Darwin-L Message Log 4: 66–98 — December 1993

Academic Discussion on the History and Theory of the Historical Sciences

Darwin-L was an international discussion group on the history and theory of the historical sciences, active from 1993–1997. Darwin-L was established to promote the reintegration of a range of fields all of which are concerned with reconstructing the past from evidence in the present, and to encourage communication among scholars, scientists, and researchers in these fields. The group had more than 600 members from 35 countries, and produced a consistently high level of discussion over its several years of operation. Darwin-L was not restricted to evolutionary biology nor to the work of Charles Darwin, but instead addressed the entire range of historical sciences from an explicitly comparative perspective, including evolutionary biology, historical linguistics, textual transmission and stemmatics, historical geology, systematics and phylogeny, archeology, paleontology, cosmology, historical geography, historical anthropology, and related “palaetiological” fields.

This log contains public messages posted to the Darwin-L discussion group during December 1993. It has been lightly edited for format: message numbers have been added for ease of reference, message headers have been trimmed, some irregular lines have been reformatted, and error messages and personal messages accidentally posted to the group as a whole have been deleted. No genuine editorial changes have been made to the content of any of the posts. This log is provided for personal reference and research purposes only, and none of the material contained herein should be published or quoted without the permission of the original poster.

The master copy of this log is maintained in the Darwin-L Archives (rjohara.net/darwin) by Dr. Robert J. O’Hara. The Darwin-L Archives also contain additional information about the Darwin-L discussion group, the complete Today in the Historical Sciences calendar for every month of the year, a collection of recommended readings on the historical sciences, and an account of William Whewell’s concept of “palaetiology.”

----------------------------------------------
DARWIN-L MESSAGE LOG 4: 66-98 -- DECEMBER 1993
----------------------------------------------

DARWIN-L
A Network Discussion Group on the
History and Theory of the Historical Sciences

Darwin-L@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu is an international network discussion group on
the history and theory of the historical sciences.  Darwin-L was established
in September 1993 to promote the reintegration of a range of fields all of
which are concerned with reconstructing the past from evidence in the present,
and to encourage communication among academic professionals in these fields.
Darwin-L is not restricted to evolutionary biology nor to the work of Charles
Darwin but instead addresses the entire range of historical sciences from an
interdisciplinary perspective, including evolutionary biology, historical
linguistics, textual transmission and stemmatics, historical geology,
systematics and phylogeny, archeology, paleontology, cosmology, historical
anthropology, historical geography, and related "palaetiological" fields.

This log contains public messages posted to Darwin-L during December 1993.
It has been lightly edited for format: message numbers have been added for ease
of reference, message headers have been trimmed, some irregular lines have been
reformatted, and some administrative messages and personal messages posted to
the group as a whole have been deleted.  No genuine editorial changes have been
made to the content of any of the posts.  This log is provided for personal
reference and research purposes only, and none of the material contained herein
should be published or quoted without the permission of the original poster.
The master copy of this log is maintained in the archives of Darwin-L by
listserv@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu.  For instructions on how to retrieve copies of
this and other log files, and for additional information about Darwin-L, send
the e-mail message INFO DARWIN-L to listserv@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu.

Darwin-L is administered by Robert J. O'Hara (darwin@iris.uncg.edu), Center for
Critical Inquiry in the Liberal Arts and Department of Biology, University of
North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, North Carolina 27412 U.S.A., and it
is supported by the Center for Critical Inquiry, University of North Carolina
at Greensboro, and the Department of History and the Academic Computing Center,
University of Kansas.

_______________________________________________________________________________

<4:66>From coon@CVAX.IPFW.INDIANA.EDU  Fri Dec 17 07:24:14 1993

Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1993 08:27:35 EST
From: coon@CVAX.IPFW.INDIANA.EDU
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: RE: Scientifc American

I can only echo your statements.  I feel that we are up against the element
of trendiness here.  I recall several years ago a friend showed me an
article in Discover magazine which aledged that the distribution of
Algonkian languages followed the limits of glaciation.  Having just
attended the Algonkian conference in Chicago, I dashed off a letter
to the editor pointing out how silly the whole notion was.  They
"regretted that they did not have room to print all the letters
that they received" and no rebuttal was ever published to the best
of my knowledge.  And so it goes for the Renfrews and the Ruhlens of the
world.  Their ideas are hot and new.  The facts are 'boring and stuffy'
and not worthy of new pages in the popular press.
************************************************
Roger (Brad) Coon            "Better to have one
COON@IPFWCVAX.BITNET          freedom too many,
COON@CVAX.IPFW.INDIANA.EDU    than to have one
                              too few."

Politically incorrect and proud of it.
Niquimictitoc inana Bambi.
************************************************

_______________________________________________________________________________

<4:67>From GGALE@VAX1.UMKC.EDU  Fri Dec 17 09:14:27 1993

Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1993 09:17:22 -0600 (CST)
From: GGALE@VAX1.UMKC.EDU
Subject: Re: DARWIN-L digest 95
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

I would like to give my response to the _Sci.Am._ article by Renfrew. Although
I'm no linguist (I teach philosophy of language from time-to-time: but that
hardly counts, does it? :-) ), yet I thought that Renfrew's article serves
a useful purpose, and might even end up as a reading in my class next Fall.
Here's why. First, it's daring. There's a certain need for that, in any
science. Secondly, it announces itself as daring. Such announcement is
ALWAYS needed in a daring hypothesis. Thirdly, it quite clearly states that
it is a minority opinion. This is useful for obvious pedogogical reasons.
Fourthly, it is a Big Picture. Although this is related to its being daring,
it's obviously not the same. Finally, it embodies the integrative spirit
which has manifested itself so frequently on this list.
In response to Wills complaint that the majority (Renfrew's "splitters"?
I ask this naively, but honestly...) don't/haven't gotten the same amount
of ink, I offer to include in my readings an analogue article from the
majority. [I realize that Wills might be making just the point that there
ARE no analogue article, precisely because Renfrew's getting all the ink in
_Sci.Am._ and its ilk. My offer still stands, given this further
understanding.] I hope I haven't misunderstood Wills' point. In any case, I
await eagerly any suggestions for alternative readings.
George Gale
ggale@vax1.umkc.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<4:68>From mufw@midway.uchicago.edu  Fri Dec 17 11:29:50 1993

Date: Fri, 17 Dec 93 11:29:45 CST
From: "salikoko mufwene" <mufw@midway.uchicago.edu>
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: RE: DARWIN-L digest 95

 Tom Cravens writes:
>     The metaphor of ecology is of interest here, I think, if we
>     distinguish between the ecology of the linguistic system(s) and
>     the ecology of the society in which the language is employed.
>     The first determines the types of mutations which are churned
>     out constantly, the second (in very vaguely characterizable
>     terms) determines which of the mutations actually will be
>     incorporated permanently in the language in question. The first
>     is approachable, with lots of thorns and controversial theories.
>     Research on the social parameters of change suggests that
>     acceptance is socially, not linguistically, motivated.

  I see "ecology" qua 'environment' as a relative concept. So what is
identified as ecology is really relative to what is discussed. For instance,
if one discusses a particular structural feature, e.g. relative pronouns in
English ("who, which, etc." but not "that"), one has to consider the range
of alternatives that compete with the pronoun-strategy. Influences from
outside, such as from Latin and French in the Middle Ages, become part of
this systemic ecology. On the other hand, if one looks at the overall
language and what happens to it, there are dynamics of ethnographic order
that become very relevant. The other kind suggested, "ecology of the
society in which the language is employed" is relevant, too, such as when
one studies meaning change, particularly those prompted by change in the
physical/cultural environment.
Salikoko S. Mufwene
Linguistics, U. of Chicago
s-mufwene@uchicago.edu
312-702-8531

_______________________________________________________________________________

<4:69>From mufw@midway.uchicago.edu  Fri Dec 17 11:46:44 1993

Date: Fri, 17 Dec 93 11:46:39 CST
From: "salikoko mufwene" <mufw@midway.uchicago.edu>
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: RE: DARWIN-L digest 94

William Kimler writes:
>                                               As with all
>the comparisons of cultural change to biological evolutionary change,
>the difficulties for the metaphor lie in finding the proper
>equivalents.

  I think my rejoinder to Tom Cravens suggests how the metaphor may be
extended.

>Although they need an "ecological setting" for the
>idea of fitness to make sense, I am not quite certain what linguists
>want the "ecological setting" for linguistic fitness to mean.

  I am not speaking for linguists or linguistics, since to my knowledge the
ecology metaphor (at least with the term "ecology") is not commonly used.
One linguist I remember using the term is Einar Haugen, in the title of a
paper, "The ecology of language" (1971). In the second paragraph of the
paper he defines "language ecology" as "the study of interactions between
any language and its environment." Some lines below, he specifies that
society and nature are part of this ecology. I went a little bit farther in
my rejoinder to Cravens, but I speak for myself. There are, however, several
studies in which ecology is assumed or discussed but not explicitly
articulated, which makes it difficult to speak for linguistics without
having to do some research.
Salikoko S. Mufwene
Linguistics, U. of Chicago
s-mufwene@uchicago.edu
312-702-8531

_______________________________________________________________________________

<4:70>From c.lavastida1@genie.geis.com  Fri Dec 17 12:49:27 1993

From: c.lavastida1@genie.geis.com
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 93 18:18:00 BST
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: universals

Jeffrey,
 Would invariance, as used in Physics, fit the bill, or are talking Aristotle
here?
 Carlos.
 C.LAVASTIDA1@GENIE.GEIS.COM
 0700SYSTEMS

_______________________________________________________________________________

<4:71>From GA3704@SIUCVMB.SIU.EDU  Fri Dec 17 17:11:23 1993

Date: Fri, 17 Dec 93 17:04:59 CST
From: "Margaret E. Winters" <GA3704@SIUCVMB.SIU.EDU>
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: ecology

Salikoko Mufwene's comment about the relativistic nature of
environments made me think of another aspect of this question.
His example of French and Latin as influences on the development
of relative clauses in English can be interpreted as falling,
at least in part, within the question of societal ecology even
though the result is a structural/systematic change.  In order
for French and Latin to be influencial, the English-speaking
society of the time had to view those languages as conferring
some kind of prestige, whatever its nature.  Otherwise the
borrowing would not have occurred.

I suspect I may be overstating in the specifics of this example,
but would like to make the wider point that the line between
systematic and societal ecology (as proposed by Tom Cravens) is
not always a clear one.

                                Margaret Winters

_______________________________________________________________________________

<4:72>From V187EF4Y@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu  Fri Dec 17 18:44:31 1993

Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1993 19:50:39 -0500 (EST)
From: V187EF4Y@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
Subject: Re: DARWIN-L digest 95
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University at Buffalo

One problem I had with Renfrew's article was that he assumed that any seeming
language isolate was a remnant of the original spread of humanity, in spite of
what his favored lumpers argue.  As an example, take Basque and the Caucasians.
The Russian linguists he cites group these (and an understrata of the IE
languages) into a macro family.  However, since this would be his Anotolian
farmers (most likely), and are identified by Gimbratus (?) as the Old
Europeans, he chooses to ignore it.  He just classifies them as having stayed
put for the past few dozen thousand years.

My own preference is to do history from the present back, waiting to figure
out the grand scheme of thing until we have a reasonably clear idea of what
happened.

-Pat Crowe, SUNY at Buffalo

_______________________________________________________________________________

<4:73>From CRAVENS@macc.wisc.edu  Fri Dec 17 18:56:19 1993

Date: Fri, 17 Dec 93 18:57 CDT
From: Tom Cravens <CRAVENS@macc.wisc.edu>
Subject: Re: ecology
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

Good point, Maggie; I agree. The system / society ecologies are sub-
components of the larger overall ecology of a language community in socio-
historical context. Changes affecting the system can certainly coriginate
from without the system, and these can be very important in subsequent
systematic development. -- A sort of methodological aside is that in my
experience, the difficult bit is in determining just which mutations are
most plausibly external in origin. (This may be peculiar to Romance
Linguistics, where, until recently, priority seems to have been given
to external causation ["influence"], as opposed to intra-systemic
incipience.)

Tom Cravens
cravens@macc.wisc.edu
cravens@wiscmacc.bitnet

_______________________________________________________________________________

<4:74>From WILLS@macc.wisc.edu  Sat Dec 18 15:58:12 1993

Date: Sat, 18 Dec 93 15:59 CDT
From: Jeffrey Wills <WILLS@macc.wisc.edu>
Subject: Re: DARWIN-L digest 95
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

George Gale writes:
>I would like to give my response to the _Sci.Am._ article by Renfrew. Although
>I'm no linguist (I teach philosophy of language from time-to-time: but that
>hardly counts, does it? :-) ), yet I thought that Renfrew's article serves
>a useful purpose, and might even end up as a reading in my class next Fall.
>Here's why. First, it's daring. There's a certain need for that, in any
>science. Secondly, it announces itself as daring. Such announcement is
>ALWAYS needed in a daring hypothesis. Thirdly, it quite clearly states that
>it is a minority opinion. This is useful for obvious pedogogical reasons.
>Fourthly, it is a Big Picture. Although this is related to its being daring,
>it's obviously not the same. Finally, it embodies the integrative spirit
>which has manifested itself so frequently on this list.

Yes, Renfrew states his as a minority view, but methinks he doth protest too
much. It is a generous rhetorical figure, in which he casts himself as the
innovative underdog. Curiously, you will note, he never gives us the arguments
for the majority in a way that would allow you to appreciate a true debate. I'm
in favor of daring, but not refusal to debate specifics. My lack of sympathy
for Renfrew is partly influenced by the long history of this affair. As early
as 1970 when he tried to correlate linguistic and archaeological strata in a
paper in R.A. Crossland and A. Birchall's _Bronze Age Migrations in the
Aegean_, he has been corrected about his linguistic methodology (see Crossland
in that same volume. He has blustered on, ignoring languages and linguistics
and resting on his archaeological authority. Just not cricket.

>In response to Wills complaint that the majority (Renfrew's "splitters"?
>I ask this naively, but honestly...) don't/haven't gotten the same amount
>of ink, I offer to include in my readings an analogue article from the
>majority. [I realize that Wills might be making just the point that there
>ARE no analogue article, precisely because Renfrew's getting all the ink in
>_Sci.Am._ and its ilk. My offer still stands, given this further
>understanding.] I hope I haven't misunderstood Wills' point. In any
>any suggestions for alternative readings.

Why are there few analogous articles from "the majority" (although I believe it
strongly in this case, I am always suspicious of myself when I claim that tag)?
	1) press bias. An easy answer, but somewhat justified. There is reason
to believe that SA in particular has refused to print the other side of the
story. More often, however, the issue is that new and speculative sells and
established and reliable does not. Here, the NYT Science page might be cited as
a well-meaning dupe for a number of unlikely hypotheses it has covered in the
last few years.
	2) motive. To many linguists the theories of Greenberg and Nostraticists
are the linguistic equivalent of creationism, alchemy and UFOs--possible but
based on non-verifiable data and really not discussable. This may seem unfair,
but many linguists simply don't think there is any evidence or viable
methodology for these proto-proto-language pirouettes. How can you get
motivated to write about something which you think is a non-starter?
	3) sociology of the field. Although creationism is a topic of general
interest (if polls, press and school boards are any indication) how has it been
disestablished from the academy? Answer: critical mass of scientists who
repeatedly assert alternatives. But let's take Indo-European or Amerindian
linguistics, fields which probably have fewer that 50 publishing practitioners
each across the country--fields which require a knowledge of many languages not
taught in any American high school or even most colleges--fields which
typically publish work in small-circulation journals and engage in conferences
unnoticed by the press.

All that said, however, let me suggest a few articles I have used for
undergraduate discussions of this topic:

Robert Wright, "Quest for the Mother Language", Atlantic Monthly (April 1991),
39-68.[An article which dramatizes the debate by juxtaposing Sheveroshkin and
Hamp as respective proponent and opponent]

Lyle Campbell, review article of Joseph Greenberg's _Language in the Americas_
in _Language_ 64.3 (Sept. 1988), 591-615. [to which Greenberg responded in the
65.1 (March 1989) issue]

the book review/forum on Renfrew's _Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of
Indo-European Origins_ in Current Anthropology 29.3 (June 1988) 437-468 with a
number of linguistic and anthropological responses.

several articles in _Antiquity_ 62 (1988): one by Christopher Ehret who works
on Nilo-Saharan, and one by Andrew and Susan Sherratt of Oxford "The
Archaeeology of Indo-European: an alternative view".

Often I have given students a folder with the Wright and Campbell articles and
some of the crazy newspaper articles and found them treating Greenberg et al.
with far more respect than I think he deserves. Why? Because they are out of
their depth and want to be cautious; they want to be polite and respectful of
anything in print; Campbell turns out to be too detailed for them to read
carefully. The reality of course is that like many bad books Renfrew, Greenberg
et alii succeed by page count. A thorough reponse to a book flawed in both data
and methodology would take at least as much space as the original.

_______________________________________________________________________________

<4:75>From sally@pogo.isp.pitt.edu  Sun Dec 19 08:55:26 1993

To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: DARWIN-L digest 95
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 93 09:58:51 -0500
From: Sally Thomason <sally@pogo.isp.pitt.edu>

   Jeffrey Wills makes some good points in commenting on why
one doesn't see more rebuttals to Greenberg, Renfrew, et al.
in the popular press (or elsewhere).  Actually, though, there
are more rebuttals around than one might suspect from just
reading Scientific American.  Some of them are unfortunately
not yet published; a major supposed-to-be-forthcoming collection
of papers from the "Greenberg conference" (University of Colorado,
1990) has been slow in coming to print; it's to be edited by
Allan Taylor, and the publisher is Stanford University Press.
There are papers by Greenberg, Ruhlen, several specialists in
American Indian languages, an Africanist (Paul Newman), other
linguists (notably Johanna Nichols), and various nonlinguists --
archaeologists, physical anthropologists, biologists.

   Not long after that conference, a report on it appeared in
SCIENCE, written by Virginia Morrell, who attended the entire
conference and interviewed many of the participants.  That article
is balanced and readable; I'd recommend it to anyone who wants an
overview of the controversy over Greenberg's proposed "Amerind"
family.  It's short, though -- not much detail.

   There are a number of reviews and commentaries on Greenberg's
1987 book LANGUAGE IN THE AMERICAS besides the one by Campbell
that Wills mentions.  Greenberg replied to Campbell's review in
LANGUAGE (though his reply contains little information that isn't
already in the book), and a year or so later James Matisoff wrote
a commentary on the controversy from a non-Americanist perspective,
also in LANGUAGE.  Other reviews are Robert Rankin's in International
Journal of American Linguistics (last year, I think), Willem Adelaar
in LINGUA (1989), and Liedtke in a European journal (ANTHROPOS?  --
An English translation of it, prepared by Greenberg himself, appeared
in a recent issue of MOTHER TONGUE, the newsletter/journal of the
Association for the Study of Language in Prehistory).

   Besides Rankin's review, IJAL has published two or three critical
analyses of the data in Greenberg's book, over the past couple of
years.  (It's probably safe to say that almost all specialists in
Native American languages are not favorably impressed by Greenberg's
methodology or proposals; Greenberg says this himself, and attributes
the rejection of the proposals to a reluctance on the part of
Americanists to face [what he imagines they will see as] unpleasant
facts.)

   Last year or so the BBC produced a program on the distant-relationship
controversy.  It featured Renfrew, Greenberg, Ruhlen, Sheveroshkin,
Dolgopolskij, and Luca Cavalli-Sforza; the only critic of their shared
stance on the issues was Donald Ringe.  NOVA is currently revising that
program for showing in the U.S., and the revised version will present a
more balanced view of the controversy.  (It won't appear until sometime
in 1994.)

   And finally, for the mathematically inclined, Ringe's monograph on
statistical arguments in Greenberg's book and more generally on statistical
tests for genetic relationship vs. chance similarity appeared a year or
two ago, was reviewed briefly in LANGUAGE earlier this year by William
Poser, and has attracted considerable attention.  Greenberg wrote a
reply, but did not address Ringe's actual statistical arguments in his
reply; Ringe also replied to Greenberg -- both in the Proceedings of
the American Philosophical Society, March 1993.

   One source of interest in the distant-relationship proposals is the
desire on the part of scientists in other disciplines to make use of
the results of such research.  It's easy to understand this desire,
of course.  Ruhlen's classification of the world's languages, which
relies heavily on Greenberg's proposals, has been used, for instance,
in identifying populations for testing in the Human Genome Diversity
Project, of which a/the prime mover is Luca Cavalli-Sforza, a very
eminent geneticist.  At a conference on the project in early November
this year I presented a brief synopsis of (what I see as) the
mainstream historical linguist's view of genetic relationship and
the problems with proposals of very distant relationships.

   Sorry to be so long-winded...I wanted to give a somewhat fuller
picture of the responses to proposals of distant relationships.  Most
of them are not in the popular press, as I say, but in the scholarly
literature and in scholarly conference presentations -- which are,
some of us would say, the best place to conduct scholarly inquiry.
Linguistics isn't the only field in which exciting ideas appeal more
to the popular media than less grand & sweeping approaches do.

   Sally Thomason
   sally@pogo.isp.pitt.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<4:76>From WILLS@macc.wisc.edu  Sun Dec 19 14:43:21 1993

Date: Sun, 19 Dec 93 14:44 CDT
From: Jeffrey Wills <WILLS@macc.wisc.edu>
Subject: Greenberg, Renfrew, Ruhlen, proto-World
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

	Sally Thomason does a great service in rounding out the picture on
recent publications and conferences on the various proto-World hypotheses. She
is right, as always, that there is more discussion out there than just Sci.
Amer., enough in fact that I for one stopped collecting it all.
	Why did I stop collecting? Because it seemed that there was no debate,
no progressive argumentation between contradictory assumptions.  My question
for Sally would be whether she thinks there has been some progress. As someone
who has followed this closely, how does she read our present location on the
Kuhnian roadmap? Has someone's mind been changed, position shifted, refutation
accepted? Like her, I feel that progress will/should be made in more
specialized fora, but is that happening? Has even Don Ringe's book or that of
Johanna Nichols reshaped the debate? Or more fundamentally is there even a
debate, in the optimistic sense of the word? One benefit surely is that
historical linguists have returned to examining their methods and assumptions
with more gusto than has been seen since the days of Meillet and Paul. But, as
a field, does a time come when we should stop holding conferences and giving
publicity to errant intransigents?
	Clearly I am too impatient, but I worry that this has become too much
like the creationist/evolutionary theories "debate". Or have I also missed the
fruitful by-products of that on-going affair?

	Jeffrey Wills
	wills@macc.wisc.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<4:77>From idavidso@metz.une.edu.au  Sun Dec 19 15:22:06 1993

Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1993 08:25:16 +0700
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
From: idavidso@metz.une.edu.au (Iain Davidson)
Subject: Re: Greenberg, Renfrew, Ruhlen, proto-World

This seems a good time and place to advertise this forthcoming (eventually)
conference):

Arcling II
The Second Australian Conference on Archaeology and Linguistics
3-7 JULY 1995
University of New England, Armidale NSW, Australia
This conference follows a successful first conference
in Archaeology and Linguistics (Arcling I) in Darwin in July 1991.
From the tropical north this second conference moves
to the crisp highlands of the Northern Tablelands of NSW,
an area where the indigenous people were decimated
and their language wiped out in the nineteenth century,
but where evidence of ceremonial centres remains
and is known to older Aborigines of the area.
Postal Address:  Arcling II
Aboriginal and Multicultural Studies
University of New England, Armidale NSW 2351
Fax (067) 734 411
Tentative offers of papers (with abstracts) are invited
by January 1994 to aid in planning.
It is anticipated that final offers of papers will
be invited by 31st January, 1995.
After a Sunday evening reception, Monday, Tuesday,
Thursday and Friday will be devoted to papers, and
an excursion is planned for Wednesday, and a dinner
Thursday night.
There is a possibility of a visit to archaeological/ceremonial sites
en route to or from Brisbane before or after the conference
for those arriving at or passing through Brisbane.
Accommodation is available through the University
Conference Centre.  Reservations will need to be made.
The resident tariff per night is approximately $50 (in 1993).
This includes a prepared single study-bedroom
with towel and soap, and meals.

Further information from:
Associate Professor Iain Davidson,
Archaeology and Palaeoanthropology,
UNE, Armidale, NSW 2351
ph (067) 73 2441, fax (067) 73 2526
August 1993-January 1994
October 1994-July 1995
e-mail <idavidso@metz.une.edu.au>

Dr Margaret C. Sharpe,
Aboriginal and Multicultural Studies,
UNE, Armidale, NSW 2351
ph (067) 73 3333 (wk) from February 1994
        (067) 711 123 (hm)
Visiting Fellow, Linguistics, The Faculties,
ANU, GPO Box 4, Canberra, ACT 2601
ph (06) 249 6475 (ah) August 1993-January 1994
e-mail <msharpe@metz.une.edu.au>

Overseas telephone callers use international code  61,
and delete initial zero from area code.

Iain Davidson
Archaeology and Palaeoanthropology
University of New England
Armidale NSW 2351
AUSTRALIA
Tel (067) 732 441
Fax      (International) +61 67 73 25 26
                (Domestic)       067 73 25 26

_______________________________________________________________________________

<4:78>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu  Sun Dec 19 15:51:38 1993

Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1993 16:58:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: December 19 -- Today in the Historical Sciences
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

DECEMBER 19 -- TODAY IN THE HISTORICAL SCIENCES

1815: BENJAMIN SMITH BARTON dies at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  Barton was
one of the first professional botanists in the United States, and published
the first American textbook on the subject, _Elements of Botany_, in 1803.
While serving as professor of natural history, botany, and materia medica at
the University of Pennsylvania, Barton amassed the largest natural history
library and herbarium of his day.  He had hoped to publish a complete flora
of North America in collaboration with Thomas Nuttall, but was not able to
complete it before his death.

1861: NIKOLAI IVANOVICH ANDRUSOV is born at Odessa, Russia (now Ukraine).
Andrusov will study geology and zoology as a student at Novorossiysk
University, and will travel extensively in Russia and central Europe
collecting fossils.  He will marry Nadezhda Genrikhovna Schliemann, daughter
of the archeologist Heinrich Schliemann, in 1899, and six years later will
become professor of geology and paleontology at the University of Kiev.
Andrusov will be best remembered for his many geological and zoological
investigations of the Black Sea region.

Today in the Historical Sciences is a feature of Darwin-L, an international
discussion group on the history and theory of the historical sciences.  For
information send the message INFO DARWIN-L to listserv@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu.

_______________________________________________________________________________

<4:79>From sally@pogo.isp.pitt.edu  Sun Dec 19 16:14:18 1993

To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: Greenberg, Renfrew, Ruhlen, proto-World
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 93 17:17:43 -0500
From: Sally Thomason <sally@pogo.isp.pitt.edu>

  Jeffrey Wills asks if anything has changed, and if progress has
been made in understanding the methodological issues, as a result
of Greenberg's (et al.'s) proposals and the discussion of them.
I'd say yes.  Not from talking to Greenberg himself or his
followers, because there the big differences in fundamental
assumptions probably preclude a useful exchange of ideas.  But
it is challenging to try to explain the mainstream historical
linguists' view(s) to nonlinguists, especially nonlinguists like
archaeologists who try to address similar kinds of problems in
their own work -- problems like how to cope with incomplete
information in historical sciences, how to test historical
hypotheses that can't be tested directly in real time, etc.  And
trying to explain such things helps clarify one's own thinking,
I've found.  That's the basic benefit that Wills mentions.

   My impresssion is that, within linguistics, Greenberg's
hypotheses (and comparably distant-relationship proposals) have
made no impact on the beliefs and methods of the vast majority
of linguists interested in establishing genetic relationships:
the success-in-Africa argument isn't persuasive to Americanists,
because the range of diversity in the Americas is so much
greater in the Americas than in Africa: even if you accept
Greenberg's classification, for instance, Amerind must still have
a much greater time depth than, say, Niger-Kordofanian.  There
are many more isolates in the Americas than in Africa (or
elsewhere).  And so forth.  Similarly, Greenberg's third
full-scale classification -- Indo-Pacific -- has not been accepted
(and is very rarely cited, though it pre-dates his 1987 book by
some years) by the vast majority of specialists in those languages.

   Greenberg's major successes have been among nonlinguists --
anthropologists and biologists.  His Amerind family is beginning to
turn up, for instance, in standard anthropological textbooks.  It's
hard to tell how this will turn out in the end: if linguists continue
to reject Greenberg's findings, it seems at least possible that,
eventually, anthropologists and others will also become skeptical.
But maybe not, and then we could have a situation where a set of
proposals that are rejected by specialists are accepted uncritically
by all nonspecialists.

   It should be said, however, that Greenberg's influence in African
historical linguistics has been immense: his classification of
African languages is widely accepted, even for language groups
that have not yet been established by more conventional means.
And two of the biggest groups, notably Niger-Congo and Afro-Asiatic, are
now considered firmly established, thanks to standard comparative-
method research that has been conducted since Greenberg made his
sweeping proposals for African linguistic groupings.

   Still, what seems to impress Africanists is Greenberg's
insights in Africa, not his methodology per se.  So it's hard
to tell whether Africanists see Greenberg's methodology
as an important achievement.  (The African picture is
complicated by the question of how original Greenberg's groupings
were there: one hears different stories from different Africanists,
so the situation isn't entirely clear.  What is certain is that,
when Greenberg proposed his African groupings, the dominant
view was very different and based in part on linguistically
worthless criteria like cultural features, skin color, and
geography.)

  Sally Thomason
  sally@pogo.isp.pitt.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<4:80>From ARKEO4@FENNEL.WT.UWA.EDU.AU  Sun Dec 19 17:14:08 1993

Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1993 7:18:53 +0800 (SST)
From: ARKEO4@FENNEL.WT.UWA.EDU.AU
Subject: Re: Greenberg, Renfrew, Ruhlen, proto-World
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

Sally Thomason noted:

>    Greenberg's major successes have been among nonlinguists --
> anthropologists and biologists.  His Amerind family is beginning to
> turn up, for instance, in standard anthropological textbooks.  It's
> hard to tell how this will turn out in the end: if linguists continue
> to reject Greenberg's findings, it seems at least possible that,
> eventually, anthropologists and others will also become skeptical.
> But maybe not, and then we could have a situation where a set of
> proposals that are rejected by specialists are accepted uncritically
> by all nonspecialists.

Reading this I was struck by the resemblance of the second alternative to
what actually *occurred* in fields such as anthropology during the late
19th and early 20th Centuries.  The transformational and orthogentic
evolutionisms of the non-Darwinians seemed to have "migrated and colonised"
disciplines other than biology and since then have remained pretty much
alive and well despite an "extinction" in biology itself.

It's a rather interesting process with clear biogeographical parallels. I'm
curious about the way in which it occurred.  I assume that intellectual
sources were originally shared, with the biologists leaving this shared
intellectual tradition as neo-Darwinism came to hold exclusive domination
of theorising in their field.  But there may be more to it.  Is anybody
aware of cases where individual biologists switched their area of
publication so that they could maintain their theoretical perspective as a
result of the paradigm shift?

Of course, the neatest part of what happened in the social sciences was
their success in selling the old theory back to the biologists themselves
as "appropriate and correct" when it comes to understanding and explaining
human behavior!

Dave Rindos

_______________________________________________________________________________

<4:81>From idavidso@metz.une.edu.au  Sun Dec 19 17:42:06 1993

Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1993 10:45:14 +0700
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
From: idavidso@metz.une.edu.au (Iain Davidson)
Subject: Re: Greenberg, Renfrew, Ruhlen, proto-World

Rindos wrote:

>Sally Thomason noted:
>
>>    Greenberg's major successes have been among nonlinguists --
>> anthropologists and biologists.  His Amerind family is beginning to
>> turn up, for instance, in standard anthropological textbooks.  It's
>> hard to tell how this will turn out in the end: if linguists continue
>> to reject Greenberg's findings, it seems at least possible that,
>> eventually, anthropologists and others will also become skeptical.
>> But maybe not, and then we could have a situation where a set of
>> proposals that are rejected by specialists are accepted uncritically
>> by all nonspecialists.
>
>Reading this I was struck by the resemblance of the second alternative to
>what actually *occurred* in fields such as anthropology during the late
>19th and early 20th Centuries.  The transformational and orthogentic
>evolutionisms of the non-Darwinians seemed to have "migrated and colonised"
>disciplines other than biology and since then have remained pretty much
>alive and well despite an "extinction" in biology itself.
>
>It's a rather interesting process with clear biogeographical parallels. I'm
>curious about the way in which it occurred.  I assume that intellectual
>sources were originally shared, with the biologists leaving this shared
>intellectual tradition as neo-Darwinism came to hold exclusive domination
>of theorising in their field.  But there may be more to it.  Is anybody
>aware of cases where individual biologists switched their area of
>publication so that they could maintain their theoretical perspective as a
>result of the paradigm shift?

The parallels are probably quite widespread in disciplines which cross
disciplinary boundaries (and archaeology of course is reknowned for it).  I
think of Thom and Marshack.  Thom's analysis of megalithic monuments is
probably not terribly significant for us, but there is a recent spate of
interest in language origins and understanding consciousness which either
accepts Marshack's conclusions about the emergence of language and
symbolism or even directly acknowledges it.  Yet archaeologists (to
Marshack's regret) have not given them the credit that others seem to.  I
suspect this is partly because the archaeologists know the data (some of
it) but not the borrowed theory, the non-archaeologists recognise the
borrowed theory, but do not know the limitations of the data.  What this
seems to do is to create a heartwarming sense of expanding the discipline
area for those outside the area where the primary factual data are
generated and a loss of sense of it in the data area.  So depending on
where you stand or how much you know the links are strengthened or
ruptured.

Iain Davidson
Archaeology and Palaeoanthropology
University of New England
Armidale NSW 2351
AUSTRALIA
Tel (067) 732 441
Fax      (International) +61 67 73 25 26
                (Domestic)       067 73 25 26

_______________________________________________________________________________

<4:82>From GOLLAV@axe.humboldt.edu  Mon Dec 20 03:18:33 1993

Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1993 01:23 PST
From: GOLLAV@axe.humboldt.edu
Subject: Re:  Renfrew, Greenberg, etc.
To: Darwin-L@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

Sally Thomason correctly notes that "Greenberg's major successes have
been among nonlinguists -- anthropologists and biologists," and suggests
that "one source of interest in the distant-relationship proposals is
the desire on the part of scientists in other disciplines to make use of
the results of such research."

I believe that, especially with Colin Renfrew, there is another factor
involved.  This is the feeling on the part of many non-linguists that
the language families posited by most historical linguists are not serious
scientific hypotheses, and that the field can only profit from an injection
of hard-nosed reductionism.  Renfrew dismisses the accumulated findings of
150 years of Indo-Europeanist scholarship as mere ingrown scholasticism.
In his view, the down-to-earth data of archaeology and the quantifiable
data of genetics determine the structure of European prehistory, and language
relationships that do not reflect this structure are irrelevant or mistaken.
His "new synthesis" (of archaeology, genetics, and linguistics) in fact
ignores the real scientific contributions of the putative third partner,
substituting for them either the simplistic "lumping" of Greenberg et al.
or, even worse, ad hoc linguistic connections invented to match the physical
data.  Real historical linguistics is dismissed as a supposed "establishment"
of timid and intellectually isolated adherents of 19th century methods.
I suspect that the editors of _Scientific American_ use the same reasoning
to justify their support of Renfrew, Greenberg, and the others of that ilk.

This attitude reflects, I think, the ever-deepening chasm (at least in
Anglo-Saxon countries) between "science" and the "humanities", and the
tendency of those who see themselves on the scientific side to (at best)
patronize anything having to do with language, literature and culture.
Since historical linguists typically have appointments in language
departments, they get swept up in the general scientific disapprobation
of "mere humanism."  The only study of language that is taken even half
seriously as a science is formal ("autonomous") linguistics, which has
achieved this only by jettisoning most historical, social, and cultural
work with individual languages.

For a few decades earlier in this century, anthropology provided a
"scientific" home for at least some historical linguists in the US, and
it was in this milieu that the basic scheme of American Indian linguistic
relationships was worked out (most notably by Edward Sapir and his students).
But since WW II, historical linguistics has all but disappeared from
anthropology faculties in North America.  Interestingly enough, one of
the last of the breed is none other than Joseph Greenberg, which may help
explain the disconnection of his work from "normal" historical linguistics.

Victor Golla
Humboldt State University
Arcata, CA 95521 USA
GOLLAV @ axe.Humboldt.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<4:83>From ANWOLFE@ECUVM.CIS.ECU.EDU  Mon Dec 20 08:20:27 1993

Date: Mon, 20 Dec 93 09:21:18 EST
From: ANWOLFE@ECUVM.CIS.ECU.EDU
Subject: Re:  Renfrew, Greenberg, etc.
To: Multiple recipients of list <darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu>

  This may be a naive on my part, but why don't you guys publish
in places in Current Anthropology so that your concerns can be
addressed to those who need to hear them.  Linda Wolfe

_______________________________________________________________________________

<4:84>From delancey@darkwing.uoregon.edu  Mon Dec 20 12:19:53 1993

Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1993 09:53:31 -0800 (PST)
From: Scott C DeLancey <delancey@darkwing.uoregon.edu>
Subject: Renfrew & Bellwood (was: Re: Scientifc American)
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

On Thu, 16 Dec 1993, Jeffrey Wills wrote:

> 	As an Indo-Europeanist, I am disappointed to see Colin Renfrew again
> given space by _Scientific American_ (Jan. 1994) for his controversial views
> on the spread of language when other opinions could have been solicited.

SA has been really strong on crackpot prehistorical linguistics work
lately.  It appears to be an idee fixee of one of their current editors.
They have, at least in the case of the truly execrable Greenberg and
Ruhlen article last year, been unwilling to even publish critical
letters.
     That said, I have to say that--although I certainly don't like to
see it being presented to the non-linguistic world in SA like that--
I didn't find Renfrew's latest article nearly as objectionable as the
last one, or (God knows) the G&R disaster.  The main point of this one
is the idea that there are probably specific historical reasons, in
principle amenable to archeological research, for attested patterns of
language distribution.  The most important specific proposal, one that
both Renfrew and Peter Bellwood have been selling lately, is that major
population increases and spreads occurred when- and wherever agriculture
developed, and that the languages spoken by those populations spread
as well, thus explaining the wide geographical distribution of e.g.
Indo-European, Bantu, Afroasiatic, Sino-Tibetan, Austroasiatic, etc.
as compared to smaller families.
     The macro-family stuff that Renfrew alludes to this paper isn't
a necessary part of, or even very helpful to, this story.  I heard
Bellwood talk about this a couple of years ago, looking at Southeast
Asia, where by conservative accounting there are four substantial
and relatively widespread families (Sino-Tibetan, Tai-Kadai,
Austroasiatic, Austronesian--also the considerably smaller Hmong-
Mien (= Miao-Yao)).  His story doesn't require any genetic relationship
among these, only that the populations speaking the proto-languages
were all in the area in which agriculture first developed.  In fact,
he took the fact of there being several major families represented
in a restricted area as evidence that that was a focal area for
the development of agriculture--as opposed to, say, Europe, which
is shown to be an area of secondary spread by the fact that only one
major family is represented there.  There are some empirical problems
with Bellwood's version of his story (e.g. it requires a highly improbable
homeland for Sino-Tibetan), but they could probably be fixed.
     In fact, Renfrew's story, shorn of his silly ideas about Indo-
European, actually makes ideas like Nostratic or Eurasial less
attractive.  Assume (I haven't looked at the data, so this is
purely for the sake of argument) that there are significant lexical
resemblances between, say, Indo-European and Dravidian, i.e. that
the Nostraticists are not simply imagining that there are resemblances
which require historical explanation.  If Renfrew is right that both
originated in the same focal area, then there is an areal explanation
for any noted resemblances which doesn't require common descent.  In
fact, by Renfrew's account this seems to be the more likely explanation--
in his article he suggests that the linguistic situation found, for
example, in the Caucasus, or California, with many small distantly or
un-related languages spoken side-by-side, represents the typical
linguistic situation before the major language spreads that he is
discussing.  So we would expect that if the development of agriculture
in the Middle East was the occasion of major population spreads, there
would likely have been more than one local language involved.

Scott DeLancey                       delancey@darkwing.uoregon.edu
Department of Linguistics
University of Oregon
Eugene, OR 97403, U.S.A.

_______________________________________________________________________________

<4:85>From GOLLAV@axe.humboldt.edu  Mon Dec 20 14:06:35 1993

Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1993 12:10 PST
From: GOLLAV@axe.humboldt.edu
Subject: Who should be concerned?
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

>  This may be a naive on my part, but why don't you guys publish
>  in places in Current Anthropology so that your concerns can be
>  addressed to those who need to hear them.  Linda Wolfe

--We do (cf. Sally Thomason's summary a few days back).  The point
we are trying to make here, to our fellow historical scientists, is
that the integrity of a legitimate field of historical investigation
(comparative/historical linguistics) is being threatened by a wave
of crude, reductionist theorizing, aided and abetted by journalists.
There is a whiff of Cold Fusion and Creationism in the air here, and
we believe this is something that should concern all who care about
maintaining the integrity of historical investigation.

--Victor Golla
  Humboldt State University
  Arcata, CA  95521
  gollav@axe.humboldt.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<4:86>From sally@pogo.isp.pitt.edu  Mon Dec 20 14:40:44 1993

To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: Renfrew, Greenberg, etc.
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 93 15:44:08 -0500
From: Sally Thomason <sally@pogo.isp.pitt.edu>

  In response to Linda Wolfe's query about why we guys don't
publish in places like Current Anthropology: as I think an
earlier poster mentioned, critical commentaries on the
distant-relationship proposals *have* appeared in Current
Anthropology, as well as in other places.  There was a CA article
+ commentaries by & on Greenberg and a couple of non-linguists in
(I think) 1986, before Greenberg's book Language in the Americas
was published; there was an article by Bates, Goddard, et al.
on Cavalli-Sforza's proposals (including linguistic ones) in a
later issue of CA, and then a response by Cavalli-Sforza, and
then another reply by Bates, Goddard et al. [I may have this
sequence wrong, because the details are fuzzy in my mind];
and I *think* there was also a synopsis of Greenberg's
1987 book, with commentaries following, in CA.

   Sally Thomason
   sally@pogo.isp.pitt.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<4:87>From ANWOLFE@ECUVM.CIS.ECU.EDU  Mon Dec 20 20:30:01 1993

Date: Mon, 20 Dec 93 21:20:27 EST
From: ANWOLFE@ECUVM.CIS.ECU.EDU
Subject: Re: Renfrew, Greenberg, etc.
To: Multiple recipients of list <darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu>

  Indeed as went through back issues of CA today looking for articles
on another topic today I did notice a lot of discussion revolving
around Renfrew, Greenberg, etc.  Maybe the problem is not so much
anthropologists but the media.  As someone who tries to teach Human
Evolution in the south I am certainly sensitive to the problems related
to creationism, etc.  It seems that all one can do is to just keep
up the fight.  Linda Wolfe

_______________________________________________________________________________

<4:88>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu  Thu Dec 23 04:00:57 1993

Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1993 20:57:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: Archeological data archive (fwd from AIBI-L)
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

Announcement of a proposed electronic archive of archeological
data, perhaps of interest to some Darwin-L members.

Bob O'Hara
darwin@iris.uncg.edu

----- begin forwarded message ------------------------------------------

From: Nick Eiteljorg   neiteljo@brynmawr.edu
Subject: Announcing The Archaeological Data Archive Project

At the meeting of the Committee for Computer Applications and Electronic Data
of the Archaeological Institute of America last December there was a lengthy
discussion of the importance of providing access to scholarly information
electronically over the Internet. All agreed that as much information as
possible should be available and that the question of access raised additional
questions about data standards. The members of the committee were especially
concerned about the possible loss of computer-based records, since long-term
storage of magnetic media and changes in computer standards can create
significant problems.

As the members of the committee came to agree that a major archival project
should be initiated, they also realized that the geographic and cultural
spread of the archive would be so broad that an independent organization
should be established to manage the project. CSA Director Harrison Eiteljorg,
II, volunteered to organize an independent archival project.

During the winter months the members of the committee and Mr. Eiteljorg
refined the aims and scope of the project. The resulting formal proposal was,
at the request of the committee, endorsed by the AIA, and the Archaeological
Data Archive Project was started. Endorsements of the Project by other
archaeological organizations are now being sought. (The Project will operate
under the aegis of CSA, the Center for the Study of Architecture, but will be
independently funded.)

Since that time, there has been an ongoing attempt to be sure others are not
undertaking a similar project. Two major archival projects of this nature are
not needed. No similar project has been found, and the Bryn Mawr College
Director of Computing Services, Thomas A. Warger, has offered his
encouragement and assistance. Therefore, the Archaeological Data Archive
Project (ADAP) is now being publicly launched.

The principal goal of the Project is to "provide a repository for excavation
information, access to that information, and safe, secure, long-term storage
of the information." Long-term storage includes refreshing the data on a
periodic basis and, when required by changing technology, transferring the
data to new media. Records of excavations explicitly include data sets from
database systems, CAD, GIS, spreadsheets, etc., but may also be taken to
include any other records available in computer form.

Access to electronic data should be as open and easy as possible; such access
requires several things. First, of course, access requires that the data be on
a computer linked to the network. Second, real access to data sets requires
that the data be structured in ways which users can understand. At a minimum,
the relationships within the data files must be clear and explicit. Third, the
terms used in the files must be well defined if a user is to understand the
data fully.

Individuals or institutions that cannot maintain records safely or that cannot
provide access may transmit them to ADAP for safekeeping. ADAP is prepared to
accept such materials now. (ADAP personnel will also work with scholars who
have paper-based records they wish to convert, although funding for that work
would be required from other sources.)

There are three requirements for data files to be included in the archive.
First, the records must be in a form which can be accessed by current
software; files created in obsolete formats must be converted (ASCII being the
minimum standard), a process with which ADAP personnel will assist if
necessary. Second, the records must be accompanied by an explanation of the
data structure and terms used so that the data will be meaningful. Project
personnel will also assist with developing that explanation if necessary.
Third, the data must be accessible to others at the time it is transmitted or
at a specified date in the future.

Relevant, Internet-accessible records maintained by other institutions may be
contributed to the archive without physically transferring them to ADAP. The
use of Internet navigation aids makes it unnecessary to keep the records in
the same place. Locations of other computerized records which are not made a
part of the archive will be noted by ADAP so that records kept by ADAP or by
other institutions may be found through a single source.

The major benefit of this archive, at the outset, will be preserving and
providing access to records that might otherwise be lost or rendered useless
by changing computer standards. Other benefits will flow from the existence of
a computerized archive, for example, placing full data sets in the archive for
public access would provide prompt and efficient publication of information
too voluminous to be published effectively or economically on paper. Such an
archive will also make available to scholars CADD models, GIS data sets, and
other such computer-based information which cannot be conveyed on paper. If,
as is possible, scholars use the archive as the preferred form of publication
for catalog information and use traditional paper publication for
interpretation, analysis, and synthesis, there will also be considerable
savings of both time and money.

In the longer run, the existence of an archive will also aid in leading the
archaeological community toward reasonable standards for terms and data types.
The archive will provide examples of the problems raised by the absence of
consistent definitions and samples from which to begin a synthesis. Plans also
include arranging meetings of representatives of national and international
archaeological organizations to begin "the process of reaching agreement about
those standards, both archaeological and computer-based, which are needed to
make the archive function effectively." The recommendations will not be
restrictive; nor will they prescribe the structure of excavation data sets.
Common terminology will be the crucial goal.

Working groups will address various areas of concern and will be asked to make
recommendations to enable the effective exchange of information.
Recommendations for carefully delimited areas will be issued separately and
will be disseminated for comments. A full set of recommendations will
ultimately be agreed upon, and scholars wishing to contribute their
information to the archive will be expected to follow those recommendations.

As the Project goes forward and technology advances, new problems relating to
the storage of and access to data will surely arise. They will be examined
with the aid of the international steering committee.

As data become available, the international steering committee will consider
cost questions - whether to charge for access, how to impose charges, and how
much to charge.

The international steering committee will also be obliged to concern itself
with the issue of data integrity. If data on a network can be copied, they can
also, once on another machine, be altered. Protection of data integrity will
be an important issue for consideration.

ADAP will be funded separately from CSA. However, start-up work is being
funded by CSA, and information about ADAP will appear regularly in the CSA
Newsletter.

This is a Project of enormous scope, and there can be no doubt that success
requires the cooperation of the archaeological community. That cooperation is,
in fact, needed here and now. Data sets that are in need of safe and secure
storage must be the first priority, and anyone who knows of such data is
encouraged to help. Files from KayPro and other obsolete microcomputer systems
are among those which most urgently require attention. Similarly, data sets
which should be widely available but cannot be accessed now should be high on
the list of priorities.

Planning for the first general conference to begin the process of seeking
standards has just begun; those who would be interested in assisting are
encouraged to contact Harrison Eiteljorg, II, at CSA.

(Quotations are from "The Archaeological Computer Archive Project: A Summary
Proposal." Copies are available on request, by mail or Internet. Your comments
about the Project, questions, and suggestions will be extremely helpful to the
development of this archive. Please give us the benefit of your thoughts.)

Harrison Eiteljorg, II
CSA, Box 60, Bryn Mawr, PA 19010
(215) 526-7925
neiteljo@brynmawr.edu
November 29, 1993

----- end forwarded message --------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________________________________________

<4:89>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu  Thu Dec 23 04:01:54 1993

Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1993 16:02:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: December 21 -- Today in the Historical Sciences
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

DECEMBER 21 -- TODAY IN THE HISTORICAL SCIENCES

1773: ROBERT BROWN is born at Montrose, Scotland.  Following medical study
at Edinburgh and military service as a surgeon's mate, Brown will be appointed
naturalist on board the _Investigator_ which will leave England to survey the
coasts of Australia in 1801.  Brown will return in 1805 with thousands of
botanical and zoological specimens and drawings, and will spend the next five
years describing nearly 2000 new species of plants from these collections.
He will become librarian to the Linnean Society in 1806 and curator of Joseph
Banks's private library and herbarium in 1810, and Alexander von Humboldt will
call him "botanicorum facile princeps".  Following Banks's death in 1820,
Brown will transfer Banks's collection to the British Museum and will become
the Museum's first Keeper of Botany.

Today in the Historical Sciences is a feature of Darwin-L, an international
discussion group on the history and theory of the historical sciences.  For
information send the message INFO DARWIN-L to listserv@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu.

_______________________________________________________________________________

<4:90>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu  Thu Dec 23 11:25:45 1993

Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1993 12:29:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: December 23 -- Today in the Historical Sciences
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

DECEMBER 23 -- TODAY IN THE HISTORICAL SCIENCES

1749: MARK CATESBY dies at London, England, aged 66.  Catesby was born in
Essex, England, and from 1712 to 1719 lived with his sister in the Virginia
colony.  The plants Catesby collected during his stay in America brought him
to the attention of a number of prominent naturalists, including Sir Hans
Sloane, and Catesby was commissioned to return to America specifically for
the purpose of natural history exploration and collecting.  From 1722 to 1726
he traveled through South Carolina, Florida, and the West Indies, and upon his
return he published the acclaimed _Natural History of Carolina, Florida, and
the Bahama Islands_ (1731-1743).  This work will be used later by Linnaeus
as the source for his descriptions of the North American bird fauna.

1810: EDWARD BLYTH is born at London, England.  Although his mother will
encourage him to enter the ministry, natural history will be Blyth's favorite
study from a young age.  While in his twenties, Blyth will publish a series
of important papers on organismal variation that Darwin will later study with
care, among them "An attempt to classify the 'varieties' of animals, with
observations on the marked seasonal and other changes which naturally take
place in various British species which do not constitute varieties" (_Magazine
of Natural History_, 8:40-53, 1835).  In 1841 Blyth will be appointed curator
to the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal and will move from England to India,
where will be remembered as one of the founders of Indian zoology.

Today in the Historical Sciences is a feature of Darwin-L, an international
discussion group on the history and theory of the historical sciences.  For
information send the message INFO DARWIN-L to listserv@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu.

_______________________________________________________________________________

<4:91>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu  Fri Dec 24 00:08:47 1993

Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1993 01:12:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: December 24 -- Today in the Historical Sciences
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

DECEMBER 24 -- TODAY IN THE HISTORICAL SCIENCES

1856: HUGH MILLER dies at Portobello, Scotland, a suicide.  One of the great
geological writers of the early nineteenth century, Miller's graceful prose
earned fame for his many books, including _Scenes and Legends from the North
of Scotland_ (1835), _The Old Red Sandstone_ (1841), and also _Foot-Prints of
the Creator; Or, the Asterolepis of Stromness_ (1847): "We learn from human
history that nations are as certainly mortal as men.  They enjoy a greatly
longer term of existence, but they die at last; Rollin's History of Ancient
Nations is a history of the dead.  And we are taught by geological history, in
like manner, that _species_ are as mortal as individuals and nations, and that
even genera and families become extinct.  There is no _man_ upon the earth at
the present moment whose age greatly exceeds an hundred years; -- there is no
_nation_ now upon earth (if we perhaps except the long-lived Chinese) that
also flourished three thousand years ago; -- there is no _species_ now living
upon earth that dates beyond the times of the Tertiary deposits.  All bear the
stamp of death, -- individuals, -- nations, -- species; and we may scarce less
safely predicate, looking upon the past, that it is appointed for nations and
species to die, than that it is 'appointed for _man_ once to die.'"

1868: ETIENNE-JULES-ADOLPHE, DESMIER DE SAINT-SIMON, VICOMTE D'ARCHIAC drowns
in the Seine river in Paris, a suicide.  Following a short military career for
which he received a life-time pension, d'Archiac turned to geology and became
one of the leading stratigraphers in Europe.  In addition to many research
papers on paleontology and stratigraphic correlation, d'Archiac published a
nine-volume _Histoire des Progres de la Geologie_ from 1847 to 1860, and
served several times as president of the Societe Geologique de France.

Today in the Historical Sciences is a feature of Darwin-L, an international
discussion group on the history and theory of the historical sciences.  For
information send the message INFO DARWIN-L to listserv@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu.

_______________________________________________________________________________

<4:92>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu  Sat Dec 25 13:14:33 1993

Date: Sat, 25 Dec 1993 14:18:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: December 25 -- Today in the Historical Sciences
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

DECEMBER 25 -- TODAY IN THE HISTORICAL SCIENCES

1642: ISAAC NEWTON is born at Woolsthorpe, England.  Following study at
Cambridge University, from which he will graduate in 1665, Newton will make
revolutionary breakthroughs in astronomy and mathematics, and after his death
in 1727 he will be remembered as the principal founder of modern physical
science.  Newton's work in physics, however, will constitute only a fraction
of his output, and he will devote almost as much time to studies of Biblical
chronology as to mathematics.  Believing that the ancient Temple of Solomon
was a divinely-inspired model of the cosmos as a whole, Newton will teach
himself Hebrew and attempt to calculate the exact length of the ancient cubit
so that he can reconstruct the Temple's plan from Ezekiel's description of it
in the Bible.  Among Newton's many historical writings will be _The Chronology
of Ancient Kingdoms Amended: To Which is Prefix'd, A Short Chronicle from the
First Memory of Things in Europe, to the Conquest of Persia by Alexander the
Great_ (London, 1728), and also _The Original of Monarchies_: "Now all nations
before they began to keep exact accompts of time have been prone to raise
their antiquities & make the lives of their first fathers longer than they
really were.  And this humour has been promoted by the ancient contention
between several nations about their antiquity.  For this made the Egyptians &
Chaldeans raise their antiquities higher than the truth by many thousands of
years.  And the seventy have added to the ages of the Patriarchs.  And Ctesias
has made the Assyrian Monarchy above 1400 years older than the truth.  The
Greeks & Latins are more modest in their own originals but yet have exceeded
the truth."

Today in the Historical Sciences is a feature of Darwin-L, an international
discussion group on the history and theory of the historical sciences.  For
information send the message INFO DARWIN-L to listserv@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu.

_______________________________________________________________________________

<4:93>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu  Sat Dec 25 21:40:27 1993

Date: Sat, 25 Dec 1993 22:44:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: James Murray's Romanes Lecture on lexicography
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

Jeff Wills recently sent me a few pages from a small book by James Murray,
and they prompted me to track down the whole work in the library.  James
Murray was the editor of the original _Oxford English Dictionary_, and what
is of interest to us is that the full title of the OED (which I had known
but forgotten) is in fact _A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles_.
Its principal innovation was the great quantity of historical information it
provided on the origin and use of each word.  Murray's small book that Jeff
pointed me to is _The Evolution of English Lexicography_ (Oxford, 1900), and
it happens also to be the Romanes Lecture for 1900 (we had had some discussion
of the Romanes lecture series here a while ago).  It's only about fifty pages
long, and is quite an interesting account of the history of dictionaries; take
a look for it in your library sometime.  Here's a sample:

  "In the course of this lecture, it has been needful to give so many details
  as to individual works, that my audience may at times have failed 'to see
  the wood for the trees,' and may have lost the clue of the lexicographic
  evolution.  Let me then in conclusion recapitulate the stages which have
  been already indicated.  These are: the glossing of difficult words in
  Latin manuscripts by easier Latin, and at length by English words; the
  collection of the English glosses into Glossaries, and the elaboration of
  Latin-English Vocabularies; the later formation of English-Latin
  Vocabularies; the production of Dictionaries of English and another modern
  language; the compilation of Glossaries and Dictionaries of 'hard' English
  words; the extension of these by Bailey, for etymological purposes, to
  include words in general; the idea of a Standard Dictionary, and its
  realization by Dr. Johnson with illustrative quotations; the notion that a
  Dictionary should also show the pronunciation of the living word; the
  extension of the function of quotations by Richardson; the idea that the
  Dictionary should be a biography of every word, and should set forth every
  fact connected with its origin, history, and use, on a strictly historical
  method." (p. 50)

It's interesting to remember in this context that Darwin had a cousin named
Hensleigh Wedgwood who himself wrote a dictionary of English etymology, and
that Darwin relied on Wedgwood for several examples of word-evolution that
were used in the _Origin of Species_ to illustrate difficult points in the
theory of descent.

Bob O'Hara, Darwin-L list owner

Robert J. O'Hara (darwin@iris.uncg.edu)
Center for Critical Inquiry and Department of Biology
100 Foust Building, University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Greensboro, North Carolina 27412 U.S.A.

_______________________________________________________________________________

<4:94>From kallred@NMSU.Edu  Sun Dec 26 11:19:42 1993

Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1993 10:19:22 -0700 (MST)
From: Kelly Allred <kallred@nmsu.edu>
Subject: Re: James Murray's Romanes Lecture on lexicography
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

Regarding James Murray and the OED:  I just read a wonderful account of
Murray and the making of the OED written by his grand-daughter, K.M.E.
Murray.  It is entitled "Caught in the Web of Words."  There will never
again be such an effort by so few people, I think.

_______________________________________________________________________________

<4:95>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu  Sun Dec 26 14:48:08 1993

Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1993 15:51:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: G. G. Simpson paper (Help)
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

The following message comes from Alberto Correa de Vasconcellos
who was having trouble posting it to the list.  Please reply to
him directly if you can help.

Bob O'Hara (darwin@iris.uncg.edu)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I`ve been experiencing some problems to obtain a copy of the papers
cited below. I`m in the middle of a paper and the references cited are
of great value to me. As I`ve failed in my search here in BR and I`m
pressed for time, then I kindly ask if anyone, who has a copy of them,
to help me in this way. If any colleague in the list have them in its
personal files and can supply me with a copy, please inform me about
costs with copies + mail and I`ll send in advance.

    Thanks for your help in advance and my wishes of a

           VERY HAPPY 1994!!!!!!!

Sylvester-Bradley, P.C. 1951. The subspecies in palaeontology.
Geological Magazine, 88: 88-102.

Hass, O. & Simpson. G.G. 1946. Analysis of some phylogenetic terms, with
attempts at redefinition. Americ. Philos. Soc., Proc., 90: 319-349.

********************************
Alberto Correa de Vasconcellos
R. Pereira da Silva, 140/301
Laranjeiras Rio de Janeiro
22221-140 Rio de Janeiro Brasil
E-mail: acvascon@ax.ibase.br
********************************

_______________________________________________________________________________

<4:96>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu  Mon Dec 27 00:08:15 1993

Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1993 01:11:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: December 27 -- Today in the Historical Sciences
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

DECEMBER 27 -- TODAY IN THE HISTORICAL SCIENCES

1831: His Majesty's Ship _Beagle_, Robert Fitzroy commanding, sets sail
from Plymouth, England, for South America, after having been beaten back for
several days by unfavorable winds.  Charles Darwin will write in his diary:
"A beautiful day, accompanied by the long wished for E wind. -- Weighed anchor
at 11 oclock & with difficulty tacked out. -- The Commissioner Capt Ross
sailed with us in his Yatch. -- The Capt, Sullivan & myself took a farewell
luncheon on mutton chops & champagne, which may I hope excuse the total
absence of sentiment which I experienced on leaving England. -- We joined
the Beagle about 2 oclock outside the Breakwater, -- & immediately with every
sail filled by a light breeze we scudded away at the rate of 7 or 8 knots an
hour. -- I was not sick that evening but went to bed early."  The _Beagle_
will return five years later having circumnavigated the globe.

1839: "My first child was born on December 27th, 1839," Charles Darwin will
write in his _Autobiography_, "and I at once commenced to make notes on the
first dawn of the various expressions which he exhibited, for I felt convinced,
even at this early period, that the most complex and fine shades of expression
must all have had a gradual and natural origin."

Today in the Historical Sciences is a feature of Darwin-L, an international
discussion group on the history and theory of the historical sciences.  For
information send the message INFO DARWIN-L to listserv@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu.

_______________________________________________________________________________

<4:97>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu  Thu Dec 30 00:20:02 1993

Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1993 01:23:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: December 30 -- Today in the Historical Sciences
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

DECEMBER 30 -- TODAY IN THE HISTORICAL SCIENCES

1705: GEORG WOLFGANG KNORR is born at Nuremberg, Germany.  At the age of
eighteen Knorr will become an apprentice engraver, and will spend much of
his life writing and publishing finely-illustrated natural history works.
His most important volume will be the encyclopedic folio _Sammlung von
Merckwurdigkeiten der Natur und Alterthumern des Erdbodens_ (_Collection
of Natural Wonders and Antiquities of the Earth's Crust_) (1755).

1723: AUGUSTUS QUIRINUS RIVINUS dies at Leipzig, Germany.  Trained in medicine
at the universities of Leipzig and Helmstedt, Rivinus became a lecturer in
medicine at Leipzig in 1677.  He devoted most of his energies to the study of
materia medica and botany, and the precise characterizations he gave of many
plant groups in his _Introductio Generalis in Rem Herbariam_ (1690) and his
series _Ordo Plantarum_ (1690-1699) anticipated the later floral studies of
Linnaeus and Tournefort.

Today in the Historical Sciences is a feature of Darwin-L, an international
discussion group on the history and theory of the historical sciences.  For
information send the message INFO DARWIN-L to listserv@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu.

_______________________________________________________________________________

<4:98>From acvascon@ax.apc.org  Fri Dec 31 16:47:43 1993

From: acvascon@ax.apc.org
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1993 20:33:53 -0200
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Old paper & G.G. Simpson

  Thank you very much for all of you for your kindly help in finding
those old papers. I think I have a copy of them by now.

          Hope you can enjoy the first weekend of 1994.

                         Alberto

_______________________________________________________________________________
Darwin-L Message Log 4: 66-98 -- December 1993                              End