rjohara.net |
Darwin-L Message Log 15: 31–75 — November 1994
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 November 1994. 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 15: 31-75 -- NOVEMBER 1994 ----------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________________________________________ <15:31>From mwinsor@epas.utoronto.ca Sun Nov 13 08:14:47 1994 From: Mary P Winsor <mwinsor@epas.utoronto.ca> Subject: The evolutionary push to smarts To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu Date: Sun, 13 Nov 1994 09:13:50 -0500 (EST) In response to the comment by J. A. Rivas " Human inteligence is a huge departure form the mean (primates) of a trait to levels where it is somehow "useless" (as long as "strugle for survival" goes) unless a runaway process is involved." I am reminded of Darwin's answer to the question, why should giraffes be so enormously tall? It makes sense for them to be taller than any other grazing animal, since it gives them access to leaves others aren't eating, but they have taken it to a ridiculous extreme! The answer is that the "struggle for existence" at the heart of natural selection is not mostly a struggle between various species, but between individuals, and is at its most intense within a species. Because of Malthusian population pressure, giraffes are competing with each other. So if intelligence is an advantage, the proto-human being smarter than its closest primate relation, having out-done that primate is no reason our ancestors should have rested on their laurels. There's plenty of reason for change, as long as their is room for change, within a species. I'm really responding to the comparison within primates. But reasoning about selective advantage within a species is tricky, as Darwin knew and as Gould and Lewontin's classic "Spandrels of San Marcos" critique of extreme adapationism points out. Darwin's theory does not claim that everything we can recognize as a character or feature is a direct product of natural selection. It may be a side effect of something else. Alfred Russel Wallace listed various features of humans, like musical and mathematical ability, which he said he could not imagine being explained by selective advantage. To Darwin's distress, Wallace concluded that a cause must be sought in the spirit world. Polly Winsor mwinsor @epas.utoronto.ca _______________________________________________________________________________ <15:32>From jacobsk@ERE.UMontreal.CA Sun Nov 13 09:54:39 1994 From: jacobsk@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Ken JACOBS) Subject: Re: The evolutionary push to smarts To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu Date: Sun, 13 Nov 1994 10:53:05 -0500 (EST) Polly Winsor writes: > I am reminded of Darwin's answer to the question, why should giraffes > be so enormously tall? It makes sense for them to be taller than any > other grazing animal, since it gives them access to leaves others > aren't eating, but they have taken it to a ridiculous extreme! The > answer is that the "struggle for existence" at the heart of natural > selection is not mostly a struggle between various species, but > between individuals, and is at its most intense within a species. Because > of Malthusian population pressure, giraffes are competing with each > other. So if intelligence is an advantage, the proto-human being smarter > than its closest primate relation, having out-done that primate is no > reason our ancestors should have rested on their laurels. There's > plenty of reason for change, as long as their is room for change, > within a species. She then goes on to point out the `panglossian pitfall' as a reason why this view of smartness's emergence has been treated cautiously. I would suggest another: Many today are uncomfortable with the notion of *intra- specific* selection as the motor driving increased hominid intelligence, preferring instead *inter-specific* models. The reason IMHO has less to do with the actual utility of the one model over the other than the politically and ideologically significant fact that the inter-specific model allows humankind to retain some sort of pan-specific homogeneity (= equality) with respect to intelligence, while the former stresses a degree of variability in cognitive funtioning within the species (whence the potential for selection). This latter view appears to undercut an egalitarian desideratum --cf. the verbal clashes on several other lists to which some Darwin-Lers are likely subscribed, as well as the Murray et al Travelling Medicine show in/on various US media. While few would adopt the supernatural source for our aesthetic & intellectual capacities favoured by Wallace (also cited by P. Winsor and snipped by me here), it seems to me that very many today are as uncomfortable as he was with the idea that our capacities in these realms arose by wholly Darwinian means, particularly those involving intra-specific selection. Ken Jacobs Anthropologie U de Montreal jacobsk@ere.umontreal.ca _______________________________________________________________________________ <15:33>From mdj@gac.edu Mon Nov 14 10:46:09 1994 Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 10:45:50 -0600 To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu From: mdj@gac.edu (Mark D. Johnson) Subject: borrowing vs. genetic change Dear D-L readers: I am curious about the notion of borrowing in language evolution. Criticism of the Nostratic language construction suggest that it is ever more difficult (withe its gresat age) to resolve borrowing from genetic change in the language. However, I remember reading several years ago in Baudel's book that the average 16th cent peasant likely saw at most, about 100 different people in her/his lifetime. With evolution in technology also comes a great increase in the ability to interact with other cultures/languages. Thus it seems likely that one could argue that the borrowing rate in language change has increased markedly since the beginning of language. By inference, this could downplay the importance of borrowing in the oldest of languages. I suspect this is an argument used before: How has it been met? Do people support it or disregard it? Thanks Mark Mark D. Johnson Department of Geology, Gustavus Adolphus College 800 W. College, St. Peter, MN 56082 mdj@gac.edu (507) 933-7442 _______________________________________________________________________________ <15:34>From mahaffy@dordt.edu Mon Nov 14 11:01:37 1994 Subject: Some paleo lists To: Address Darwin list <Darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu>, Palaeobotany list <palaeobotany@vax.rhbnc.ac.uk>, dinosaur <dinosaur@lepomis.psych.upenn.edu> Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 11:02:42 -0600 (CST) From: James Mahaffy <mahaffy@dordt.edu> Folks, I know there are some of you that are interested in paleontology lists. With Dr. Neuman's permission, I am passing on a post that lists some he found. -- James F. Mahaffy e-mail: mahaffy@dordt.edu Biology Department phone: 712 722-6279 Dordt College FAX 712 722-1198 Sioux Center, Iowa 51250 Sender: micropal@ucmp1.Berkeley.EDU From: "F. Neumann" <florin@quartz.geology.utoronto.ca> Subject: Palaeontology discussion lists In replies to my posting about MicroPal other Internet discussion lists of possible interest to palaeontologists were mentioned. The following is a summary of the replies I received. Please note that this is not an exhaustive list; more information can be found in Bill Thoen's compilation ORES.TXT (Online Resources for Earth Scientists), available via anonymous ftp from ftp.csn.org/COGS.ores.txt. The latest update, by Bill Thoen and Ted Smith, should be available by December 1 (for more information contact Ted Smith at ted.smith@cdmg.uucp.netcom.com). COCCOLITHS ---------- Nannofossil and nannoplankton LIST ADDRESS: coccoliths@morgan.ucs.mun.ca MODERATOR: ??? TO SUBSCRIBE: Send "SUBSCRIBE COCCOLITHS <Your Name>" to listserv@morgan.ucs.mun.ca DIATOM ------ Diatoms LIST ADDRESS: diatom-l@iubvm.ucs.indiana.edu MODERATOR: ??? TO SUBSCRIBE: Send "SUBSCRIBE DIATOM-L <Your Name>" to listserv@iubvm.ucs.indiana.edu DINOSAUR -------- Dinosaurs LIST ADDRESS: dinosaur@lepomis.psych.upenn.edu MODERATOR: ??? TO SUBSCRIBE: Send "SUBSCRIBE DINOSAUR <Your Name>" to listproc@lepomis.psych.upenn.edu GEOLOGY ------- Anything related to earth sciences. LIST ADDRESS: geology@ptearn.cc.fc.ul.pt MODERATOR: ??? TO SUBSCRIBE: Send "SUBSCRIBE GEOLOGY <Your Name>" to listserv@ptearn.cc.fc.ul.pt MICROPAL -------- MicroPal is an electronic bulletin board for micropaleontology. LIST ADDRESS: micropal@ucmp1.berkeley.edu MODERATOR: Jere Lipps (jlipps@ucmp1.berkeley.edu) TO SUBSCRIBE: Send "SUBSCRIBE MICROPAL <Your Name>" to listproc@ucmp1.berkeley.edu PALCLIME -------- Paleoclimate, Paleoecology for late Mesozoic & early Cenozoic periods LIST ADDRESS: palclime@sivm.si.edu MODERATOR: ??? TO SUBSCRIBE: Send "SUBSCRIBE PALCLIME <Your Name>" to listserv@sivm.si.edu PALEOLIM -------- Paleolimnology Forum LIST ADDRESS: paleolim@nervm.nerdc.ufl.edu MODERATOR: Tom Whitmore (whitmore@nervm.nerdc.ufl.edu) TO SUBSCRIBE: Send "SUBSCRIBE PALEOLIM <Your Name>" to listserv@nervm.nerdc.ufl.edu PALEONET -------- PaleoNet is a group of linked listservers, gopher holes, www pages, and anonymous ftp sites that provide the paleontological community a means whereby its members can communicate with others. LIST ADRESS: paleonet@nhm.ac.uk MODERATORS: Norman MacLeod (N.MacLeod@nhm.ac.uk) & Rich Lane (HRLane@hou.amoco.com) TO SUBSCRIBE: Send "SUBSCRIBE PALEONET" to listserver@nhm.ac.uk POLLEN-SWEDEN ------------- List members will receive pollen reports prepared by the Palynological Laboratory of the Swedish Museum of Natural History. These reports are presently restricted to the Stockholm region. The list is also open for discussion about both the reports and the activities of the Palynological Laboratory. LIST ADDRESS: pollen-sweden@nrm.se MODERATOR: ??? TO SUBSCRIBE: Send "SUBSCRIBE POLLEN-SWEDEN <Your Name>" to mailserv@nrm.se POLPAL ------ A bulletin board for general exchange of information, news, views, questions and answers in POLLINATION & PALYNOLOGY and related disciplines. LIST ADDRESS: polpal-l@uoguelph.ca MODERATOR: jmcgarry@uoguelph.ca TO SUBSCRIBE: Send "SUBSCRIBE POLPAL-L <Your Name>" to listserv@uoguelph.ca QUATERNARY ---------- Canadian Research in Quaternary Science LIST ADDRESS: quaternary@morgan.ucs.mun.ca MODERATOR: Dave Liuerman (dgl@zeppo.geosurv.gov.nf.ca) TO SUBSCRIBE: Send "SUBSCRIBE QUATERNARY <Your Name>" to listserver@morgan.ucs.mun.ca ROCKS-AND-FOSSILS ----------------- The rocks-and-fossils list welcomes amateur and professional rockhounds and fossil enthusiasts world-wide. LIST ADDRESS: rocks-and-fossils@world.std.com MODERATOR: Sharon Shea (sshea@world.std.com) TO SUBSCRIBE: Send "SUBSCRIBE ROCKS-AND-FOSSILS" to majordomo@world.std.com VRTPALEO -------- The Vertebrate Paleontology Community discussion list. LIST ADDRESS: vrtpaleo@vm.usc.edu MODERATOR: ??? TO SUBSCRIBE: Send "SUBSCRIBE VRTPALEO <Your Name>" to listserv@vm.usc.edu -- Florin Neumann florin@quartz.geology.utoronto.ca _______________________________________________________________________________ <15:35>From mdj@gac.edu Mon Nov 14 11:28:22 1994 Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 11:28:11 -0600 To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu From: mdj@gac.edu (Mark D. Johnson) Subject: kaka Does anyone know of the origin of the word 'kaka' as a word refering to excrement. I know of English, Spanish, Russian, and Swedish speakers that use this word as a slang term for excrement. Anyone know of its origin and the reason or it's wide dispersal? Does it have any relation to cake or cookie? Seriously, Mark Mark D. Johnson Department of Geology, Gustavus Adolphus College 800 W. College, St. Peter, MN 56082 mdj@gac.edu (507) 933-7442 _______________________________________________________________________________ <15:36>From MNHAN125@SIVM.SI.EDU Mon Nov 14 11:47:22 1994 Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 12:45:10 -0500 (EST) From: "Gary P. Aronsen" <MNHAN125@sivm.si.edu> Subject: Darwin's House To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu Hello again, cybernauts! I am travelling for the first time to London, England, to meet my wife who is hard at work on elephant phylogeny at the British Museum. I will arrive on 13 Dec., and leave 21 Dec. It's a short trip, I know, but all I can afford. One of my goals on this trip is to make a pilgrimage to the home of Charles Darwin, which I am told is within a reasonable distance from London. I've looked in a few travel guides, but they don't give me enough info (enough being none!). Can anybody tell me how to get there from London, where it's located exactly, and if it is even open at this holiday time of year? It is a mecca for this lowly grad student, and a stop that I must make to make the trip complete. Also, if anyone can give me other sites of interest to a student of evolution and anatomy (outside of the Royal Philosophical Society, the Museum, etc.), I'd be happy to know them as well. And any travle tips. Like cheap eats. Tanks for the phylogenies, Gary P. Aronsen MNHAN125@SIVM.SI.EDU _______________________________________________________________________________ <15:37>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Mon Nov 14 13:13:22 1994 Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 13:58:25 -0400 (EDT) From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Subject: November 14 -- Today in the Historical Sciences To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu Organization: University of NC at Greensboro NOVEMBER 14 -- TODAY IN THE HISTORICAL SCIENCES 1797: CHARLES LYELL is born at Kinnordy, Forfarshire, Scotland. After making preparations for a career in law, Lyell's interests will turn increasingly toward geology, and his _Principles of Geology_ (1830-1833) will become one of the foundational works on the historical sciences published during the nineteenth century: "When we study history, we obtain a more profound insight into human nature, by instituting a comparison between the present and former states of society. We trace the long series of events which have gradually led to the actual posture of affairs; and by connecting effects with their causes, we are enabled to classify and retain in the memory a multitude of complicated relations -- the various peculiarities of national character -- the different degrees of moral and intellectual refinement, and numerous other circumstances, which, without historical associations, would be uninteresting or imperfectly understood. As the present condition of nations is the result of many antecedent changes, some extremely remote and others recent, some gradual, others sudden and violent, so the state of the natural world is the result of a long succession of events, and if we would enlarge our experience of the present economy of nature, we must investigate the effects of her operations in former epochs." (_Principles of Geology_, vol. 1, 1830.) Today in the Historical Sciences is a feature of Darwin-L, an international network discussion group for professionals in the historical sciences. For more information about Darwin-L send the two-word message INFO DARWIN-L to listserv@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu, or gopher to rjohara.uncg.edu (152.13.44.19). _______________________________________________________________________________ <15:38>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Mon Nov 14 16:45:04 1994 Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 17:44:42 -0400 (EDT) From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Subject: Controversies in historical linguistics (fwd from LINGUIST) To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu Organization: University of NC at Greensboro This message about controversies in historical linguistics recently appeared on LINGUIST. I thought it might be of interest to some of our subscribers here on Darwin-L. Bob O'Hara, Darwin-L list owner darwin@iris.uncg.edu --begin forwarded message-------------- Date: Sat, 29 Oct 1994 14:57:34 -0500 (CDT) From: Steven Schaufele <fcosws@firefly.prairienet.org> Subject: Sum: controversies in historical linguistics A while back, in LINGUIST 5-1033, I posted the following request: > The recent discussion of the Altaic Hypothesis got me thinking about the > possibility of putting together a seminar on controversies in historical > linguistics. Judging from the extent the discussion in LINGUIST clari- > fied some of my own ideas and understandings of comparative and recon- > structive methodology, it occured to me that one could learn a lot about > how to 'do' historical linguistics by studying discussions of controver- > sial hypotheses, both the arguments brought forward by their (responsible > or reputable) proponents and the counterarguments presented by the > critics. So I'm going to try to develop such a seminar, and am solici- > ting suggestions. I'm looking for the following: > > (1) Suggestions of actual controversies that have been heavily discussed > in historical-linguistic literature. I'm interested in controversies > that are 'raging' now (e.g., the Nostratic Hypothesis) and ones that have > been pretty much settled (e.g., the Laryngeal Hypothesis in IE), as well > as anything in between, as long as there's a fair amount of good, solid > scholarly discussion of it in print. > > (2) Bibliographical references on the above. Several people mentioned issues related to the classification of languages of North America. Elizabeth A. Cain-Perkins (Elizabeth.A.Cain- Perkins@Dartmouth.edu) offered me a bibliography on the subject. Pat Crowe (V187EF4Y@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu), who is writing a dissertation in anthropology on topics having to do with the Iroquois nations, mentioned > Some Iroquoian-related topics of controversy (at one time or > another) are the discussion around a century ago as to whether > Cherokee was related to the Iroquois, Huron, and Tuscarora > languages (J.N.B. Hewitt had a fair amount to say about this); > the question of Macro-Siouan (see Sapir and Wallace Chafe for > the pro side); and more recently the issue has come up about > more distant relationships. Suzanne Kemmer <kemmer@ruf.rice.edu> mentioned > the classification of the languages of Africa. Geert Dimmendal's > review of Denning and Kemmer "On Language: Selected Writings of > Joseph H. Greenberg" (the review's in Language, 1993 or 1994) > discussed some of the reactions to the Greenberg classification > that came out at the time, which were pretty outraged. I think > Paul Newman and others have documented the slowly evolving reac- > tion to the African classification. Kirk Belnap <belnapk@yvax.byu.edu> mentioned > the still hotly debated issue (in Arabic linguistics) of the > origins of the modern Arabic dialects. > > Miller, Ann M. 1986. 'The Origin of the Modern Arabic Seden- > tary Dialects: an Evaluation of Several Theories' Al- > 'Arabiyya 19(1-2):47-74. > Versteegh, Kees. 1984. Pidginization and Creolization: the > Case of Arabic. Jeff von Munkwitz-Smith <j-von@mailbox.mail.umn.edu>, who is working on a dissertation on this subject, says > How about the influence of Dravidian languages on Old Indo- > Aryan? It's been going on a long time and sparked some inte- > resting side debates about the nature of "proof" in historical > reconstruction. On one side there are folks like Burrow, Eme- > neau, and Kuiper and on the other, Thieme and Hans Hock. > > Burrow, T. 1955. The Sanskrit Language > Emeneau, M. 1962. 'Bilingualism and Social Borrowing' Procee- > dings of the American Philological Society 106. > Hock, H. 1975. 'Substratum Influence on (Rig-Vedic) Sanskrit' > Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 5. > Kuiper, F. 1967. 'The Genesis of a Linguistic Area' Indo-Iranian > Journal 10. > Thieme, P. 1955. Review of Burrow 1955. Language 31. And Bernard Comrie <comrie@mizar.usc.edu> directed me to > [a] controversy concerning the relation between Kamchadal > (Itelmen) and Chukotian (i.e. Chukchi, Koryak, and other > closely related languages) > > Comrie, Bernard. 1980. 'The Genetic Affiliation of > Kamchadal: some Morphological Evidence' International > Review of Slavic Linguistics 5:109-120. > Worth, Dean. 1962. 'La place du kamtchadal parmi les > langues soi-disant paleosiberiennes' Orbis 11:579-599. Thanks very much to all who responded. I'm open to further suggestions, if anybody out there has any to offer. Sincerely, Steven Dr. Steven Schaufele 712 West Washington Urbana, IL 61801 217-344-8240 fcosws@prairienet.org --end forwarded message---------------- _______________________________________________________________________________ <15:39>From cliver@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu Mon Nov 14 21:45:26 1994 Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 17:31:13 -1000 From: Robert Cliver <cliver@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu> Subject: Re: The evolutionary push to smarts (fwd) To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu With the initial disclaimer that I am not a professional in this field (though I am a historian and have a strong interest in processes of change and notions of progress and evolution) I would like to just make one or two comments on the recent, very intriguing exchange between Mr. Jacobs and Ms. Winsor. As regards the inter-species vs. intra-species competitive path to evolution, I think Mr. Jacobs has an excellent point, following Darwin as mentioned by Ms. Winsor. I think Richard Dawkins book, The Selfish Gene demonstrates the importance of intra-species competition and at the genetic level at that. But I am also interested to hear what anyone thinks of a sort of complex systems approach to evolution, along the lines of Stuart Kauffman at the Santa Fe Institute. I find the notion of a complex dialectic between the gene and its environment as mediated through various levels of construction and the network of feedback thus set up between various individuals as well as between various levels, at least an exciting conceptual approach which could be used to expand the two (not mutually exclusive) competition models. As for the argument about the "homogeneity" of the species and its relevance for issues of equality, it is, it seems to me, impossible to take a stand without necessarily limiting oneself to an incomplete view of the process of evolution, the nature of intelligence, the notion of equality in a given society/culture/mode of produciton/technology. It is obviously true that competition (and cooperation and deception) within a species is of vital importance for genetic evolution. It becomes a very complex cultural, political and even technological issue when one enters the realm of continuing human evolution after the advent of the big brain. Again, I think a complex systems approach (which inevitably includes many more forms of interaction than simple competition for limited resources) would be of great service in examining processes of change in cultures and societies (far more useful certainly than a "social Darwinist" approach which inevitably simplifies and misrepresents Darwin's model). I would argue that, in a cultural frame of reference, with a highly social species, given the dominance of intellectual evolution (especially in historical times), the inhomogeneities (?) in humans at the genetic level are far less significant than differences in education, technology, wealth, geography, and power and that to seek a genetic root for all this is absurd in the extreme. A quick reaction to the discussion of Wallace's spiritual explanation for culture, beauty, etc. as mentioned by both Mr. Jacob and Ms. Winson. I like the "evolutionary side-step" model of William Calvin, if not a "Throwing Madonna" exactly. This seems to fit well, not only with the nature of the big brain as an excellent connection-making, narrative-forming, temporal-sequencer, but also with the striking creativity and "perpetual novelty" of nature. Consciousness as a surprising "emergent property" of having so damn many neurons hooked up in one network. But I've probably said too much already. I'd be very interested to hear some comments from professionals on the coevolutionary, complex systems model of biological, intellectual and cultural evolution. Thanks for your patience! Robert Cliver History cliver@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu _______________________________________________________________________________ <15:40>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Mon Nov 14 22:23:41 1994 Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 23:23:27 -0400 (EDT) From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Subject: New list on nautical archeology (fwd from Aegeanet) To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu Organization: University of NC at Greensboro --begin forwarded message-------------- Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 20:31:45 -0700 (MST) From: "Dr. Richard Cassin" <cassin@santafe.edu> Subject: NAUTARCH Inaugural Message Dear Colleagues: The nautical/maritime archaeology mailing list is now fully functional, and available for appropriate posting. The address for posting to this list is: NAUTARCH@Santafe.Edu I would like to thank Scott Yelich, System Administrator at the Santa Fe Institute for setting up the list for us, and to the Institute itself for its willingness to host NAUTARCH on its system. We also owe a debt of gratitude to the Submerged Cultural Resources Unit of the U.S. National Park Service for sponsoring development of NAUTARCH. If you have previously received this message directly from NAUTARCH, you are already subscribed to the list, and need do nothing further except read -your mail and begin posting to the list. If THIS is the only message you receive about the inauguration of NAUTARCH (our announcement posted to the various relevant lists), you need to subscribe. For those who are NOT already subscribed by virtue of having responded to our solicitation several weeks ago, please send the briefest possible message requesting that you be subscribed to: NAUTARCH-REQUEST@Santafe.Edu To UNsubscribe, please send a brief note to that effect to this same address. THIS IS NOT A LISTSERVER !!! It is, essentially, a mailing "alias", and as such has few of the automatic features of a traditional listserver. This means that administrative requests such as subscribing and UNsubscribing must be done manually, and there are NO such commands as SET NOMAIL, etc. Please be patient when requesting something, as a real HUMAN must attend to your request ... which we'll do as efficiently as possible. Again, direct personal requests to NAUTARCH-REQUESTS@Santafe.edu to avoid it being posted to the entire list. Please spread the word to colleagues with an interest in nautical/maritime archaeology. I am confident that the level of discourse will be high, and that the list will be devoid of the acrimonious interactions which often characterize many lists and newsgroups. It is really exciting that at last there is an electronic forum for our field. Welcome to NAUTARCH! Richard C. Cassin, Ph.D. Executive Director Ocean Sciences Research Institute San Diego, CA, USA (cassin@santafe.edu) --end forwarded message---------------- _______________________________________________________________________________ <15:41>From ncse@crl.com Tue Nov 15 14:11:03 1994 Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 12:09:07 -0800 (PST) From: "Eugenie C. Scott" <ncse@crl.com> To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu Subject: Re: The evolutionary push to smarts Here is something to chew on: Darwinian natural selection acts on individuals, and surely individuals vary in intelligence. Virtually everyone knows someone who is not as quick as he/she is at grasping what's going on, at seeing solutions to problems, etc. Virtually every honest person also knows someone who is *better* at these things, too! Twin studies show that a considerable portion of *individual* variance in intelligence is accountable through genes (though as with any phenotype, the full variation is explained by genes, environment, and the interaction between them.) But assuming individual differences in intelligence which are at least partly based on genetic differences, and the probability that variation in intelligence (defined, again, as problem solving in the most general sense) arose in the species through natural selection on individuals, we have the opportunity to reflect on GROUP differences, of the sort being so hotly discussed by proponents and opponents of *The Bell Curve.* From an evolutionary point of view, we have at least two alternate theoretical standpoints, neither, to my way of thinking, yet disproven. The first one: because so many biological (morphological) characteristics of *H.sapiens* vary across space, and have high probability of being under the control of natural selection (size, shape, color, hair texture, etc.) why should intelligence be any different? Why not assume that human populations would also differ in intellectual ability? And that these differences would reflect at least some underlying genetic difference? This point of view would argue that certain environments have a higher selective potential to produce populations brighter, more adept, etc, but there are some obvious difficulties operationalizing what they might be. In a crude expression of this view, some European racists of the 19th century argued that the cold European climate produced brighter, harder-working peoples than the "easy-life" of Africa. A modern racist view promoted by Afrocentrists flips this over with the "Sun people" and "Ice people", but it's basically the same thing. The second theoretical perspective argues that indeed, morphological variation occurs in populations of *H.sapiens*, but that because intellectual ability is so *fundamental* to the adaptation of *H.sapiens*, that it in fact does NOT vary from population to population. An analogy would be the human trait of bipedal locomotion. Some individual humans are "better" at bipedal locomotion than others (are faster, can jump higher, etc.) but that bipedalism is such a critical aspect of the human adaptation that one would not expect to see great differences from either the individual to individual leel, or between populations. All humans, to be human, have to have some minimum amount of bipedal ability. Similarly, to be human, all humans have to have the ability to learn a language, learn a culture, and cope mentally with challenges from their particular environment -- whatever it is. How does this translate to possibile populational differences? Under the second theoretical perspective, one would argue that since mental ability is so critical to human beings' adaptation, we would expect that in any reasonably large group of people we would find the full range of human intellectual ability (or more properly, the full range of genetic contribution to such abilities), even though some small, isolates may (as in any drift situation) vary. Thus to look at intellectual capacity of Africans, Asians, Europeans, or even subdivisions of these geographical races would be to see the full range of intelligence, simply because of the importance of this quality to our HUMAN adaptation. This perspective would argue against the proposal of *The Bell Curve* that genetically-based populational differences in intellectual ability exist. To be fully honest, though, we have to admit that both perspective one and two are working views, neither of which has been disproven. One reason why, unfortunately, is the reluctance of funding agencies to fund research in the field of behavior genetics that might actually disprove one or another view. Personally, I go with #2: it makes more sense from an evolutionary point of view. Should the definitive research be allowed to take place, I think racists would be quite dissatisfied. But the hyper-environmentalist view seems to prevail, and we hear again the plaint that "such research shouldn't even be done." ECS ***************************************************************** SUPPORT SCIENCE EDUCATION! Eugenie C. Scott NCSE 1328 6th Street Berkeley, CA 94710-1404 510-526-1674 FAX: 510-526-1675 1-800-290-6006 ncse@crl.com ***************************************************************** _______________________________________________________________________________ <15:42>From delancey@darkwing.uoregon.edu Tue Nov 15 16:03:38 1994 Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 14:03:24 -0800 (PST) From: Scott DeLancey <delancey@darkwing.uoregon.edu> To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu Subject: Re: borrowing vs. genetic change On Tue, 15 Nov 1994, Mark D. Johnson wrote: > I am curious about the notion of borrowing in language evolution. > Criticism of the Nostratic language construction suggest that it is ever > more difficult (withe its gresat age) to resolve borrowing from genetic > change in the language. > However, I remember reading several years ago in Baudel's book that > the average 16th cent peasant likely saw at most, about 100 different > people in her/his lifetime. You're looking here at relatively high-density agricultural society, with a fairly complex political organization. This until recently was found only in certain parts of the world, and even in those only for a small part of the last 10,000-15,000 years, which is the time frame you have to think in terms of when you're thinking about deep genetic relationships like Nostratic. If you look at the situation with pre-agricultural societies, it is often quite different. In North America, for example, there is clear evidence of huge amounts of borrowing among neighboring languages, and evidence for at least some culture words (e.g. those connected with the bow and arrow) spreading over thousands of miles. And there's no great mystery about how this might have come about. Most communities, and therefore most linguistic communities, were quite small, so that both peaceful (exchange of wives, trade, ceremonial parties, gambling) and warlike (especially slave raiding) relations were often with speakers of other languages, often distantly if at all related. Thus in many parts of the continent (and this is documented for many other areas of the world) most people, or at least most men, were bi- or multilingual, having some command of one or more neighboring languages. In Oregon and California, at least, I would guess that few communities were composed exclusively of speakers of only one language; most would include people who had married in or been brought in as slaves from some other linguistic community. > With evolution in technology also comes a great increase in the > ability to interact with other cultures/languages. I think this may be an illusion. The documented degree of multilingualism found in the Amazon basin or upland Southeast Asia is certainly at least as great as anything you're likely to find in a modern nation state. > Thus it seems likely that one could argue that the borrowing rate > in language change has increased markedly since the beginning of language. > By inference, this could downplay the importance of borrowing in the oldest > of languages. On the contrary, I suspect that the borrowing rate drops precipitously as major imperial languages develop and spread. You won't find a lot of borrowing going on into modern Chinese, because there is a huge population, covering a huge geographical area, which is (relatively) homogeneously Chinese-speaking. 2,500 years ago, when Chinese was only one of probably dozens of languages spoken in the same area, the rate of borrowing was much greater. (This is not speculation; Chinese has substantial bodies of vocabulary borrowed from Tai, Austronesian, and other languages 1,500-3,000 years ago). Scott DeLancey delancey@darkwing.uoregon.edu Department of Linguistics University of Oregon Eugene, OR 97403, USA _______________________________________________________________________________ <15:43>From florin@quartz.geology.utoronto.ca Tue Nov 15 19:01:11 1994 From: florin@quartz.geology.utoronto.ca (F. Neumann) Subject: Re: kaka To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:03:45 -0500 (EST) > Does anyone know of the origin of the word 'kaka' as a word refering to > excrement. I know of English, Spanish, Russian, and Swedish speakers that > use this word as a slang term for excrement. Add Romanians to that list. As to its origins... I'm curious too! -- Florin Neumann florin@quartz.geology.utoronto.ca _______________________________________________________________________________ <15:44>From bruce_weber@qmail.fullerton.edu Tue Nov 15 19:10:18 1994 Date: 15 Nov 1994 17:03:42 -0800 From: "Bruce Weber" <bruce_weber@qmail.fullerton.edu> Subject: Re: Darwin's House To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu Down House in Downe is best reached by car since otherwise you will have to take a combination of train, bus and taxi to get there. If you wish, I can send a xerox of a detailed map showing how to drive there. Or you might want to contact the curator of the Darwin Museum at Down House Ms. Solene Morris, Darwin Museum, Down House, Downe Kent BR6 7JT. Be sure to also visit the Linnean Society at Brlington House Piccadilly (tel 171-434-4479), if you call ahead you will be able to see a number of their treasures. Let me know if you want the map. _______________________________________________________________________________ <15:45>From chefboy@violet.berkeley.edu Tue Nov 15 19:48:11 1994 Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 17:48:00 -0800 To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu From: chefboy@violet.berkeley.edu (Jason D. Patent) Subject: "racism" This posting is motivated by a comment by Eugenie Scott. It is my hope that this will not detract unduly from the scientific issues at hand, but I feel I should point out what I see as a terminological error on the part of Ms. Scott. Her text: >In a crude expression of this view, some European racists of the 19th >century argued that the cold European climate produced brighter, >harder-working peoples than the "easy-life" of Africa. A modern racist >view promoted by Afrocentrists flips this over with the "Sun people" and >"Ice people", but it's basically the same thing. What I object to is Ms. Scott's use of the term "racist" as applied to the "Sun people" hypothesis. Of course it all hinges on one's definition of racism. If we define racism as, for instance, ideas/hypotheses/theories which seek to establish natural superiority of one race over another, then, yes, the "Sun people" concept is racist. However, another view of racism is, I believe, more informative: racism is an inherently asymmetrical tool of oppression, used by oppressors against the oppressed for the purposes of maintaining the power/class structure of the status quo. This reminds us that the MOTIVATIONS for the "Sun people" theory (as scientifically invalid as it may be), are revolutionary, in marked contrast to the 19th-Century reactionary racism of the Europeans. Thank you for your indulgence. I hope now we can get back to the more "Darwin-L"-y issues. Jason D. Patent Graduate Student UC Berkeley Department of Linguistics chefboy@violet.berkeley.edu _______________________________________________________________________________ <15:46>From CRAVENS@macc.wisc.edu Tue Nov 15 21:12:24 1994 Date: Tue, 15 Nov 94 21:10 CDT From: Tom Cravens <CRAVENS@macc.wisc.edu> Subject: Re: kaka To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu One form or another of kak(k)a is widespread enough to reconstruct *kakka as Proto Indo-European, according to standard sources. I.e. Latin cacare (verb, 'defecate'), various forms in Celtic languages (Old Irish caccaim), Slavic (Russian kakat), Armenian kakor 'manure', etc. Presumably no relation to 'cake'; see Danish kage 'cake' vs. kakke 'cack'. Tom Cravens cravens@macc.wisc.edu _______________________________________________________________________________ <15:47>From rom@anbg.gov.au Tue Nov 15 22:16:08 1994 Date: Wed, 16 Nov 94 15:15:42 EST From: rom@anbg.gov.au (Bob Makinson) To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu Subject: Re: kaka Re derivation of KAKA (also Ca-Ca) meaning "excrement". Mark D. Johnson wrote: >> Does anyone know of the origin of the word 'kaka' as a word refering to excrement. I know of English, Spanish, Russian, and Swedish speakers that use this word as a slang term for excrement. >> Anyone know of its origin and the reason for its wide dispersal? Does it have any relation to cake or cookie? Mark: Always look in the OED! From the Latin caco, to void excrement or to defile with excrement, and in turn from the Greek KAKKH (sorry I don't have Greek characters available) meaning human ordure or dung. In addition to OED, see also Cassels Latin dictionary, and Liddel & Scott Greek-English Lexicon (abridged edition of 1986 is probably the most accessible). In the last, note the proliferation of terms with negative connotations (but not with obviously excrement-related meanings) that employ the KAK- root. Hence no connection to cakes or cookies, at least not where I come from! The wide currency in West European languages presumably derives from its usage in Latin (ancient and/or medieval). In addition to the languages listed by Mark, I know it to be common in colloquial French. Bob Makinson rom@anbg.gov.au _______________________________________________________________________________ <15:48>From bowens@uidaho.edu Wed Nov 16 01:11:57 1994 Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 23:09:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Bill Owens <bowens@uidaho.edu> Subject: Re: kaka To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu The spelling is "caca", and it is Spanish in origin. No relationship to pastry. It is slang. regards: Bill Owens Geography \_/ University of Idaho /. .\ Wagtail/Lopear \ - / "There's no friend like a Canis" _______________________________________________________________________________ <15:49>From bonn@qcvaxa.acc.qc.edu Wed Nov 16 06:13:11 1994 Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 07:14:25 EDT From: "Bonnie Blackwell, Dept of Geology, (718) 997-3332" <bonn@qcvaxa.acc.qc.edu> To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu Subject: Re: borrowing vs. genetic change I am not a linguist, but I would question some of the recent comments made about the lack of borrowing between languages in technological societies. If you look at modern French, Spanish, Italian, Mandarin, Cantonese, Dutch, German, etc you see a number of words that are borrowed between languages. These words deal primarily with technological inventions. Examples would include telephone, television, computer, camera, etc. I would hazard a guess that much borrowing goes on when there is no word in the borrower's own language to use to convey the idea of the new <item/idea> in their own language. This certainly explains how english ended up borrowing the word gaitsup (catchup/ketchup) from cantonese at the same time that it borrowed the sauce bearing that name. I also suspect that much of the borrowing that can be documented from past societies also arises in a similar fashion, driven by the need to communicate an idea. if the only way to convey that in one's own language is a very cumbersome long phrase one will automatically begin to use the much shorter borrowed word (i.e. catchup rather than salty tomato sauce). bonn _______________________________________________________________________________ <15:50>From wcalvin@u.washington.edu Wed Nov 16 06:13:28 1994 Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 04:13:21 -0800 (PST) From: William Calvin <wcalvin@u.washington.edu> To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu Subject: Directions to Down House, south of London Alas I am traveling and don't have the posting I made up on the subject a month ago, but from memory: You can go my thye Natural History Museum and pick up a folder with a map. Open Wed-Sunday 1200-1630 and bank holidays. Take a train for Bromley South from Victoria Station, then the #146 (??) bus for Downe. A cab from the train station costs about 9 pounds each way. WCalvin@U.Washington.edu William H. Calvin University of Washington, NJ-15 Seattle WA 98195 USA _______________________________________________________________________________ <15:51>From mdj@gac.edu Wed Nov 16 12:18:30 1994 Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 12:18:21 -0600 To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu From: mdj@gac.edu (Mark D. Johnson) Subject: Re: kaka Thanks Tom for your answer. I have a girlfriend from Sweden with a nickname of Kacka. Every other person I mention this to asks me if I know what it means. Mark Mark D. Johnson Department of Geology, Gustavus Adolphus College 800 W. College, St. Peter, MN 56082 mdj@gac.edu (507) 933-7442 _______________________________________________________________________________ <15:52>From idavidso@metz.une.edu.au Wed Nov 16 13:48:30 1994 Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 06:48:02 +0700 To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu From: idavidso@metz.une.edu.au (Iain Davidson) Subject: Re: borrowing vs. genetic change >I am not a linguist, but I would question some of the recent comments >made about the lack of borrowing between languages in technological >societies. If you look at modern French, Spanish, Italian, Mandarin, >Cantonese, Dutch, German, etc > >you see a number of words that are borrowed between languages. These >words deal primarily with technological inventions. Examples would >include telephone, television, computer, camera, etc. I would hazard >a guess that much borrowing goes on when there is no word in the borrower's >own language to use to convey the idea of the new <item/idea> in their >own language. This certainly explains how english ended up borrowing the >word gaitsup (catchup/ketchup) from cantonese at the same time that it >borrowed the sauce bearing that name. I also suspect that much of the >borrowing that can be documented from past societies also arises in >a similar fashion, driven by the need to communicate an idea. if >the only way to convey that in one's own language is a very cumbersome >long phrase one will automatically begin to use the much shorter borrowed >word (i.e. catchup rather than salty tomato sauce). >bonn There is an interesting phenomenon of power relations between societies of potential borrowers and "borrowees" exemplified by this sort of borrowing. I have a Basque friend who finds difficulty in publishing scientific papers in Basque language because the language has not created many of the necessary technical words. It is quite difficult to borrow words because the Basque community lives in two countries (as he says "for the moment") which dominate Basques politically. In consequence he publishes in the language that is least offensive to him (of the country in which he does not live). 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 I use Eudora on a Mac, if this helps you send complex documents. _______________________________________________________________________________ <15:53>From OCACRA@orca.upe.ac.za Wed Nov 16 14:41:40 1994 From: "Callum Anderson" <OCACRA@orca.upe.ac.za> Organization: University of Port Elizabeth To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 21:58:47 GMT+0200 Subject: Re: kaka > Does anyone know of the origin of the word 'kaka' as a word refering to > excrement. I know of English, Spanish, Russian, and Swedish speakers that > use this word as a slang term for excrement. Anyone know of its origin and > the reason or it's wide dispersal? > Does it have any relation to cake or cookie? > > Seriously, > > Mark Well Mark Seriously, here in South Africa the word kak is used in the Afrikaans language. I don't think it is a slang word, although it is mostly used as an impolite term when refering to faeces. The Afrikaans language is largely derived from dutch, this may help shed light on the word, origin. Also serious :) Callum trms ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Callum Anderson e-mail: ocacra@orca.upe.ac.za Geology Department fax: +27 41 5042573 University of Port Elizabeth tel: +27 41 5042340 South Africa ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________________________________________ <15:54>From ncse@crl.com Wed Nov 16 16:16:22 1994 Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 14:14:42 -0800 (PST) From: "Eugenie C. Scott" <ncse@crl.com> To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu Subject: Re: "racism" On Wed, 16 Nov 1994, Jason D. Patent wrote: > What I object to is Ms. Scott's use of the term "racist" as applied to the > "Sun people" hypothesis. Of course it all hinges on one's definition of > racism. If we define racism as, for instance, ideas/hypotheses/theories > which seek to establish natural superiority of one race over another, then, > yes, the "Sun people" concept is racist. Indeed, that is the usual definition of racist, and the sense in which I was using it. > However, another view of racism > is, I believe, more informative: racism is an inherently asymmetrical tool > of oppression, used by oppressors against the oppressed for the purposes of > maintaining the power/class structure of the status quo. This reminds us > that the MOTIVATIONS for the "Sun people" theory (as scientifically invalid > as it may be), are revolutionary, in marked contrast to the 19th-Century > reactionary racism of the Europeans. I have of course run into this "definition", but I respectfully submit that holders of this view should reflect on some of the ramifications that flow from it. This is the view that "oppressed" people can't be racist because they are oppressed, so it's OK for Afrocentrists to promote racism because it really isn't racism. I once heard Bernal make this claim at an AAA meeting; the idea was that racism isn't racism if the practicers are powerless. But of course, basing superiority and inferiority on hereditary traits *is* racism, and is to be deplored. There is yet another issue, not to be downplayed. If we wink and look the other way at racism expressed by nonwhites, aren't we being terribly condescending? It's as if we are saying "We will tolerate bad thoughts among the powerless until they throw off the yoke of oppression, and then we will hold them to the same standards as we hold white males." As if minorities are somehow like naughty children whose tantrums we will tolerate until they grow up. Or worse, as if moral development of minority persons was somehow linked to their status in society. If I were a person from an oppressed minority I would be thoroughly insulted that my humanity could be so cavalierly compromised. ECS _______________________________________________________________________________ <15:55>From witkowsk@cshl.org Wed Nov 16 17:00:13 1994 Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 18:01:47 -0500 To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu From: witkowsk@cshl.org (J. A. Witkowski - Banbury Center, CSHL) Subject: Re: "racism" >However, another view of racism >is, I believe, more informative: racism is an inherently asymmetrical tool >of oppression, used by oppressors against the oppressed for the purposes of >maintaining the power/class structure of the status quo. This seems an incredibly broad definition of "racism" - so broad that it loses any usefulness as a term and as such is less informative. _______________________________________________________________________________ <15:56>From arkeo4@uniwa.uwa.edu.au Wed Nov 16 17:42:22 1994 Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 07:42:01 +0800 (WST) From: Dave Rindos <arkeo4@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu Subject: Re: borrowing vs. genetic change Bonn wrote: > I would hazard > a guess that much borrowing goes on when there is no word in the borrower's > own language to use to convey the idea of the new <item/idea> in their > own language. This certainly explains how english ended up borrowing the > word gaitsup (catchup/ketchup) from cantonese at the same time that it > borrowed the sauce bearing that name. I also suspect that much of the > borrowing that can be documented from past societies also arises in > a similar fashion, driven by the need to communicate an idea. if > the only way to convey that in one's own language is a very cumbersome > long phrase one will automatically begin to use the much shorter borrowed > word (i.e. catchup rather than salty tomato sauce). Oddly enough (and how I savour this when it happens) the example given here to provide evidence for an "automatic" cultural choice is probably not the best. In Australia, the salty tomato sauce (catchup), is referred to as "Tomato Sauce" and is sold under that generic. This, of course, has caused certain literal-minded North Americans no small surprise when they used it instead of (the appropriate) Bolognese Sauce when preparing spaghetti or lasagna. Interestingly, the tomato sauce here is sold in the same shaped bottle as the catchup in North America (making me wonder how people could make the error just described, but I guess not everybody thinks like an archaeologist). Regarding the shorter/longer terminology problem, that is solved here by simple abbreviation. When one orders the traditional Australian ethnic delight known as The Pie, the question inevietably asked is "Sauce?" Dave, who admits to enjoy the occasional pie, but never accepts the sauce. -- Dave Rindos arkeo4@uniwa.uwa.edu.au 20 Herdsmans Parade Wembley WA 6014 AUSTRALIA Ph:+61 9 387 6281 (GMT+8) FAX:+61 9 386 2760 (USEST+13) [you may also reach me on rindos@perth.dialix.oz.au] Rabbits exist, hence we may speak meaningfully to the evolution of the rabbit. Some people attempt to study the evolution of human intelligence. We may well have a real problem here. _______________________________________________________________________________ <15:57>From ROGRADY@delphi.com Wed Nov 16 21:25:44 1994 Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 22:10:43 -0500 (EST) From: "Richard O'Grady, 301/891-1244" <ROGRADY@delphi.com> Subject: Re: "racism" To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu In reply to Patent's posting about the (non)racism of the Sun People rhetoric, all I can say is that racism is as racism does, makes no difference what claims of victimhood and righteousness you drape yourself with. - Richard O'Grady Takoma Park, MD _______________________________________________________________________________ <15:58>From chefboy@violet.berkeley.edu Wed Nov 16 23:17:20 1994 Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 21:17:10 -0800 To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu From: chefboy@violet.berkeley.edu (Jason D. Patent) Subject: Re: "racism" Hi again. I will keep this brief, because it's already exploded far beyond what I expected. Most importantly, there has been an unfortunate misunderstanding, which stems both from the vagueness of my posting and people's evidently extreme sensitivity to such issues. Those who have responded to me (mostly in private) have assumed that I am a supporter of the "Sun people" hypothesis. Not so. My point I here reiterate and expand upon: we need another term for what Ms. Scott refers to as "racism" as applied to the "Sun people" hypothesis. The fundamental error made by those responding to me is assuming that if it's NOT "racism" then it's good. It seems that there are plenty of BAD things out there which are not racism. Simply because we choose a term other than "racism" to refer to the "Sun people" hypothesis does not mean that we support said hypothesis. What we DO want to avoid is convoluting the one-way, asymmetrical, oppressor TO oppressed connotations of "racism" with a phenomenon which may share some characteristics of racism, but also in many respects differs from racism. (here, obviously, using "racism" in its asymmetrical sense) That said, I'd like nothing better than to get back to the scientific discussion at hand. I was learning a lot. Jason D. Patent Graduate Student UC Berkeley Department of Linguistics chefboy@violet.berkeley.edu _______________________________________________________________________________ <15:59>From GA5123@SIUCVMB.SIU.EDU Wed Nov 16 23:25:54 1994 Date: Wed, 16 Nov 94 23:17:53 CST From: GA5123@SIUCVMB.SIU.EDU To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu Subject: kaka, borrowing, catsup/ketchup Let's braid together for a moment the discussions of kaka and borrowing. With regard to kaka, all the languages mentioned so far are Indo-European. (Does anyone out there have non-IE examples?) If the word was in their common ancestor, Proto-Indo-European, then Latin didn't have to borrow it from Greek, nor did any of the others need to borrow it from Latin or Spanish. Why borrow a baby-talk word for a bodily function? The word seems to be at the other end of the semantic spectrum from the culturally unique or technological words that have been mentioned as prime candidates for borrowing. The interesting question about Spanish caca is Why didn't the second c change to g, as it did in the verb cagar? Meanwhile ketchup/catsup/catchup -- (Merriam-)Webster derives it from Malay "kechap" (maybe "kecap" in today's orthography?). What is the case for a Cantonese source? (Speakers of "R-less" English -- pardon the pun.) ----------------------------------- Lee Hartman ga5123@siucvmb.siu.edu Department of Foreign Languages Southern Illinois University Carbondale, IL 62901-4521 U.S.A. _______________________________________________________________________________ <15:60>From chefboy@violet.berkeley.edu Thu Nov 17 02:14:06 1994 Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 00:13:56 -0800 To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu From: chefboy@violet.berkeley.edu (Jason D. Patent) Subject: Re: "racism" >>However, another view of racism >>is, I believe, more informative: racism is an inherently asymmetrical tool >>of oppression, used by oppressors against the oppressed for the purposes of >>maintaining the power/class structure of the status quo. > >This seems an incredibly broad definition of "racism" - so broad that it >loses any usefulness as a term and as such is less informative. No. My definition of racism is actually much NARROWER than the going definition. The standard interpretation of racism includes ALL forms of postulations of racial superiority. My definition EXCLUDES all except those which can be said to exist within the context of a particular set of power relations. Jason D. Patent Graduate Student UC Berkeley Department of Linguistics chefboy@violet.berkeley.edu _______________________________________________________________________________ <15:61>From PHL6SF@LUCS-MAC.NOVELL.LEEDS.AC.UK Thu Nov 17 02:58:33 1994 From: PHL6SF <PHL6SF@LUCS-MAC.NOVELL.LEEDS.AC.UK> Organization: University of Leeds To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 21:09:54 GMT Subject: Re: kaka There's also the (North UK) expression 'cack-handed' and 'It's cack/a load of cack ...' Any relation? Cheers, Steven French s.r.d.french@leeds.ac.uk 'His mind was good, but he only understood one or two things in the whole world - samurai movies and the Macintosh - and he understood them far, far too well.' (Snow Crash, Neal Stephenson) - well, I've got the Mac, now all I need are the swords!! _______________________________________________________________________________ <15:62>From chefboy@violet.berkeley.edu Thu Nov 17 03:49:38 1994 Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 01:49:28 -0800 To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu From: chefboy@violet.berkeley.edu (Jason D. Patent) Subject: Re: kaka, borrowing, catsup/ketchup Dear Lee, This is in response to the following query: >Meanwhile ketchup/catsup/catchup -- (Merriam-)Webster derives it >From Malay "kechap" (maybe "kecap" in today's orthography?). >What is the case for a Cantonese source? The case that I've heard, but cannot verify, is that "ketchup" comes from the Cantonese "tomato juice"--pronounced "faan ke jap". Somehow the "faan" got dropped. (My Cantonese is lousy, but I believe the tones are: high-falling, low-rising, high. In Mandarin, I believe it would, be: fan2qie2zhi1.) Again, this is all based on hearsay. Not reliable information at all. Jason D. Patent Graduate Student UC Berkeley Department of Linguistics chefboy@violet.berkeley.edu _______________________________________________________________________________ <15:63>From KBO-GILLIS@nrm.se Thu Nov 17 04:20:19 1994 From: "Gillis Een" <KBO-GILLIS@nrm.se> To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 11:19:30 +0100 (MET) Subject: Kaka The noun "kaka" is pure Swedish and means cake. A "ko-kaka" translates as cow-cake and refers to cow-dung as you find it the field where it has been dropped. The shape is often that of a large and thick pancake. We also have the verb "kacka", which means defecate in relation to animals. It is hardly used today, but I recall an old proverb which runs "att kacka i eget bo", which means to defecate in your own nest. Gillis Een Stockholm Sweden _______________________________________________________________________________ <15:64>From FALN@zuk.iz.uj.edu.pl Thu Nov 17 05:04:15 1994 From: "Falniowski Andrzej" <FALN@zuk.iz.uj.edu.pl> Organization: Instytut Zoologii U.J. To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 12:01:27 MET Subject: Re: kaka It is my pleasure to inform, that "kaka" (or "kaku") means excrements (in not too polite manner, by the way) in Polish. Greetings, Andrzej Falniowski Zool.Mus.Jagiellonian Univ. _______________________________________________________________________________ <15:65>From bonn@qcvaxa.acc.qc.edu Thu Nov 17 07:06:58 1994 Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 08:08:14 EDT From: "Bonnie Blackwell, Dept of Geology, (718) 997-3332" <bonn@qcvaxa.acc.qc.edu> To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu Subject: RE: kaka, borrowing, catsup/ketchup in dictionaries that i have checked catsup/catchup/ketchup the source is always listed as chinese. it is interesting that the cantonese pronounciation is so close to the english "catchup" pronounciation that almost anyone would recognize the term spoken by a cantonese speaker (who first introduced me to the concept). if you look at it historically, it also makes sense that it should be canton for the origin. the word (and product) are primarily (and as far as i know also first used) in the united states and england who both had strong trading concession in canton & hong kong in the 1840-1870's. do the dutch (who colonized malaysia) first) use the term catsup/catchup/ketchup or anything like it? do they have a similar product in their cooking (i cannot recall from my shrot time in amsterdam)? bonn _______________________________________________________________________________ <15:66>From bonn@qcvaxa.acc.qc.edu Thu Nov 17 07:38:50 1994 Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 08:40:05 EDT From: "Bonnie Blackwell, Dept of Geology, (718) 997-3332" <bonn@qcvaxa.acc.qc.edu> To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu Subject: more on catchup/catsup/ketchup it is likely (but not certain), that the malay form of the word may derive from the chinese. the chinese colonized most of southeast asia during several periods of expansion in the past few thousand years. they may well have taken their tomato sauce with them and allowed the malays to borrow the word! _______________________________________________________________________________ <15:67>From GGALE@VAX1.UMKC.EDU Thu Nov 17 07:51:25 1994 Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 07:51:11 -0600 (CST) From: GGALE@VAX1.UMKC.EDU Subject: Re: DARWIN-L digest 335 To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu If Gary Aronsen goes by Burlington House, Picadilly, to visit the Linnean Society, he should step across the courtyard to visit the Royal Astronomical Society. It's just awesome (!) to stand in the same room that Newton, Eddington, et al, met in. Some nice 'scopes about, too, plus, 'natch, a nice library. They're open every day, but you might call for hours. George ggale@vax1.umkc.edu _______________________________________________________________________________ <15:68>From peter@usenix.org Thu Nov 17 08:24:27 1994 Date: Thu, 17 Nov 94 06:24:20 PST From: peter@usenix.org (Peter H. Salus) To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu Subject: RE: kaka, borrowing, catsup/ketchup (1) yes, ketjap occurs in Dutch. (2) in Malay (and Indonesian) it means any vegetable-based piquant sauce. (3) I would think Amoy more likely than Cantonese, but point out that the 1840-1870's are largely irrelevant, as Swift uses the word a century earlier, in a period that precedes England's adventures in either India or China. (4) The chronolgy points to Dutch to English transmission; thus more likely Malay/Indonesian to Dutch around 1690-1710 and thence to the rest of Europe. (5) This in no way precludes Amoy to Malay transmission prior to that. Peter ________________________________________________________________ Peter H. Salus #3303 4 Longfellow Place Boston, MA 02114 +1 617 723-3092 _______________________________________________________________________________ <15:69>From peter@usenix.org Thu Nov 17 08:26:17 1994 Date: Thu, 17 Nov 94 06:26:12 PST From: peter@usenix.org (Peter H. Salus) To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu Subject: Re: more on catchup/catsup/ketchup Bonnie, tomatoes are a New World import to China. While the Chinese had pickled/fermented sauces (e.g. soy), they certainly couldn't have ``taken their tomato sauce with them'' in the 16th or 17th centuries! Peter _______________________________________________________________________________ <15:70>From bill@clyde.as.utexas.edu Thu Nov 17 08:31:59 1994 Date: Thu, 17 Nov 94 08:31:18 CST From: bill@clyde.as.utexas.edu (William H. Jefferys) To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu Subject: Re: more on catchup/catsup/ketchup #it is likely (but not certain), that the malay form of the word may #derive from the chinese. the chinese colonized most of southeast asia #during several periods of expansion in the past few thousand years. #they may well have taken their tomato sauce with them and allowed the #malays to borrow the word! Don't forget that tomatoes are a product of the New World, and would not have been known in Asia prior to the 16th century. There are other kinds of catsups, however. Bill _______________________________________________________________________________ <15:71>From PICARD@VAX2.CONCORDIA.CA Thu Nov 17 09:32:18 1994 Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 10:30:47 -0500 (EST) From: MARC PICARD <PICARD@VAX2.CONCORDIA.CA> Subject: Re: kaka, borrowing, catsup/ketchup To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu Lee Hartman brings up an interesting point when he says: The interesting question about Spanish caca is Why didn't the second c change to g, as it did in the verb cagar? French has CACA too even though the verb is CHIER (pronounced SHYAY) which is the expected development of Latin CACARE. There is a word CHICHI but it means 'fuss'. Anyway, I can't wait for this discussion to expand to PIPI. Marc Picard _______________________________________________________________________________ <15:72>From PICARD@VAX2.CONCORDIA.CA Thu Nov 17 10:03:37 1994 Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 11:04:02 -0500 (EST) From: MARC PICARD <PICARD@VAX2.CONCORDIA.CA> Subject: Re: more on catchup/catsup/ketchup To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu According to my sources, catchup/catsup/ketchup derives ultimately from Chinese (Amoy) KE-TSIAP 'pickled fish-brine or sauce' which became the Malay KECHAP. The original condiment that Dutch traders imported from the Orient appears to have been either a fish sauce or one made from special mushrooms salted for preservation. It wasn't until American seamen added tomatoes that catchup/catsup/ketchup as we know it was born. Marc Picard _______________________________________________________________________________ <15:73>From CHODGES@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU Thu Nov 17 13:28:15 1994 Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 11:28:03 -0800 (PST) From: CHODGES@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU Subject: Introduction To: DARWIN-L <Darwin-L@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu> Hello everyone; My name is Charlie Hodges and I am a first year graduate student in archaeology at the University of Oregon (and, yes, it is raining here today in Eugene). I have a background in both archaeology and philosophy. My interest in archaeology is geoarcheology- mostly soils and geomorphology. My philosophy background is Anglo-American analytic philosophy- my reading in philosophy is rather sporadic and I mostly use philosophical methods these days to evaluate arguments in archaeology (a very useful tool, indeed). One phenomenon (or, rather, a cluster of phenomena) I've noticed since embarking on my geoarchaeological trajectory is how well classificatory and explanatory schemes from other historical sciences fit into archaeology. (For example, problems and issues in Soil Taxonomy seem to translate remarkably well into archaeological talk about systematics in prehistory) In my reading of the history of archaeology (which I have just begun) I've noticed that this is almost taken for granted, but I have begun to wonder exactly why this might be the case. One tack I'm thinking of pursuing is to look at 1) coherentism (as a method of justifying historical inferences) and 2) the possiblility of developing a theory of a continuum of explanation, that is, at one end of the continuum are essentialist derived explanations which are powerful but narrow in scope (causal chain reasoning) and at the other end are materialist derived explanations, less powerful, wider in scope (and perhaps dependent on coherentist justification- causal web reasoning). Although this is kind of wu-wu (I am in grad school, after all), I've found that at some level it seems to drive my data gathering schemes in the field. Anyway, that's probably enough for now. Oh, I'm new to this Internet stuff- I beg your patience for my (unintentional) faux pas. I'm certainly open to learning the protocol. ------------ Charlie Hodges Dept of Anthropology Eugene Oregon U.S.A. chodges@oregon.uoregon.edu _______________________________________________________________________________ <15:74>From bonn@qcvaxa.acc.qc.edu Thu Nov 17 15:48:06 1994 Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 16:49:14 EDT From: "Bonnie Blackwell, Dept of Geology, (718) 997-3332" <bonn@qcvaxa.acc.qc.edu> To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu Subject: RE: kaka, borrowing, catsup/ketchup thanks to salus for the correction and the information. bonn _______________________________________________________________________________ <15:75>From arkeo4@uniwa.uwa.edu.au Thu Nov 17 19:46:43 1994 Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 09:46:17 +0800 (WST) From: Dave Rindos <arkeo4@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu Subject: Re: more on catchup/catsup/ketchup [long] I decided to take a look at my pantry as well as some old cookbooks in my collection to get a bit of data on the topic. The Indonesian sauce in the pantry is 'Kecap.' It is a thick, sweetened soy-based sauce, clearly related to Chinese Thickened Soy, itself a product of cooking soy with spices and sugar. I assume the primitive term, even in english, refers to this product and, further, it indicates a distnction made between a thin product and a thicker (sweeter and spicer?) one, both of which are used as an *ingredient* in flavouring food. Maybe the cantonese speakers could help me out with this assumption, especially since it might be relevant to what follows. _The Virginia Housewife, or, Methodical Cook_ (Philadelphia 1860 edition of the 1824 original, based apparently on the 1831 edition) gives few recipes for catchup (but it is a brief compendium in any case). Mrs Randolph, however, does include recipes for Mushroom Catchup and BOTH Tomato Catsup and Tomato Soy. None of the recipes contain vinegar or sugar, but all are spiced (rather highly by today's tastes -- for example to one bushel of tomatos [sic] used in the Soy, she calls for one ounce of cloves, four ounces each of allspice and black pepper and a small wine glass of Cayenne). The Soy is differentiated from the others by being subjected to three days' salt-based fermentation of the tomatoes and onions before the cooking, but like the others is still strained (albeit through a sieve not a colander, hence we may assume it is a thinner product). A very similar recipe made from green tomatoes is listed under the rubric "Tomato Marmalade" and a sweetened version is also listed. This lacks onions but has garlic added and is not strained. She notes it is "excellent for seasoning gravies &c. &c." Today I think we would classify it as a "relish", a term lacking in the 19th Century books. She also lists a Walnut Catsup which *is* made with vinegar. Unlike the others, this would appear to result in a thin product, totally in keeping with the thin/thick hypothesis given above. She also gives an Oyster Catsup which is made with hihgly spiced pounded oysters and white wine, cooked, sieved, and stored. She notes that if a glass of brandy is added it will keep for a "considerable time." _Housekeeping in Old Virigina_ (Louisville 1879), a compendium of recipes, is a forerunner of the "Church Cookbook" genre [anybody having access to these, please contact me privately] as well as the "Celebrity Cookbook" publishing hussle (the author writes of herself that "she is indebted to near 250 contributors to her book. Among these will be found **many names famous through the land.**"). Incidently, and rather remarkably for the time, she signed her Editor's Preface "Marion Cabell Tyree" leaving us uncertain if she is Mrs Samuel Tyree, Mrs John H Tyree, a third Tyree, or perhaps some other Mrs all together. This volume lists numerous catchup recipes made from tomatoes (listed first and followed up by), cucumbers, walnuts (the catchup made from young walnut leaves being called Bay Sauce in two cases, but 'Walnut Catchup from the Leaves' in another), mushrooms and red peppers (which mentions that "strong pepper" can be added towards the end). All contain vinegar and spices. Some of the tomato catchups contain sugar. The recipes are contained in the chapter titled "Pickle and Catsups." A "Tomato Marmalade or Sauce for Meats" contains spices, sugar, and vinegar boiled to the "thickness of molasses" is listed with other tomato pickle recipes, but it is, important for the point made here, unstrained. Various sauces, including Tomato, are also given, but these are almost always to be prepared just before serving and are, generally, listed in a separate chapter with the title Sauces [which includes Apple Sauce (contains butter), itself sandwiched between the Onion Sauce and the Mint Sauce]. _The Successful Housekeeper, A Manual of Universal Application, Especially adapted to the every day wants of American housewives; embracing several thousand throughly tested and approved recipes, care and culture of children, birds, and house plants; flower and window gardening, etc; with many valuable hints on home decoration._ This volume appears unauthored, and is published in 1882 in Detroit. Befitting its size (not to mention it aims), it contains a whole chapter on Catsups (between Confectionary and Desserts and well separated from Pickles or Preserves). It lists Currant, Cucumber (needs no cooking), Gooseberry (may also be used for grapes), Plum, Tomato (2), and refers to the Mushroom Chapter for Mushroom Catsup recipes. All recipes are vinegared and all, except the Tomato #2, contain sugar and are highly spiced (eg. for one gallon of sieved tomatoes they recommond one cup onion, 1/2 C black pepper, 4 hot pepper pods, 1/2 C mixed allspice, nutmeg and cinnamon, one ounce celery seed, 1/4 C each ginger and mustard, and 2 cups sugar with one pint strong vinegar). Most of the recipes stress the need to boil to the right (by which they appear to mean thick) consistency. Of interest here, they note in the introduction to this Chapter that the "good housekeeper will alwaly look with pride upon it as it stands upon the shelves in closely-corked bottles, neatly labeled, feeling, as she may, that she possesses close at hand the means of imparting a delicious flavor to her sauces and gravies without at the same time placing any deleterious compound before her friends." In the Pickles chapter Green Tomato Soy is listed which is in keeping with the same conceptual distinction and both the recipe and its treatment (unstrained) is quite tomato marmalade (=relish) described above. All of the recipes given thus far are consistent, albeit fairly general in their instructions, at least in terms of the "Fanny Farmer" school of detailed instruction (itself a bit of joke, but then again maybe there ARE people willing to throw away a tablespoon of chopped onion so that they will have *exactly* "one cup" as called in the recipe). This is particularly true in terms of cooking times and temperatures (after all, wood stoves are NOT particularly easy to control which is probably why people still believe that souffles or angle-food cake are difficult to make). One thing that does seem apparent, however, is that the cooking times are long.... directions like "all day" (obviously meaning at the back of the stove) are common in these recipes. Under conditions of long cooking like this, we could very easily expect the final product to be very very dark, and the spices added would make it even darker. The product is clearly meant to be thick (other recipes may refer to putting first through a colander and then a sieve, hence the catchups, being generally colander-ed rather than sieved, will also have a coarser grain) and dark, it will be used as an INGREDIENT for flavouring sauces, etc (rather than, like a pickle, served on its own as a savory). It is also (especially in the later volumes) sweetened. Hence, if we assume that Kecup was being imported (and Soy as well), the similariaties in color and use make the use of the terms fairly clear. It is also somewhat interesting that the earliest recipes lack vinegar. I assume its addition by the mid-century was functional in that fermentation or other spoilage of the fruit-based product was likely. In fact, it lack is also telling. If we assume that the various catcups given here were meant to substitute in a specific niche in the kitchen for an expensive, imported, delicacy ("eggplant caviar" and all that), the lack of vinegar in the earliest recipes would be just what we would predict. The use of the term for the thin concotions like Walnut Catcup would follow from it same role in cooking. The transition of catchup from an ingredient to a condiment probably could be traced out in later cookbooks. I would guess that as the bland ("sophisticated") diet of the 20th Century evolved, the selective forces acting in the kitchen would have reduced the fitness of the various catchups described in these earlier books. Along with this, we might find the rise of the term Tomato Sauce in keeping with its new role as a substance placed directly on food (condiment), rather than as an ingredient. Here it is probably telling that, in my own experience, ozzies seem to find my addition of ketchup to recipes for foods like meat-loaf distinctly bizarre (though nowhere NEAR as shocking as Jello Salads :{) ) and a quick glance through Australian cookbooks seems to indicate that catchup is NOT used as an ingredient. I can only assume, that as in the American accent, a more primitive (less derived) state of affairs still obtains on that continent in relation to catchup. Dave, grinning . . . -- Dave Rindos arkeo4@uniwa.uwa.edu.au 20 Herdsmans Parade Wembley WA 6014 AUSTRALIA Ph:+61 9 387 6281 (GMT+8) FAX:+61 9 386 2760 (USEST+13) [you may also reach me on rindos@perth.dialix.oz.au] Rabbits exist, hence we may speak meaningfully to the evolution of the rabbit. Some people attempt to study the evolution of human intelligence. We may well have a real problem here. _______________________________________________________________________________ Darwin-L Message Log 15: 31-75 -- November 1994 End