HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: medusa@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
Subject: Re: neanderthal blood samples & DNA
Date: 9 Apr 92 02:37:15 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <16356@plains.NoDak.edu>, ortmann@plains.NoDak.edu (Daniel Ortmann) writes:
> medusa@ac.dal.ca writes:
> [...]
> )	of Science that he intends to analyze the genetic material
> )	from what is believed to be a Neanderthal blood sample 
> )	taken from a stone tool from a site in Iran dated to 
> [...]
> 
> 1) What are the quantities of genetic material are required for this type
>    of analysis?
> 
> 2) How much (if any) of the stone tool is destroyed in the process?
> 
> 3) Can the same sample be used for different analysis?  (ie, does each
>    separate measurement destroy the genetic material, or can the
>    material be reused?)
> -- 
> "The Manual Reader"

You have really stumped me.  Perhaps someone in Telnet-land will be
able to answer these questions .
From: david@mobius.msri.org (David Mostardi)
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
Subject: Jewels of Helen found?
Date: 13 Apr 92 17:40:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: dog.22681
Reply-To: david@mobius.msri.org (David Mostardi)
Organization: Mathematical Sciences Research Institute, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.188.88

There was a short bit on this morning's Morning Edition (NPR)
on treasures stolen and re-stolen from various national museums
during World War II.  The report centered mostly on artifacts
stolen by Russians from Germany (and vice versa).  

Several months ago, I heard (also on NPR) that Schliemann's famous 
"Jewels of Helen", found at Troy and stolen from a Berlin museum 
in 1945, had resurfaced.   It turns out that "resurfaced" is too
generous a word.  One gentleman interviewed this morning has talked
to several "witnesses" who have personally seen the Jewels of Helen 
at the Pushkin Museum (in Moscow?). So far, no one in Russia/CIS
is admitting anything. 

The report ended with some hope that artifacts will be recovered,
but everyone seems to agree that it will take a lot of time.

David

-- 
******************************************************************
David Mostardi                        "Where the coffee is strong,
Systems Administrator                     the cat is good-looking, 
MSRI, Berkeley CA          and all the theorems are above-average."
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
From: wadley@mullauna.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Gregory Robert Wadley)
Subject: Diet of early humans
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 01:09:56 GMT

Archaeology is not my specialty (as will become obvious),
but I'm trying to find out the current belief on our early diet.

I get the impression that the older "man the hunter" picture
of pre-agriculture humans has faded a bit, in favour of a more
gathering-orientated version.

Did our history go:

Gatherer --> Hunter/gatherer --> agriculture
(> ?? BP)    (?? BP to 10000BP)  (10000BP to now) ?

In other words, was there a significant change from primate diet to
hunter/gatherer diet?

Is there a date before which we are no longer doing archaeology,
but doing paleontology or something else instead?

Is there any concensus on why agriculture started?

If anyone can help me out, or give references, I'd much appreciate it.

Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
From: vu0350@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (allen h. lutins)
Subject: Re: Diet of early humans
Organization: Individualists of the World, Unite!
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 04:57:49 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.211546.20082@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>"Before Present", defined for C14-dating purposes as 1950 CE. It is
>calculated from the measured C14 abundance by using a standard
>half-life value (which I understand is off from the true value, as
>determined by more precise measurements, by a couple of percent).

Carbon 14 dating assumes a constant ratio of C12 to C14 in the
atmosphere; in fact, this wasnt' the case.  Therefore, `Calibration'
or `Correction' curves are often applied to C14 dates (and such dates
are generally indicated as `Corrected Dates').  The calibration curves
are determined from dendrochronological (tree ring) studies.  I could
expound upon this further, but i reckon nobody asked in the first
place  :^)


-- 
***************************************************************************
Don't like my .sig?  Dial (800)NULL-DEV|  allen h. lutins
                                       |  vu0350@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu
"Individualists of the world, Unite!"  |  VY8934@bingvaxa.bitnet
From: higham@waikato.ac.nz
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
Subject: Re: Earliest Building
Date: 15 Apr 92 12:33:19 +1200
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

In article <1992Apr14.024107.6003@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, prs@turing.acs.virginia.edu (Phillip R. Scarr) writes:
> In article <1992Apr13.193648.4696@unocal.com> stgprao@xing.unocal.com (Richard Ottolini) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr8.203852.7190@ee.gatech.edu> ldh@eedsp.gatech.edu (Lonnie D Harvel) writes:
>>>Just as a matter of curiosity, when and where were the
>>>first buildings (interpreted loosely)?  I guess we need
>>>to add a "what" to the above question.
>>
>>Aboriginal structures made of bone and some stone have been found in the CIS
>>somewhere dating 20+ thousand years ago.  These would be similar to semi-permenant
>>structures such as tepees by American Indians or wood houses in the Amazons.
>>
>>Some stone buildings have been found in the Middle East some 9,000 years old.
> 
> I recall that there is some evidence (although sketchy) that there are
> structures from England and northern France which date to Mesolithic
> (i.e. Homo Habilis) times.  I can't recall any details but the evidence

The mesolithic period, generally accepted to fall between the palaeolithic and
the neolithic is usually dated to around the 9th/10th millenium BC in England
(Star Carr 9500 BC). This was the period after the end of the ice age in Europe,
the so-called age of foraging and hunting. This wasn't of course, Homo habilis,
a hominid found in contexts dated much, much earlier (ER 1470- at ca. 2 mya).
Homo habilis remains are  not found  in the British isles or France.

Tom.

> was pretty good.
> 
> 	-Phil
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
From: ivanitch@cherry.udel.edu (Sandy Ivanitch)
Subject: Re: Basic concepts in archaeology
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 14:32:47 GMT

In article <1992Mar26.141937.16249@athena.mit.edu> pat@mtl.mit.edu (Patricia E. Varley) writes:
>
>There seems to be a major misunderstanding on this bb about
>how archaeologists actually do their work.  We do not simply
>pick up an artifact and pronounce it a religious object.  We
>do not dig up a body and automatically assume that the pollen
>grains found beside the body are "floral arrangements."  NO
>archaeologist in the future is going to make the mistake of
>thinking that McDonald's arches are anything but a unique
>part of the structure and that it was a food emporium.
>
>So please--don't go around making wild remarks about
>how archaeologists make pronouncements about artifacts
>without any background research. IT HURTS! :-(
>
>Will the person who read the article about the
>neanderthal burial with local flower pollen found
>in the grave please post the title and author of the
>article.  I'd like to get that article. 
>Thanks.
>
I was not insinuating that archaeologist work in a vaccuum, my concentration
happens to be archaeology.  Also, the ones who are calling the "floral
arrangements" into question are archaeologists.

At the time those pollens grains were discovered with the Neanderthal, 
archaeology was still in its early stages and they weren't as careful with
their samples as they are today.  They would often use old coffee cans or
tobaco tins to pack their samples in (sorry, the only source I have for
this is my class notes).  As for the other sources about the Neanderthal
burial, my sources really only mention that it's debatable (they aren't 
very in depth):

        Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice by Colin Renfrew
           and Paul Bahn 1991 (pg. 343)

This one doesn't mention the grave with flowers, but it mentions some
problems with other Neanderthal burials:

        Human Biology and Behavior: an Anthropological Perspective 5th ed.
           by Mark Weiss and Alan Mann (pg. 426)


-- 
 @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@             Sandra Ivanitch		@            Archaeology:             @
@      ivanitch@freezer.cns.udel.edu    @  It may not have much of a future,  @
@           Anthropology Major		@   but it has one hell of a past!    @
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
From: stgprao@xing.unocal.com (Richard Ottolini)
Subject: Re: Trends in Molecular Archaeology
Originator: stgprao@xing
Organization: Unocal Corporation, Anaheim, California
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 15:08:01 GMT

I heard there was a conference on the subject at UCLA earlier this year,
but I haven't seen the proceedings yet.  It is a growing field.

The Natural History Museum in LA has started a molecular biology
lab to study archeological and older material.
From: ldh@eedsp.gatech.edu (Lonnie D Harvel)
Subject: Earliest Building
Followup-To: sci.archaeology
Reply-To: ldh@eedsp.gatech.edu (Lonnie D Harvel)
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology - DSP
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 20:38:52 GMT

Just as a matter of curiosity, when and where were the
first buildings (interpreted loosely)?  I guess we need
to add a "what" to the above question.

-ldh


-- 
     The comments and spelling herein are mine and nobody
                     else lays claim to them.
================================================================
Lonnie D. Harvel                 |  ldh@eedsp.gatech.edu
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
Subject: Re: Earliest Building
From: vfoao07h@VAX.CSUN.EDU (George Mansoor)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 18:05:56 GMT
Reply-To: vfoao07h@VAX.CSUN.EDU
Organization: Cal State Northridge

>>Just as a matter of curiosity, when and where were the
>>first buildings (interpreted loosely)?  I guess we need
>>to add a "what" to the above question.

What about the "Step" pyramid in Egypt.
-----------------------------------
George Mansoor
Cal State Northridge
Business Affairs Systems - BMGT
gmansoor@vax.csun.edu
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
From: Wade@birch.ssc.gov (Bob Wade)
Subject: Tikal
Organization: Texas National Laboratory
Distribution: tx
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 19:14:55 GMT

It 

Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
From: prs@turing.acs.virginia.edu (Phillip R. Scarr)
Subject: Re: emic; Que?
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 16:40:18 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.231630.4256@tplrd.tpl.oz.au> keithh@tplrd.tpl.oz.au (Keith Harwood) writes:
>In recent postings the word `emic' has turned up in relation to
>traditional life-styles. What does the word mean, please?
>

Emic is a word which actually has its roots in linguistics and more
specifically, in the works of Edward Sapir.  Emic (and it's mate etic)
derive from the linguistic terms phonEMIC and phonETIC.  In a nutshell
it works like this:

Phonetic:	What the observer hears in the spoken word
Phonemic:	What the speaker intends in the spoken word.

These have been appropriated to anthropology to reflect two distinct
tendencies in anthropological research, one tending towards nomothetic
approches which impose a western idea of causality and rationality onto
the native subject (e.g. Marvin Harris, Leslie White, and to a lesser
extent Roy Rappaport).  This is the ETIC side of things.  On the other
hand, you have the EMIC folks who are the cultural relativists in a
direct line from Boas (or Boaz, I never can remember).  Sapir was a
student of Boas, as was Mead and Benedict.  These folks were into
description and interpretation of native practices from the native point
of view.  They did not feel that there was any value in imposing our own
categories on the natives, rather it was important for us to learn from
them.

I hope this makes sense (hey, makes sense to ME but then so does Marx!)

>	Lesley Harwood
>

	-Phil

Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
From: "Stephen C. Miller" <stcmille@copper.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: emic; Que?
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 11:32:43 -0500

In article <1992Apr7.231630.4256@tplrd.tpl.oz.au> keithh@tplrd.tpl.oz.au (Keith Harwood) writes:
>In recent postings the word `emic' has turned up in relation to
>traditional life-styles. What does the word mean, please?
>

The "emic/etic" distinction is based on the distinction of phonetic vs.
phonemic in the study of linguistics.

Basically, it is a shorthand way of talking about internal rationales of
a culture vs. the outside, "objective" view.  The "emic" view is the
view of the participants in a culture - the world of meanings and
cutlurally appropriate action.  The "etic" view is the view of the
outside observer, describing the way people act in hopefully objective
terms.

The distinction can be argued about, but in practice it is a handy,
shorthand way of talking about the fact that social scientists
routinely differentiate between inside and outside views of culture.


-- 
--------------------
=Steve Miller	 		    stcmille@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
		(Former rock star turned grad student)
  Happyhappy joyjoy happyhappy joyjoy happyhappy joyjoy happyhappy joyjoy
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
From: "Stephen C. Miller" <stcmille@copper.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Paleolithic diet
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 15:52:53 -0500

A fairly good book, complete with menus, is The Paleolithic
Prescription.
-- 
--------------------
=Steve Miller	 		    stcmille@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
		(Former rock star turned grad student)
  Happyhappy joyjoy happyhappy joyjoy happyhappy joyjoy happyhappy joyjoy
From: cortese@hepxvt.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese)
Subject: Re: Basic Concepts in Arc
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 14 Apr 92 23:36:47 GMT

In article <1992Apr07.141818.19043@watson.ibm.com> platt@watson.ibm.com (Daniel E. Platt) writes:
>In article <637.704.uupcb@matrix.sbs.com>, kirk.hardesty@matrix.sbs.com (Kirk Hardesty) writes:
>|> To:pat@mtl.mit.edu
>|>    >that the only cultures I have studied first-hand are
>|>    >the Newari of Nepal and local Native American Indians in
>|>    >Massachusetts.  My thesis is on the cultural
>|>    >evolution of the ideology of the Puritans as
>|>    >expressed in their gravestones.
>|> 
>|> 
>|> Forgive my intrusion, but I was not aware that any tribes remained
>|> intact in Massachusetts or anywhere in the NorthEast.
>
>There is an active tribe in Connecticut.  They have a reservation
>that has been whittled down over the years.  They have been

A few years ago, I read something in a fairly reputable magazine
(Smithsonian World or maybe Nat'l Geo.) that talked about a group of
Iroquois-type people who lived in upstate New York who had their own
private money and passports, and considered themselves as utterly
separate from the U.S.  Needless to say, this caused legal fights
between them and the New york gov't.  I don't know what their status is
now.

Regards,
Janis C.
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
Subject: Re: Diet of early humans
Date: 15 Apr 92 21:15:46 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Labs, Livermore CA

In article <29EC71E8.28916@noiro.acs.uci.edu> cortese@hepxvt.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
>In article <wadley.703300196@mullauna.cs.mu.OZ.AU> wadley@mullauna.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Gregory Robert Wadley) writes:

::In other words, was there a significant change from primate diet to
::hunter/gatherer diet?

:This may be easier to determine than you think.  Our teeth are
:beautifully evolved for omnivores: sharp incisors in the front to tear
:meat, and square grinding molars that are good for vegetable fiber.  If
:you can find hominid fossils with square molars all over their mouth,
:maybe that would mean that we depended on a gatherer-diet long ago.

:(I'm not sure about this one, though.  From what I remember, the switch
:to eating plants was a forced one for the great apes.  I recall hearing
:that their teeth are also omnivore-teeth, i.e. that they have
:meat-eaters' incisors.  This would point to plant-eating as being a
:later development for them.)

	Actually, there are lots of herbivore counterexamples to this
rule. Check out a cow or a horse or a rat or a squirrel. They all have
incisors in their mouths. Incisors are good for plant as well as meat
eaters; plant parts also need to be cut to be eaten. A cow or a horse
eats grass by clipping off whatever it gets into its mouth, for
example, and rodents are adapted to gnawing through such things as the
shells of nuts. So having incisors is no demonstration of meat eating.
Janis Cortese is right about what the back teeth would look like. The
back teeth of plant eaters are adapted for grinding; those of some
carnivores (like dogs and cats) are turned into "carnassials", with
cusps suitable for tearing up meat.

:Regards,
:Janis C.

:P.S.: What the hell is BP?

"Before Present", defined for C14-dating purposes as 1950 CE. It is
calculated from the measured C14 abundance by using a standard
half-life value (which I understand is off from the true value, as
determined by more precise measurements, by a couple of percent).
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
From: stgprao@xing.unocal.com (Richard Ottolini)
Subject: Re: Earliest Building
Originator: stgprao@xing
Organization: Unocal Corporation, Anaheim, California
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 19:36:48 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.203852.7190@ee.gatech.edu> ldh@eedsp.gatech.edu (Lonnie D Harvel) writes:
>Just as a matter of curiosity, when and where were the
>first buildings (interpreted loosely)?  I guess we need
>to add a "what" to the above question.

Aboriginal structures made of bone and some stone have been found in the CIS
somewhere dating 20+ thousand years ago.  These would be similar to semi-permenant
structures such as tepees by American Indians or wood houses in the Amazons.

Some stone buildings have been found in the Middle East some 9,000 years old.
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
From: odwak@fraser.sfu.ca (Hartley Odwak)
Subject: Neandertal Debate
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: Worlwide
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 19:24:07 GMT

I've been reading the various comments about Neandertal natural
history later and would like to comment:

Someone mentioned that "no paleoanthropologist seriously considers
Neandertals to be ancestral to Modern Humans".  May I name a few? How
about Milford Wolpoff? Robert Eckhardt? Alan Thorne? Rukang Wu? David
Frayer? That's just a few of the supporters, and I'd like to mention
that these 5 are among the best in the field......

Re: The comment that Neandertal radii are all bowed outside the modern
range: Only SPY I and II, and the Neandertal individual display
excessively bowed radii.  Individuals from Shanidar, Tabun, Amud, and
Regourdou (these are the only ones I've checked) are very modern, and
in fact are identical in their degree of bowing to Skhul and Quafzeh.
See Suziki's Amud volume for a good graphic display.

Re: Their cranial morphology. Chris Knusel's recent PhD dissertation
(SFU) proves an association between anterior dental loading, a
behavior clearly practiced by Neandertals, and cranial remodelling.
The suggestion is that the some of the differences are not genetic,
but rather are due to phenotypic plasticity.  Bones remodel to stress
and excessive use of muscles, i.e not always a genetic change.  A good
example of this potential is seen in athletes...

As for the "rapid disappearance in W.Europe" - Saint Cesaire dates to
35,000 ybo, AT LEAST 12,000 older than Cro-Magnon.  Some have argued
that this is more than enough time for a continuous transition, albeit
with gene flow perhaps...... See the March/92 article by Wolpoff and
Frayer (response to Stringer) in Nature (Science?).  

That's all for now.

Hartley

Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
From: suzanne@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu (Suzanne McCaffrey)
Subject: Aquatic Apt Author
Organization: San Francisco State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 22:30:15 GMT

The author of The Aquatic Ape: A Theory of Human Evolution is by
Elaine Morgan  Publisher Souvenir Press, London, 1982..

Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
From: dweber@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Daniel Weber)
Subject: Trends in Molecular Archaeology
Originator: dweber@nvs.ncsa.uiuc.edu
Reply-To: dweber@ncsa.uiuc.edu
Organization: National Center for Supercomputing Applications
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 14:06:32 GMT


In case some of you don't know, the May issue of Scientific American that
arrived via mail yesterday has an article by Philip E. Ross, staff writer,
called "Trends in Molecular Archaeology: Eloquent Remains".  Like many 
Scientific American "Trends" articles, this one appears to be a broad overview
of current molecular biology techniques as they are being applied to
archaeology.   This "broad overview" can be something of an annoyance when
you're hungry for details, but can really whet your appetite for more.
There's even a maddening ~2 page section on the "Ice Man" that told me
just enough to make me want to scream for more.  If you like archaeology,
but easily get bogged down by terminology and details, check this out.

				-daniel weber
				dweber@ncsa.uiuc.edu
From: rcbi27@muvms3.bitnet (DBRUM)
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
Subject: Re: neanderthal blood samples & DNA
Date: 15 Apr 92 19:35:28 GMT
Organization: Marshall University

In article <1992Apr12.130937.4992@ac.dal.ca>, medusa@ac.dal.ca writes:

> Granted that you can extract genetic material from Neandethals, to what
> end is this being done.  What will the genetic material tell researchers
> about early man?  Also ir you do not have any other early homo DNA 
> samples to compare it to how can one judge what it is that made 
> Neanderthals unique?                         </SIG>

A pertinant query: How do you tell if a chromosome is male or female?

Pull down its genes!

:-)   Sorry for resembling a GADFLY, folks; just could't resist.   :-)

--danny
-- 
	"Were his solid black square paintings really,
	as the artist claimed, simply neutral, abstract
	compositions devoid of external references and
	meanings?" ***********************************