HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lwloen@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Larry Loen)
Subject: Re: left-handedness
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 21:18:32 GMT
Reply-To: lwloen@vnet.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Rochester

In article <1992Aug15.165244.123@news.uwyo.edu> Richard Travsky writes:

>This work involved skulls of baboons that had been bashed (presumably by
>Australopithecines and presumably with a blunt instrument). The 
>percentages of baboon skulls with dents on their left side (indicating
>a strike by a right handed agent) vs. those with dents on their right
>side (indicating a left handed agent) mirrored current day percentages
>of right handed and left handed people.

Is there really agreement on the numbers?  I'm left handed/ambidexterous (curses
to the Little League Coach who told me to stop throwing left and right 
handed -- I could have been half of a pitching staff! :-) ) and I've had a slight
lay interest in the subject from time to time.

I've seen percentages anywhere from 5 to 10 percent all the way up to 30
perecent in articles over the years.  I don't know if this represents arbitrary
decisions or what, because there are (of course) ambidexterous people who
may choose to be left handed, but could as easily choose to be right handed.
I've never read graduate theses on the subject, so I don't know what the
formal defintion is, if there is one.

But, anyway, how does "right" and "left" handedness definitions account 
for ambidexterous folks?

I may be such a person myself -- as I note above, I was able to throw equally
well right and left handed.  For reasons lost in the dawn of my
conciousness, I chose to write left handed in the first grade and stuck with
it.  I often wonder if that was the right choice; the bit with baseballs came
a couple years later when my dad wouldn't buy me a baseball mit and I made do
with his.  Voila, I found I could throw pretty well.  When I got mits, I had
them for both and experimented with both for maybe two years; 
I went lefty for good thanks to that impatient Little League coach 
who couldn't stand the experiment.

There clearly are decidedly left hand people; there are occassionally "left
handed" stores that sell scissors and the like, but I've always felt a little
out of place there, so I really regard myself as more ambidexterous.

Is there a generally accepted agreement on "how to tell" and, therefore
what the "real" percentages are?

-- 
   Larry W. Loen        |  My Opinions are decidedly my own, so please
                        |  do not attribute them to my employer
From: kerry@is-next.umd.edu (Kerry Ogata)
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
Subject: Re: knapping
Date: 19 Aug 92 16:53:26 GMT
Organization: Comp. Sci. Ctr., Univ. of MD, College Park, MD 20742

In article <1992Aug19.052525.10591@u.washington.edu> mimir@milton.u.washington.edu (Al Billings) writes:
>In article <2a914739.knapper@knapper.cactus.org> "Woody Baker" <woody@knapper.cactus.org> writes:
>>This one caught my eye.... :)

>>I certainly hope that this is tounge-in-cheek.  Knapping is trmendously 
>>important.  You can't BEGIN to appreciate an artifact until you have tried 
>>to reproduce one.  Flint knapping has progressed from the TARZAN of the
>>APES horse puckey, to a fairly well understood art.  One can study lithic
>>debitage, and points for ever, and not really get a feel for how they were
>>made, and why.

> You will never know "Why" something was made or how someone felt. Those
>are not things that can be gotten from the archy record and are not things
>you can prove or disprove based on your knapping. Analysis of the
>artifacts is what is important, not how it feels to knapp a tool. What
>difference does it make? The way I was taught what Archy I have been
>taught (here at the U of Washington) is to use the scientific method and
>stick to the sort of things that are falsifiable or not. Knapping doesn't
>fall into that catagory. You know what it is like for YOU to knapp but
>there is no guarantee (and no way to prove) that that has anything to do
>with knapping in prehistory.

Well, regardless of using "scientific method" or not, doing experimental
archaeology *does* give clues to interpreting archaeological remains.
It is not as if experimental archaeology such as knapping is used as a sole
basis for interpretation; it simply provides additional information which
may help interpret parts of material culture.

Also, just because you can or cannot prove or disprove a theory does not
mean it should not be given consideration in your interpretation of the
past.  If all archaeological reports were based solely upon analysis of
artifacts, they would be dull and lifeless indeed.  For example, if
you had a certain experience while flint-knapping a certain stone, would
it not stand to reason that others might have experienced something similar?
Because it is not "proven scientifically" is it right to just dismiss it
as worthless?   I don't think so.
-- 
kerry@is-next.umd.edu / kogata@wam.umd.edu
Academic Software Development Group, Computer Science Center
University of Maryland, College Park
From: rtravsky@news.uwyo.edu (Rich Travsky)
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
Subject: Re: left-handedness
Date: 17 Aug 92 23:04:37 GMT
Organization: Banzai Institute

In article <36911@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, miliu@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (zaphod beeblebrox)
   writes:
> In article <1992Aug15.165244.123@news.uwyo.edu> rtravsky@news.uwyo.edu 
  (Rich Travsky) writes:
>> (baboon skull bashing stuff deleted)
>
> All this is assuming that the confrontation between the two was
> frontal?  I recall reading somewhere that stone tool shapes
> facilitate ambidexterity.
> 
This is no doubt the assumption. I had never considered it before, but
I sorta don't see how (in the majority of instances) it could be other-
wise. In other words, I don't think much of someone's chances of sneaking
up on a baboon (either modern man or australopithecine).

Naturally, I haven't any data to back this up ;)

Richard Travsky
Division of Information Technology     RTRAVSKY @ CORRAL.UWYO.EDU
University of Wyoming                  (307) 766 - 3663 / 3668
         <No madness? Too bad.>  _Xenocide_, O. S. Card
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
From: mathers@sibelius.trl.oz.au (Steven Mathers)
Subject: Cultures
Reply-To: s.mathers@trl.oz.au
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne, Australia
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 23:06:59 GMT

I am interested in the movements and identities of cultures around Eurasia
in ancient times.  

For instance, are there any cultures which have remained essentially in
the same location for thousands of years.  I realize that racial types
have drifted around a lot, but I am talking about the way of life of
people living in a particualr geograhpical area.  

I would say for instance that the area north of the Black Sea and north
of the Caspian etc.. has always been the nomadic horse-steppe culture
(my made up name) , regardless of the racial characteristics of the
people in that area at any one time.

So have there been any other areas that have retained a particular
culture for a long period (ie: >1000 years) in ancient times?

My bets would be:

1)  Mainland Greece, Crete and Agean Islands = Hellenic culture

2)  Egypt: just the Nile part = (Don't know what to call it, Asian-African
culture?)

3)  Northen Africa:  African Nomadic culture

4)  Levant and Arabia:  Semitic culture.  Are Arabs historically of a
semitic culture?  No offense intended, I'm just ignorant.

5)  France-ish area:  Celtic?

6)  German-ish area:  Germanic barbarian culture

Areas I am not sure about:

West of the Black Sea, above Greece: Slavic?

Turkey: ????

Mesoptamia: Central Asian?  Indo-European?  ????
From: indiana@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
Subject: 3,700 years old News Flash from Tel Aviv.
Date: 20 Aug 92 20:57:54 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Cable TV's "Broadcast News":
   "Police rushed to a murder scene near Tel Aviv today but were 3,700 years
too late. They were called after the discovery of a skeleton with a knife in
its chest.
   "Experts say the skeleton, unearthed during road work, is of a man who was
murdered during the Middle Bronze Age. A police wag said that since finding
suspects was unlikely, the case was closed."
   It would be MARVELlous if they could determine the man's nationality, though
being in a coastline area, he could well be a transient. Supposedly it's too
early for the Peoples of the Sea. 
   Assuming the knife belonged to the attacker and wasn't loot picked up
elsewhere, it would be fascinating to learn of the knife's affinities, if any.
   
   If someone hears anything about this, please post or e-mail.
From: scottl@deakin.OZ.AU (W. Scott Laidlaw)
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
Subject: left-handedness
Date: 14 Aug 92 09:06:11 GMT
Organization: Deakin University

Hi, i'm posting this for a friend who is studying left-handedness.
The question is, is there any archeological or palaeontological evidence 
that right handedness has not always been dominate in man.  

Has any one been able to determine if any of the stone tools were knapped by 
left or right handed people?

What about races which have been 'isolated' for 
long periodsi.e Australian aboriginals?
    Papua New Guinea highlanders?
did/do these races show any difference in the ratio of handedness?

Also those cultures were text is written in directions other than left to 
right, horizontal, do they have different ratios of left handers to right 
handers?

Thanks in advance

Cheers
Scotty
============================================================================
|  Scott Laidlaw   Deakin University         |  Victoria       Australia   |
|                                            |  |'-.__           _.-_|\    |
|  Internet: Scottl@deakin.oz.au             |  |     '-._      /      \   |
|                                            |  '._*/\_.'       \_.--. /   |
|                                            |                        v    |
============================================================================
From: indiana@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
Subject: C-14 and the Dead Sea Scrolls
Date: 16 Aug 92 20:04:09 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Dates are measured from"black bars"chart. Asterisk on likeliest date of 2 sets.
SCROLL:                      CARBON-14:              PALEOGRAPHIC ESTIMATE:
1.Wadi Daliyeh:             *400-350 BC; 310-245 BC.
2.Testament of Kohath (Q)    385-350 BC;*310-240 BC    100-75 BC.
3.Pentateuchal paraphrase(Q) 340-325 BC;*200-120 BC.   150-100 BC
4.Book of Isaiah (Q)   (+,-5)330 BC; *205-110 BC.      150-100 BC
5.Testament of Levi (Q)     *190-150 BC; 145-125 BC    150-75 BC
6.Book of Samuel (Q)         185-65 BC                 100 BC
7.Masada-Joshua              165-85 BC                  30 BC-0 AD.
8.Masada-Sectarian Document  30 BC-70 AD.               30 BC-0 AD.
9.Temple Scroll (Q)          95 BC-0 AD.                25 BC-25 AD.
10.Genesis Apocryphon (Q)    70 BC-15 AD.               25 BC-25 AD.
11.Thanksgiving Scroll (Q)   20 BC-60 AD.               50 BC-75 AD.
12.Wadi Seyal                30 BC-115 AD.              
13.Wadi Murabba'at           75 AD-135 AD.
14.Khirbet Mird              670 AD-765 AD.

   The Nov/Dec.!991 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review had a one-page article
and small "black bar" chart (which two of us measured for the above).Of the 14
documents tested by C-14, eight scrolls were from the Wadi Qumran caves,marked
(Q) above.
 Q) above.   (Cont'd in next posting.)   exit
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
From: B531JP@tamvm1.tamu.edu (Joe Powell, Texas A&M)
Subject: Re: left-handedness
Organization: Texas A&M University
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 23:46:35 GMT

 
You might also do library search for articles by Peter MacNeilage and
Susan Lutz-Maki.  Both are conducting research on the evolution of
handedness (and lateralizations in general) in primates.  They may
give a biological perspective on handedness.  Sorry I can't recall
the exact references (you may check in the International J. of
Primatology and J. of Neurobiology (??) to start.  I have the
exact references back in my office; mail me directly if you would
like them
 
Regards,
 
 
Joe
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
From: monaghan@carson.u.washington.edu (Tracy Monaghan)
Subject: Re: The Cycladic Spirit
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 00:02:57 GMT


The Cyclades, as I remember, were comtemporaneous with early Minoan
civilization.  Was there any comparison in the book between these two.

Also, since it is generally believe that the early bronze age people in
the Aegean area migrated/invaded from Asia Minor, did the author attempt
to trace the styles from there?  

What were the theories which were debunked or weak, as presented in the book?


Inquiring minds want to know!
From: 00383@ravel.udel.edu (Thomas R Rocek)
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
Subject: Re: left-handedness
Date: 14 Aug 92 13:40:48 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware

In article <scottl.67@deakin.OZ.AU> scottl@deakin.OZ.AU (W. Scott Laidlaw) writes:
>Hi, i'm posting this for a friend who is studying left-handedness.
>The question is, is there any archeological or palaeontological evidence 
>that right handedness has not always been dominate in man.  
>
>Has any one been able to determine if any of the stone tools were knapped by 
>left or right handed people?
>    ....

Nick Toth has some comments on this in a popular article:

Toth, Nicholas
1987
The First Technology.  Scientific American 256(4):112-121.

Tom Rocek, U. of Delware (fjh00383@udlevm.udel.edu)
A

-- 
************************************************************************        
* Tom Rocek                        Bitnet:   FJH00383@UDELVM           *        
* Department of Anthropology       Internet: FJH00383@UDELVM.UDEL.EDU  *        
* University of Delaware           Fax:      (302) 831-4002            *        
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
From: mimir@milton.u.washington.edu (Al Billings)
Subject: Re: knapping
Organization: The Friends of Loki Society
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 05:25:25 GMT

In article <2a914739.knapper@knapper.cactus.org> "Woody Baker" <woody@knapper.cactus.org> writes:
>This one caught my eye.... :)
>
>I certainly hope that this is tounge-in-cheek.  Knapping is trmendously 
>important.  You can't BEGIN to appreciate an artifact until you have tried 
>to reproduce one.  Flint knapping has progressed from the TARZAN of the
>APES horse puckey, to a fairly well understood art.  One can study lithic
>debitage, and points for ever, and not really get a feel for how they were
>made, and why.

 You will never know "Why" something was made or how someone felt. Those
are not things that can be gotten from the archy record and are not things
you can prove or disprove based on your knapping. Analysis of the
artifacts is what is important, not how it feels to knapp a tool. What
difference does it make? The way I was taught what Archy I have been
taught (here at the U of Washington) is to use the scientific method and
stick to the sort of things that are falsifiable or not. Knapping doesn't
fall into that catagory. You know what it is like for YOU to knapp but
there is no guarantee (and no way to prove) that that has anything to do
with knapping in prehistory.

Wassail,
Al Billings

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Al Billings - Anthropology Undergrad - Admin for the Troth-l Mailing List | 
| SysOp of The Sacred Grove BBS (206)634-1980 -=- mimir@u.washington.edu    |
------------------------------ Cut Here -------------------------------------
begin 644 GRENDEL.PUB
MF58``1%^*@Q":6QL:6YG<RP@06S^`2N`$7JAHA^YG*D:W0:>,_,\N<XL-]7BN
LV+1/'DT4SH3V2$'*(9NAE_,+VB9R.4=@$9R.J1?CL3H!9@HR8+7DD3@%`!$%E
``
end
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: bertsche@llnl.gov (Kirk Bertsche)
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
Subject: Re: Dates of Dead Sea Scrolls
Date: 13 Aug 92 18:23:51 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

In article <1992Aug13.091030.303@csc.canterbury.ac.nz> 
cctr114@csc.canterbury.ac.nz writes:
> I've read several articles recently which said that some of the Dead Sea
> Scrolls have been radio carbon dated. I gather that the scholars who
> held the mainstream view of their dates are all patting themselves
> on the back saying what clever fellows they were, but none the
> articles actually said what the results of the dating were.
> Does anyone know what dates were assigned to the scrolls that
> were tested?

Yes, about a dozen scrolls have been radiocarbon dated by the Zurich AMS 
lab.  The results were presented at the Radiocarbon conference in Tucson 
in June 1991.  They will presumably be published in _Radiocarbon_, but the 
conference issue does not seem to be out yet.  (I tried to get a preprint 
from the Zurich group last year, but was not able to do so.)

Here's what I remember from the conference.  The dates are basically quite 
consistent with dates from paleography.  One scroll gave a bogus date, but 
this scroll had been "repaired" at some time in the past by gluing a 
backing to it, and apparently the sample preparation did not completely 
remove all traces of glue.  As I recall, there was also some evidence of a 
small, unexplained systematic difference (about 40 years?) between the 
radiocarbon and paleography dates.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kirk Bertsche    (bertsche@llnl.gov)    (510) 422-8139
Center for Accelerator Mass Spectrometry
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, L-397, Livermore, CA 94551
From: indiana@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
Subject: C-14 and the Dead Sea Scrolls
Date: 16 Aug 92 20:32:12 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

   "Biblical Archaeology Review", having battled for the publishing of the 
Scrolls, was refused a copy of the lab reports on the C-14 tests.(Refusals by
one Israeli curator and one Israeli prof.)  The tests were done in Zurich by the
Institut fur Mittelenergiephysick, which was involved in the c-14 testing of the
Turin Shroud. 
   The alternate sets of dates were said to be due to the calibration curve's
variations.
   Of the 14 scrolls, four scrolls, all non-Qumran, bore dates within the
documents, so the C-14 tests tend to date them as a bit older than they are
known to be.  These "precise internal dates" were not stated.  From the "black
bar" chart, they would appear to be:
      1.Wadi Daliyeh   350 BC
      12.Wadi Seyal    140 AD ?
      13.Wadi Murabba'at 145 AD ?
      14.Khirbet Mird  750 AD ?
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
From: shick@europa.asd.contel.com (steve hick)
Subject: Re: Bows and arrows in different cultures
Reply-To: shick@europa.asd.contel.com (steve hick)
Organization: GTE Contel Federal Systems
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 16:32:30 GMT

Curious about related topics - when did the bow & arrow first occur & out of 
what othr technology did it develop?  The arrow is pretty straight-forward, 
but what kind of cognitive leap is proposed between spear-thrower and bow (or 
is that the right line of descent?)?
From: ulisses@ldgo.columbia.edu (ulisses mello)
Newsgroups: sci.geo.fluids
Subject: FE for Navier-Stokes Eq.
Keywords: FEM , Navier-Stokes
Date: 19 Aug 92 18:33:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: lamont.1992Aug19.183320.5316
Organization: Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory


	
	I am looking for a published/public domain finite-element program for solving
the Navier-Stokes equation (2D). A program similar to the one published by Taylor &
Hughes (1981). I have the book but I dont want to type the whole thing. Does anyone 
know if it is something available in any ftp site?
	Thanks in advance.

Ulisses
-------
ulisses@lamont.ldgo.columbia.edu
From: fortuna@cs.man.ac.uk (Armando Fortuna)
Newsgroups: sci.geo.fluids
Subject: CFD code
Date: 12 Aug 92 12:56:00 GMT
Reply-To: fortuna@cs.man.ac.uk (Armando Fortuna)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester UK

Hi netters,
I am looking for a CFD code that does:

o work with 3D incompressible flow
o low Reynolds numbers (<2000)
o can be used to model a venturi and a orifice plate
o can be run on UNIX

Any help will be appreciated.
Thanks everyone,
Armando

PS: I will post all the most promising answers received!!
Xref: sparky sci.geo.fluids:320 comp.sources.wanted:4046
From: cxd653@huxley.anu.edu.au (Chunping Ding)
Newsgroups: sci.geo.fluids,comp.sources.wanted
Subject: Numerical solution of parabolic equation.
Date: 20 Aug 92 12:37:22 GMT
Organization: Australian National University
Originator: cxd653@huxley

I am looking for a source code (C or Fortran) to solve the
parabolic equation on two space dimensions. I don't care
what numerical method has been used to solve the equation.
It would be better if I can be also given some test data.

I do not read this group veru often, please send email to myself.

Thank you for your help!

Ding Chunping

________________________________________________________________________

(Mr.) Ding Chunping             Telephone 61 6 249 4205 or 61 6 249 2066
Geology Department              Fax       61 6 249 5544                 
Australian National University  Email:    cxd653@huxley.anu.edu.au
GPO Box 4, Canberra, ACT 2601             ding@basins.anu.edu.au
Australia                                 ding@grafix.anu.edu.au
________________________________________________________________________
Newsgroups: ont.job,sci.geo.fluids,sci.engr.civil
From: u020@csx.cciw.ca (I. Wong)
Subject: Contract for Water Quality Expert System Development
Organization: Canada Centre for Inland Waters
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 20:14:50 GMT

We require a contract person to assist the research scientist in the
development of water quality system using expert system techniques.

Term:
-period of contract 4 months from September 1, 1992.

Requirements:
-fluent in c and c++ languages.
-knowledge of Expert System theories & practical experience in applications.
-university or college education.
-modelling experience a major asset.

Location:
-Burlington, Ontario.

If interested, please submit your c.v. to

Dr. W.G. Booty
National Water Research Institute
International Programs Group
867 Lakeshore Road
Box 5050
Burlington, Ontario
L7R 4A6

e-mail: u037@cs.cciw.ca
Newsgroups: sci.geo.fluids
From: u020@csx.cciw.ca (I. Wong)
Subject: Contract for Water Quality Expert System Development
Organization: Canada Centre for Inland Waters
Distribution: ont
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 22:12:36 GMT

Newsgroups: sci.geo.fluids,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.geo.geology