animal breed with another animal and produce fertile offspring?
You can turn your basic wild dog into a Chihuahua, but you can mate the
two so they are the SAME SPECIES. You can cross Farmer's Variety
geraniums with Mendel's Geraniums. We have been experimenting on Fruit
Flies for 60 years and have never once come up with a new kind of gnat.
The squirrels that live across from each other on the canyon can breed
with each other, and so are also the SAME SPECIES. You cannot mate with
a chimpanzee without laboratory genetic manipulation, because Humans and
Chimpanzees are not the SAME SPECIES. Goldfish ( I believe) have 99
chromosomes. Humans have 46. Fruit flies have just a few.
Mathematically that means fruit flies are higher on the evolutionary
scale than fish or us. Or, perhaps the fish is more advanced than the
flies or us. Either way, the fittest is not the one in the middle...
This SAME SPECIES issue is one of the many incontrovertable logical
arguments against macroevolution. Consider that two animals would need
to have the identical mutation that makes them incapable of breeding
with their 'own kind'--and then these two animals would have to get
together and mate and produce enough offspring not to doom their new
species to genetic starvation due to inbreeding. For EVERY step of the
evolutionary line from Prions to Humans.
The laws of thermodynamics (note: LAWS, not theory) also preclude
evolution as a possibility. All things tend to become the same thing
(entropy) describes why cars rust, suns explode, and why life basically
sucks. Things oxidize, they break down and become disfunctional as a
general pattern. It allows for diversity, but it insists on extinction
rather than superspeciation...
Conservation of energy applies on a different level, specifically to the
origins of life. Note that the 'primordial soup' was vastly less
organic than the composition of a can of coca cola. Note also that life
does not continue to appear out of nothing as it apparently did 3.5B
years ago - you do not have prions and virus chains self-creating in
your coca cola.
These are not the concerns of creationists. These are the concerns of
science. Creationism has no explanations for these problems and
probably would deny the existance of mst of the arguments altogether.
But our intrepid poster has stated that at least science can admit when
it doesn't have the answer. That is a ridiculous lie.
Niether Evolution nor Creationism can answer these questions and until
one or the other answers them all - for each is a fatal, make or break
issue - I don't believe either of them. I am content to say there is no
explanation at this time, which is at least the truth.
Anyway - just a vent. Enjoy.
Subject: Re: "Out of India"
From: mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal)
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 19:26:47 GMT
John A. Halloran wrote:
>
> In article <591or4$m6t@halley.pi.net> mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal) writes:
> >This Dene-Caucasian family is a construct built on Starostin's
> >connection of Yeniseian (Ket) and North-Caucasian [itself linked to
> >Hurrian and Hattic in other proposals] (which seems plausible to me),
> >combined with Sapir's old idea of a connection between Na-Dene and
> >Sino-Tibetan (I'm not convinced by what I've seen). Ruhlen et al.,
> >despite what Piotr says above about caution, have added to
> >Dene-Caucasian such diverse items as Burushaski, Nahali, Sumerian and
> >Basque. The evidence adduced is completely insufficient, in my opinion.
>
> Your opinion is very interesting. Later in this post you make a reference to
> 'Dene-Caucasian' as if you accept it. Have you examined Starostin's evidence
> for 1) linking North Caucasian to Sino-Tibetan; or 2) linking such a construct
> to Na-Dene?
I have seen Starostin's list of Proto-Yeniseian roots, with proposed
Dene-Caucasian cognates, as it appears in Ruhlen's "On the Origin of
Languages", plus some other scattered materials on Dene-Caucasian in
that book. Based on that, I'd say Yeniseian-Caucasian seems a likely
connection. I'm not convinced about Yeniseian-Caucasian - Sino-Tibetan,
or Y-C - Na-Dene, but I'm not discarding it either. The connections
with Burushaski and Nahali are nonsense, I think, but I hardly know
enough about those two languages, and the Sumerian and Basque
connections that Ruhlen makes I *know* are nonsense.
My later comments indeed seemed to suggest I was accepting
Dene-Sino-Caucasian, or indeed Amerind. I have read Greenberg's
"Language in the Americas", and I remain totally unconvinced.
But I also do not believe that there are 180 independent language
families in the Americas. Some links Ruhlen makes between Nostratic and
(esp. Northern) Amerind don't look bad at all. There may be a
connection between certain Amerind groups and Nostratic/Eurasiatic, as
there may be a connection between Yeniseian-Caucasian and/or
Sino-Tibetan and other American groups, like Na-Dene. Geographically,
it makes sense. The expansion into Northern Asia may have had three
independent sources: E. Europe (Eurasiatic, Eskimo-Aleut, Proto-Northern
Amerind?), Iran/C.Asia (Caucasian, Sino-Tibetan?, Na-Dene?), SE Asia/S.
China (Sino-Tibetan? Proto-Southern Amerind?). Descendants of all three
groups may have crossed the Bering Strait into America, and would have
developed into a couple of independent language families in the New
World (Eskimo-Aleut, Na-Dene, and one (Greenberg) or more "Amerinds").
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal ~ ~
Amsterdam _____________ ~ ~
mcv@pi.net |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig
Subject: Phoney Egyptologists
From: Saida
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 14:16:18 -0600
This is what I found in my mailbox from Katherine Griffis. Maybe
posting this here will teach her to stay out of my mailbox once and for
all.
ue, 17 Dec 1996 17:06:38 GMT
From:
grifcon@mindspring.com (Katherine Griffis)
Reply-To:
grifcon@mindspring.com
To:
Saida , Marc Line
On Tue, 17 Dec 1996 08:38:28 -0600, you wrote:
>> 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.
You know, lady, and I use this term quite loosely here, you wouldn't
know a real Egyptologist should one bite you: that is apparent from
the trash YOU read. I have pointed out that some of your ideas are
*off the mark*: you take umbance: fine. However, if MY e-mailbox is
to be believed, I find that YOU are not believed in half of what you
say, and that you have more gall than anyone I have ever met in this
area of "armchair Egyptologists". I read far more than you have, or
likely ever will, and my credentials are known. YOURS?
What are your credentials? I advertise yourself as an Egyptologist on
at least two sites on the web. In order to do that, you ought to have a
PhD in Egyptology. Well, from your posts, a student in Egyptology 101
would know that you don't. Underneath your signature, you claim to be
affiliated with the University of Alabama. According to your superior,
you teach an adult education course in "Grant Proposal Writing". That's
it.
>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)
And Scott is telling you what here, Saida?
Scott? Now you are claiming a personal relationship with Dr. Woodward,
too?
Nothing that indicates
that *ethnicity* is a real concern, but that he acknowledges 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."
Tell me *where* this indicates an overwhelming interest in the very
issues that YOU have talked about with your "white"/Caucasian
Egyptians and other weird concepts that you have been espousing the
past few days.
Egyptians are varied. Many of them, past and present, have every right
to call themselves Caucasian, because they were and are. Even your
friend, the Hab, admits that much. Let's hear a few of my other "weird"
concepts.
> God, you sound worst than Seligman, and I thought**those** days were over.
What days as those. What in the hell are you spouting off about?
>I can't imagine which "Egyptologists" you were talking to. Perhaps they >had the same credentials as yourself.
Yeah, well, your fantasy may continue as long as you wish. I could
bite back as to what Yurco and others have said about you to my face,
but why bother? YOU have such airs about you that it's pathetic.
You fucking, crazy bitch. Now you have compromised Professor Yurco.
I'm sure he'll thank you for that.
>> 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.
No, but YOUR interpretation of them certainly is the *opposite mirror*
of the Afrocentric ideology. Truly bizarre, Saida, and I think you
harbor some stange racist tendencies of your own: your attitude to the
modern Egyptians is appalling, to say the least.
You're insane. My father was a survivor of the Holocaust. What right
would I have to be racist against any people? Show me one racist remark
I have ever made!
>>
>> 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?
>And such designation is outdated: has been for about 40-50 years. Getbetter books.
Such terms as these are used in default of better ones. They are only
bad when used in hate or as a means of descrimination.
Anthropologically, they are harmless.
>> 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.
>Read it again, Saida: I said that the **concept** of "race" is ofmodern socio-political importance and NOT one that concerns people in
Egyptology.
I read it right the first time.
It is primarily a US concept, and its usage is particular
to the US, as the European and Canadians tend to find it just of NO
importance whatsoever: if I am to believe Marc Line's comments, I
would venture to say that that it really doesn't concern the Brits as
well. So, what does that say to YOU?
You are so full of manure you could fertilze the entire Nile Valley.
>> 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?
Yeah, troll on. Ain't biting: who cares?
>> 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.
Really? I see you begin fights with modern Egyptians on NG's because
you don't like them *as Egyptians*, and make some of the most
outrageous statements to the likes of Everett Battle (Groove You) that
are truly embarrassing to read. No racial hatred? Then, proofread
before you post.
You are not only a fraud, but a shameless liar. I have never picked a
fight with anyone in any newsgroup. I like Egyptians just fine, BTW.
The only ones I object to are rude, boorish people your soulmate, the
Hab.
>>
>> 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.
Take those *real* issues and stick them.
>Again, how would you know the *real* issues that concern Egyptologists?
> The airs you give yourself are really quite ludicrous, Katherine.
And YOU do? Give me a break, Saida: you still buy into Budge, for
God's sake. When your readings tke you into the 20th century
scholarship issues, I'll listen to this trip you have been putting
out. You haven't a clue, as far as I see.
>>
>> 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.
Yeah: you are not obviously a member, either. Honestly, Saida: get a
better hobby: this one has made you bitter.
KMT is a popular magazine that *anybody* can subscribe to as well: so
is Archaeology, and BAR. JARCE is, at least, peer reviewed. However,
since THAT publication could give two flips about your theories, why
*would* you bother??
>>
>> University of Alabama at Birmingham
>> Special Studies
>What are "Special Studies" and what have you to do with them?
I would warrant you a real answer here, but why bother? Suffice to
say that I have been with them for over 16 years as an
instructor/consultant, in this field and others. Live with it.
>>
>> http://www.ccer.ggl.ruu.nl/ccer/PEOPLE2.HTML
Now from hereon, if you have problems with what I post, deal with
*that* issue, madam. I have seen what you post to others online and
off, and should you wish to flame me again, better do it to my mailbox
and deal with my response. I WILL take action should you post it to
the NG's again.
Katherine
I told you quite awhile ago to stay out of my mailbox. I have no desire
to write you anything. I'll answer you in the newsgroups, if I feel
like it. Your threats don't worry me in the least.
Subject: Re: puzzle of the negrito: isolated archaic populations
From: geroldf@sdd.hp.com (Gerold Firl)
Date: 17 Dec 1996 20:55:04 GMT
In article <58s45k$con@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>, pdeitik@bcm.tmc.edu (Philip Deitiker) writes:
(A lot of interesting stuff, but in a somewhat difficult, disjointed
format - I'll try to respond in a coherant manner.)
|> geroldf@sdd.hp.com (Gerold Firl) wrote:
|> >Aren't the solomon islanders melanesian? Both melanesians and negrito
|> >have kinky hair, but it seems a bit premature to link them purely on
|> >that basis.
|> melanesia can be divided along two lines, the solomon island-like
|> folks and classical east asains. The solomon island/autralo aboriginal
|> peoples represent an anceint (diverged) subgroups of widely scattered
|> people with several characterisitics in common (when comparing them
|> with other eurasians).
Melanesia is the archepelago extending from new guinea to the fiji
islands, so named because it is inhabited by melanesians; they have
dark skin, kinky to frizzy hair, and slightly negroid features. I'm
not sure what you mean by "classical east asians"; the islands of
micronesia are inhabited by a mixture of melanesians, polynesians, and
malay-types, but when I think "classical east asian" I think of
chinese, who are very recent economic immigrants. Your
characterization of the solomon islanders, including the linkage
implied by the term "solomon island/australo aboriginal" confuses me;
can you explain?
|> 1. They migrated to the region somewhere about 55 - 40 KYA
|> 2. In this migration they split early and gene flow between isolate
|> populations has been small. Again not all populations have been tested
|> and these are presumptions for all populations, but I strongly suspect
|> that the other negrito populations are going to have similar
|> divergence characteristic. This spread of ancient asiatics presents
|> several problems and I will mention these.
|>
|>
|>
|> First, there is some evidence that there has been hybridization
|> between recently arrived asians and these ancient dwellers, this has
|> produced, by eurasian standards, genetically new populations.
Here is an example of the value of racial terminology: who are the
"ancient dwellers" you refer to? If you mean the anatomically modern
immigrants of 40 KY, the term "ancient" seems misplaced. In this
discussion, they are relative newcomers.
Each
|> mixing event, given the standing differences in ancient isolates is
|> going to have a completely different result. As a result if the
|> presented studies stand up, one is probably going to see 20 or 30
|> genetically seperable populations in the southeast asia/autralia/south
|> pacific region alone. This is why when you say 20 or 30 groups for the
|> world I kind of hold back, I suspect that africa and southeast asia
|> are regions where the current list can be expanded greatly and where
|> past definitions of what constitutes a group will be challenged.
Good point. A rigorous cladistic human family tree might well show
hundreds of races, many of which will be very small, and rapidly
shrinking as breeding isolation is ended and their territory is
grabbed.
|> Anyway you have to read the paper, the solomon islanders were
|> highlighted becasue there was a trait of blond hair in the population,
|> which is only seen in remote regions of africa and lead people to
|> believe that this group may have migrated recently from african.
I'm confused by this also - blond melanesians? blond africans? Which
remote african peoples have blond hair?
|> >Also, h. erectus first entered asia about a million years ago. There
|> >has been a whole lot of evolution going on since. This area of the
|> >world is one of the places which makes the out-of-africa/genocide
|> >hypothesis look very questionable.
|> Maybe, I think it's very doubtful, though, if your making the argument
|> that way over here there is a group which hasn't been throughly tested
|> and possibly of non-african origin. There has been no other instance
|> that supports this belief and there is no set of charactersitcs which
|> suggest these people have superafrican traits (i.e. traits above and
|> beyond those represented by the total of other of tested humanity)
The article on australian settlement in the _cambridge encyclopedia of
archaeology_ notes the extremely archaic physical features of many
australians, indicating continuity with the pre-h. sapiens population
of indonesia. Australian remains show a mixture of populations, with
an earlier group of late-model h. erectus/archaic h. sapiens
coexisting with anatomically modern h. sapiens who arrived within the
last 40 ky. There is direct evidence of hybridization: the current
residents are intermediate. They are neither as primitive nor as
modern as the bimodal fossil evidence.
|> >There is a
|> >|> synapsis on this in Science, about a year ago. The gene studies
|> >|> haven't been done for all, but I beleive three of the populations have
|> >|> been identified. Ironically, I think the data shows that these peoples
|> >|> are the most diverged from from current african populations, basically
|> >|> showing that when it comes to genetic makeup, inheritiance can be
|> >|> deceiving.
|> >I'm not sure which populations you refer to - melanesian? negrito?
|> >papuan? australian? vedda? And which african populations - negro or
|> >pygmy?
|> comparing solomon-like folks with classical east asians
Again, I don't understand - you stated that 3 populations (from
melanesia? micronesia? new guinea? australia?) had been compared with
african populations (negro? pygmy? nilo-sudanic?) and were found to
have a greater degree of genetic divergance than (presumably) other
samples around the world - and then you say that solomon islanders
(presumably melanesian) were compared to "classical east asians" - I'm
having a hard time following your line of reasoning. I think you
probably have some interesting things to say, but I'm not sure what
they are.
|> >The polynesian settlements are *very*
|> >recent, and open-ocean technology is viewed with scepticism anywhere
|> >beyond 40,000 b.p. or so. Java, on the other hand, had residant
|> >hominids a million years ago
|> True, but the fossile record dries up after that and I'm not even sure
|> that there were non-HS hominids in this subequatorial region when the
|> 75K - 50KY migrants came across.
The recent javanese findings are very timely, though I'm looking
forward to seeing the actual article. I'm curious about the
classification as h. erectus; I suspect that if the dating holds up,
the finds will eventually be reclassified as archaic h. sapiens.
There is the belief that somewhere
|> along the way there was a 60 mile stretch of water that had to be
|> crossed, and the best evidence suggests that it was first crossed 50
|> to 45 KYA. The latest dating for Peking man puts him at 400 KY old and
|> there is little evidence from that period to the present suggesting HE
|> presence (And I agree it seems odd that there shouldn't be).
More than odd; unbelievable. Once man has developed the
technology/culture to occupy a new ecological zone, how can it later
become unoccupied? That doesn't seem likely to me.
So unlike
|> what has been discovered in europe, which can be summerized as
|> evidence for interspecies cultural exchange (with a lack of any
|> genetic exchange) in southeast asia there is simply no evidence for
|> temporal territorial overlap.
Australia? Java? The periodic isolation of the indonesian islands, on
the 100,000 year glacial cycle, seems like the perfect mechanism to
insure that human (and also semi-human) populations with high degrees
of genetic divergance will come into contact. What happens then? This
is an interesting question.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Disclaimer claims dat de claims claimed in dis are de claims of meself,
me, and me alone, so sue us god. I won't tell Bill & Dave if you won't.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=---- Gerold Firl @ ..hplabs!hp-sdd!geroldf
Subject: Xina, Take My Advice
From: Saida
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 14:47:21 -0600
Private Email, post if you like
Date:
Tue, 17 Dec 1996 12:01:05 -0600
From:
Xina
To:
Saida
References:
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11
Saida wrote:
> > Excuse me, madam? What is the reason for such tone?
>
> Because I have the distinct impression that you and the other members of> your "clique" are trying to accuse my of being a racist.
I don't have a clique, nor would I care to. My point was racial identity
is not determined by DNA testing. You cannot ascertain the whole of
Egyptian society at the time of the pharohs. You can give lineage and
you can get to a certain point.
Xina, the reason I told you in the first place that I wanted to tell you
something "just once" is should be apparent to you right now. I sensed
the "racist label" was about to be pinned to me. SOMEONE is trying to
stick it to me with a vengeance. Well, it won't stick. Don't be caught
with glue on your fingers in this mess.
(see Xina's
> dim-witted post, "Smugness and Racism") For someone like me to be a
> racist makes about as much sense as for a fox to put on the hunter's red livery!
>Hey whatever rings your bell. And as far as someone like you, I have no clue as to your ethnic identity, nor do I feel it has ANY bearing
whatsoever on any of this.
I would ask you what your point is, but I know better than to think that
you know, yourself.
> >
> > The people who are looking> into the matter of the ethnic makeup of the > ancient Egyptians are not > > doing so primarly to find out what
> color they were. This is a small > > consideration, I feel sure. This
> has to do with determination of > > origins--who were these people and
> where did they come from. Look at it as a anthropological, geographical > question.
> >
> > *YOU* miss the point. The current raging arguements on these newsgroups > has not been by and large to determine the anthropological
> or > geographical questions but in fact used to ascertain racial
> identity.
I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE RAGING ARGUMENTS ON THE NEWSGROUPS when I
speak of the scientific studies being conducted today.
>
> All right, then. You look at it your way; I'll look at it in the light of what I wrote above.
Fine. Why the vehemence which IMHO was completely undeserved. I dont
care what race they are...apparently this is a pet thing for you...hey
thats fine, you railed against Marc, and made wild claims as to the
capabilities of present DNA and genetic testing.
I don't have a dog, nor a cat, nor any other "pet thing". I love the
study of ancient Egypt. I have not railed against Marc. I have not
made any wild claims about anything. That about sums it up.
> > Why else have we been subjected to endless posts about the "BLACKNESS OF > THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS" OR "Beautiful Queen Tiye: Black
African > Queen", > (ad infinitum)!
>
> Well, these posts weren't written by me, were they? Maybe you should
> address your remarks to their authors.
I believe that I have, and suprise suprise, the authors of the same such
as Ausar and others have been much more level headed and respectful
(read that as possessing a common courtesy to agree to disagree with a
minimum of foul language and beratement). What separates my
corrspondences with them from the ones from you is that they have a
>smaller chip on their shoulder than you do apparently.
Now you are really about to make me split my sides laughing.
> You also never seem to answer anyone privately. Is this because
people like myself are simply "unimportant enough" in your book to write
to via email?
Well, Katherine Griffis seems to think I do! She claims to have read
all the e-mails I have ever sent to anyone she knows. Why not ask her.
According to her, even the people at KMT, to whom I have sent one or two
articles, tell her how much I am beneath their notice. However, they
have printed every letter I have ever sent them and even one that I
didn't send them! I'm glad I didn't write more! Listen Xina, take my
advice and don't be a she-wolf that starts snarling each time the
head-bitch of the pack tells you to attack. You never know when she
might decide you would make a good "victim du jour". Know what I'm
saying? Sure you do.
>
> I feel sure you and I disagree on a lot more than a minor point!
I wouldn't have thought that at all.
That is really unfortunate, Saida. I have always regarded you with a
great deal of admiration and respect. I would never dreamed that I
would receive such acidic and hurtful correspondences from someone whom
I held in that much regard.
Please forgive me for not being you.
Xina
All right, Xina, I take back every hurtful word and I hope you'll do the
same. I have posted a private e-mail from Katherine Griffis although,
unlike yourself, she didn't give me permission to do so. Well, I don't
care. Read that letter and think about what I told you.
