MOM issues not dealt with
Count Szabo
I just want to address some of the whiny criticisms
regarding the NBC "documentary" Mysterious Origins of
Man and ask a (hopefully new) question or two.
1) Whoever described Hestin's "contemptuous smirk" was
speaking fancifully. He clearly has a totally normal
visage of keen interest with raised eyebrows. At no
time does he hold any smile or smirk.
2) Whoever was inquiring into the background of Virginia
McIntyre must not have found the incriminating evidence
they were looking for since no critique of her has
emerged.
3) Without referring me to the Paluxy print page (which
I have read and found pretty convincing) how can one
explain away the contours beneath the individual toes
found on the cross-secion of the Burdik print?
(on the show these were pointed out by Patton who is
a questionable associate of Baugh.)
4) How can one explain the x-ray taken (and shown) of
the fossilized finger. It clearly shows the skin layer,
bones, and joints of the "rock", right on the show.
(Patton again)
5) Is the Javaman account true? Was it really removed
from the NY Museum of Natural History after Dubioux
realized his mistake?
6) What evidence excludes Lucy from being an ape?
(i think this is a harder one than you might think)
7) I won't bring up the maps since Heinrich is putting
so much work into this area.
8) Someone mentioned that the freezing of Mammoths in
northern Siberia was an old myth with no physical
evidence to back it up. Where did the show get the idea
that contents of stomachs were examined and found
buttercups, or whatever?
9) These associations between the Americas & Egyptian civilizations are
difficult to attribute to independant development. At the least they
support limited diffusionism.
- large pyramids
- temples of megalithic stone
- 1/50" (or better) joints in stones
- royal headdress style
- L-shaped corners in stonework
- metal I-clamps
- mummification of the dead to facilitate passing on into afterlife
10) The show states (actually Hancock states) that the
Earth's second layer (mantle) is semi-liquid! That fact
alone seems to help validate many arguements pertaining
to earth crust activity.
- The purported high friction and energy releases
- The silly mathematical equations
- My idea about outer-crust primacy (magnetic, hotspots)
- My idea about multiple variable chaotic forces beneath
the crust.
I know this is nothing new to all you scholars out there
but many others might find it interesting.
(and yes I can go into more details)
Sort of a Conclusion
With the exception of the silly-spheroids I have
mentioned seemingly valid points regarding every area
mentioned in the show. The fact that I could easily
come up with these points from re-watching the show
testifies to the general lack of conclusive evidence
that claims this show was a fallacy and an unforgivable
act on the part of NBC. I am thinking that a
documentary need not always be documenting proven
science. It can also document questionable theory.
And that's is all that it claimed to do.
--
zoomQuake....150+ of the best ancient history related links on the net!
http://www.iceonline.com/home/peters5/zoomquk4.html
Doug Weller
In article <3193BD...@iceonline.com>
Count Szabo <pet...@iceonline.com> wrote:
> I just want to address some of the whiny criticisms
> regarding the NBC "documentary" Mysterious Origins of
> Man and ask a (hopefully new) question or two.
Peter, have all the criticisms really been 'whiny'?
> 8) Someone mentioned that the freezing of Mammoths in
> northern Siberia was an old myth with no physical
> evidence to back it up. Where did the show get the idea
> that contents of stomachs were examined and found
> buttercups, or whatever?
Stomach contents have indeed been found -- rather than go into
detail here, take a look at the mammoth FAQ at:
http://rumba.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/mammoths
--
Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
Heinrich
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
From: Count Szabo <pet...@iceonline.com>
Subject: MOM issues not dealt with
Count Szabo <pet...@iceonline.com>
>I just want to address some of the whiny criticisms
>regarding the NBC "documentary" Mysterious Origins
>of Man and ask a (hopefully new) question or two.
>1) Whoever described Hestin's "contemptuous smirk"
>was speaking fancifully. He clearly has a totally normal
>visage of keen interest with raised eyebrows. At no
>time does he hold any smile or smirk.
I agree with you. Hestin was just being the typical moderator
character. Whether Hestin was smirking or just smiling,
his facial expressions have nothing to with the content
of the show.
>2) Whoever was inquiring into the background of
>Virginia McIntyre must not have found the incriminating
>evidence they were looking for since no critique of her has
>emerged.
Unfortunately, most of the claims that she made are of the
_he said, she said_ type which leave little, if any, written
documentation. In order to examine her claims, a person
would have to track down each of the people involved and
personally interview them and collect copies of their
personal correspondence. It could easily be the archaeological
equivalent of the Anita Hill - Clarence Thomas hearings with
each side making unprovable accusations and eventually
providing few definite answers as to what really happened.
Such an inquiry would consume more time and expensive
than neither I nor other working people have time
to get involved. To investigate this would likely require a
professional journalist. Also, it is a situation where the person
who puts together a FAQ on it would need a libel lawyer on
retainer given the reputations on all sides involved. (No
matter which side a person takes, there is a good risk of a libel
suite.) Given these problems, an investigation of the
Steen-McIntyre claims is beyond the time and money most
mortals have. Therefore, the lack of any critique definitely
fails to be proof of incriminating evidence.
I can say that for the time that Dr. Steen-McIntyre was having
a hard time finding work, many geologists, including me,
were having just as bad of time either finding a job or keeping
the one that they had. Numerous other, often very able,
geologists also lost their jobs and never did find work again
as geologists. This was especially true of lady geologists who
were often the last hired and first fired regardless of their
abilities. For a long time, sexism, which is still endemic to
the profession of geology was epidemic. I knew several lady
geologist, although a talented geologist and noncontrovercial,
who had been laid off and never found work again as a
geologist. What happened to Dr. Steen-McIntyre happened
to all too many geologists simply because they were female.
Thus, the fact that she never found a job as geologist by itself
fails to be proof of any conspiracy as sexism was an all to real
hazard for women who wanted to be geologists.
In fact, there many gentlemen geologists who lost their jobs
and never found work again in geologists. I seriously doubt that
they were denied positions because they advocated controversial
views about the of Early Man in North America.
>3) Without referring me to the Paluxy print page (which
>I have read and found pretty convincing) how can one
>explain away the contours beneath the individual toes
>found on the cross-section of the Burdik print?
>(on the show these were pointed out by Patton who is
>a questionable associate of Baugh.)
From the close up pictures of the cross-sections that the Rev
Baugh showed at a talk he gave in Baton Rouge in 1993 or so
and the views shown on the _Mysterious Origins of Man_,
(MOM), I have to agree with Mr. Kuban that the so-called
_subsurface pressure lines_ are actually algal laminae within
the limestone. Such algal laminations are abundant within
the tidal flat limestones in which are abundant in the Glen
Rose formation. Also, I have to agree that the bottom of
the prints clearly truncate the algal laminae definitely
indicating that it is a carving. This to me is obvious evidence
of carving. Having been born and grown up in Texas, I spent
a lot of time fossil hunting in the Cretaceous limestones and,
thus, I am familiar with algal laminae in these rocks.
The tracks that the Rev. Baugh found going under the ledge
are dinosaurs tracks that have been made in very soft mud
which infilled the toes.
>4) How can one explain the x-ray taken (and shown) of
>the fossilized finger. It clearly shows the skin layer,
>bones, and joints of the "rock", right on the show.
>(Patton again)
First, in the x-ray of the alleged _finger_ that was on
a web site in the past, I could see no definite skin or
bones in the x-ray. The skin is just a porous weathering rind
on the concretion that shows up in the x-ray because of its
lessor density. The chert concretions that are typically found
in the Cretaceous limestones often are elongate because
burrows or frequently selectively silicified. The dark
interior may just be the result of a denser interior
than outer material. Such density variations are common in
Cretaceous chert nodules. I frankly did not see anything that
had the shape of bone.
An important point that the Rev. Baugh and his fellow
travelers failed to revealed was that their alleged _finger_
was not found either in situ or with any of the Paluxy dinosaur
tracks. Rather, it was found loose in a gravel pit many miles
from Glen Rose. Thus, it cannot be linked to either the Glen
Rose Formation or any of the tracks, _prints_, or anything
of real significance as far as the Paluxy _prints_ debates.
>5) Is the Javaman account true? Was it really removed
>from the NY Museum of Natural History after Dubioux
>realized his mistake?
I read a post sometime ago that said that _Java Man_ display
is still at the NY Museum of Natural History. Someone
else will have to verify whether this post is either right
or wrong about the _Java Man_ display still being there.
If I can find an e-mail address at their web site, I might
just e-mail them my version of your question and see
what response I get.
>6) What evidence excludes Lucy from being an ape?
>(i think this is a harder one than you might think)
See Jim Foley's FAQ of Hominids at the talk.origins
archives. He does a better job of explaining this than I
could ever do.
That FAQ is at:
http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/fossil-hominids.html
>7) I won't bring up the maps since Heinrich is putting
>so much work into this area.
Thank you. At least someone appreciates the work
going in those posts. There are times that wonder if
anybody is listening out there.
>8) Someone mentioned that the freezing of Mammoths in
>northern Siberia was an old myth with no physical
>evidence to back it up. Where did the show get the idea
>that contents of stomachs were examined and found
>buttercups, or whatever?
It is true that some rare buttercups have been found in the
stomachs of some of the mammoths. However, these are
buttercups that now grow in a wide range of environments
including subarctic ones, and, thus, fail to be indicative of
a warm climate.
The objectionable statement by Hancock in MOM is:
_Mainly mammoths, but also woolly rhinos and
other creatures of this kind. When their stomachs
contents are examined, as they have been, they are
found to have been grazing on warm weather vegetation._
His claim that the stomach contents of these fossil mammoth
and rhinos indicated that they have been grazing on warm weather
vegetation is absolutely false. Dr. Valentina V. Ukraintea in his
book _Vegetation Cover and Environment of the "Mammoth
Epoch" in Siberia_ (1993) gives a detailed description and
interpretation of the stomach contents. Nowhere in the stomach
contents of these _mummies_ have any _warm weather
vegetation_ been found. According to Dr. Ukraintea, pollen from
sediments that enclosed are from plants, like those found in the
stomach, native to subarctic / tundra environments.
This book is a very useful book because it gives an English
summary of an enormous amount of research done by
Russian geologists and otherwise found in Russian journals
of restricted circulation or otherwise untranslated.
Some more stuff on these mammoths can be found at:
http://rumba.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/mammoths.html
It is interesting to note that the majority of the _mummified_
mammals show signs of having been either gnawed, decayed,
or both before burial. Thus, they certainly were not flash frozen
Also, many of them date to the 30,000 - 42,000 range. For older
_mummies_ to have been preserved in the permafrost, the parts
of Siberia and Alaska in which they have been found must have
relatively cold, and lacking _warm climates_, for the last 42,000
years. In case of the Khatanga mammoth, the climate must
have been cold enough for more than the last 50,000 years to
preserve the permafrost containing the mammoth.
One of many problems with the _Mysterious Origins of Man_
concerning mammoths is that from the text and pictures, it
is clearly using Dima, a baby mammoth found in 1977 (Siberia), as
evidence of earth crustal displacement occurring around 12,000
B.P., more or less. The problem with that is that Dima has been
radiocarbon dated at 40,000 B.P. See the book of Dr. Ukraintea and:
http://rumba.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/mammoths.html for more data.
NOTE: The above book of Dr. Ukraintea, as a huge selection of
books on mammoths and other Pleistocene vertebrates can be
gotten from Mammoth Site of Hot Springs, Inc., P.O. Box 692,
Hot Springs, SD 57747. (Heck, if Treshman can shamelessly
promote his favorite books and SIS, I should be able to plug
my favorite mammoth site one and a while. Also, it is a
fantastic place to visit if in the Hot Springs area.)
>9) These associations between the Americas & Egyptian
>civilizations are difficult to attribute to independent
>development.
I would differ on that as the traits listed are basic stuff that
could be independently invented.
>At the least they support limited diffusionism.
Not necessarily.
>- large pyramids
Egypt and Central America may both have pyramids, but in
case of the Maya, they were constructed in greatly different
manners. For example, the Egyptian pyramids were
constructed as a single unit during one period of construction.
However, the Mayan pyramids result from of multiple periods
of construction. Like a set of Russian dolls, a single Mayan temple
/ pyramid may consist of several pyramids one built on top of
and around an older one. There are superficial resemblances,
but they far from convincing evidence of diffusion.
....other traits omitted.......
>10) The show states (actually Hancock states) that the
>Earth's second layer (mantle) is semi-liquid! That fact
>alone seems to help validate many arguments pertaining
>to earth crust activity.
........material omitted.......
There problem is that Hancock grossly oversimplifies
the structure of the Earth. He just includes those things
that supports his conclusions and omits those things
that complicate his claims. The mantle is not a liquid
in the scientific sense of the word. It does not flow like
water, but rather deforms like glacial ice. If you release
the pressure on it or add water via subduction then
partial melting occurs to form liquid magma. I suggest
that you compare what a book, either _The Dynamic
Earth_ by Skinner and Porter (1995) or _Physical Geology_
(7th ed.) by Plummer and McGeary (1995) states about the
physical properties of the Mantle to Hancocks very
oversimplified ideas about what the mantle is like.
Sincerely,
Paul V. Heinrich
(as a private citizen)
hein...@intersurf.com
Baton Rouge, LA
Earthquakes don't kill people.
Overpasses and buildings kill people.
-anonymous civil engineer
All comments are the personal opinion of the writer and
do not constitute policy and/or opinion of government
or corporate entities. This includes my employer.
Heinrich
After posting my reply to your post I found the following
material about the Java Man display.
Count Szabo <pet...@iceonline.com> wrote:
>5) Is the Javaman account true? Was it really removed
>from the NY Museum of Natural History after Dubioux
>realized his mistake?
The exact claim from the _Mysterious Origin of Man_ as
spoken by Charlton Heston is:
_Nevertheless, the Java Man was prominently displayed
at the Museum of Natural History in New York
until 1984. Since then it has been removed._
In _Human Evolution and "Mysterious Origins"_ and in repsonse
this claim by the _Mysterious Origin of Man_, Jim Foley wrote:
_According to Phil Nicholls (pn...@globalone.net),
Java Man was never removed from the American
Museum of Natural History, and is still in their human
evolution hall, as it should be. It is also mentioned in
"The Human Odyssey", a 1993 book based on the AMNH's
human evolution exhibit by its curator, Ian Tattersall)
If you want to check it out, the URL address for this FAQ is:
http://rumba.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/mom/momevol.html
august_matthusen
Count Szabo <pet...@iceonline.com> wrote:
Peter,
Congatulations on the promotion to Count.
>I just want to address some of the whiny criticisms
>regarding the NBC "documentary" Mysterious Origins of
>Man and ask a (hopefully new) question or two.
Asking questions is good. It's a road to learning. The
next step is learning how to seek answers for questions
rather than to seek to have others answer them. For all
you know, we could be pulling your crank as much as MOM.
>1) Whoever described Hestin's "contemptuous smirk" was
>speaking fancifully. He clearly has a totally normal
>visage of keen interest with raised eyebrows. At no
>time does he hold any smile or smirk.
Thank God, I was afraid I was going to have to turn in my
NRA membership card if Chuck was smirking.
>2) Whoever was inquiring into the background of Virginia
>McIntyre must not have found the incriminating evidence
>they were looking for since no critique of her has
>emerged.
For what kind of "incriminating evidence" are you looking?
The story was that a specific incident spoiled her career.
Access to personnel files is highly limited, so we'll probably
only know her side of this argument. As for the dating,
well, it as done with two methods. One of the multitude of
uranium-series methods and (I think--I don't have the book
with me) potassium-argon.
If you think C-14 has problems, U-series makes C-14
dates look perfect. U-series is based on the decay of uranium
to its myriads of daughter radioisotopes, each of which has a
distinct half-life. For U-series to be
effective, you have to have an idea of how much of the
pertinent parent isotope existed and be reasonably sure that
there was no migration of the parent and daughter isotope.
You also have to be sure there was no initial contamination with
other isotopes that could decay to the daughter or parent.
Is that clear? No? Well, that's part of the problem. In some
cases a u-series method can be great. For example,
dating speleothems, as the calcite is encased in the outer
layers and there is not much chance of dissolution and
migration of the parent or daughter. In other instances, its
use is almost laughable.
I checked a book I have (Ivanovich and Harmon, 1982. Uranium-
series methods). It mentioned this case, mentioned that
the dates were questionable, but I never found time to check
any further and look at some of the original reports.
[As a side note--Paul Heinrich was discussing the dating of cores
by Hough and mentioned Urry. Urry was using one of the early
u-series methods; there were some questions about this too.]
Potassium-argon can be very accurate, if all the caveats are
followed. However, on young samples (<100ka) the results can
often be spurious. If I get chance I may look into this more.
[snip]
>4) How can one explain the x-ray taken (and shown) of
>the fossilized finger. It clearly shows the skin layer,
>bones, and joints of the "rock", right on the show.
>(Patton again)
How about its a tube of rock which is composed of rocks of
different density? Looked like a lot of rhizoliths I've
seen, only carved to look like a finger. But they wouldn't
carve it would they? They were honest at Pauluxy weren't they?
A little bit of taphonomy (how things get preserved and
fosillized see http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ceam/index.html
ya got to have a weird sense of humor to study rotting, decaying
things--a lack of sense of smell helps too) goes a long way.
Skin rots, it doesn't fossilize. I'd be more interested in
hearing Patton's explanation of how the skin was replaced by
a mineral, as that is what normally occurs when a bone
fossilizes. If you want to bring up the ice man
or mummies, well they aren't fossilized are they?
>5) Is the Javaman account true? Was it really removed
>from the NY Museum of Natural History after Dubioux
>realized his mistake?
May I suggest a visit to the talk origins FAQ? It discusses
Homo erectus, Dubois, Java Man, etc. and gives references.
http://rumba.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/fossil-hominids.html
>6) What evidence excludes Lucy from being an ape?
>(i think this is a harder one than you might think)
See the T.O. Faq mentioned in #5 above
>7) I won't bring up the maps since Heinrich is putting
>so much work into this area.
>8) Someone mentioned that the freezing of Mammoths in
>northern Siberia was an old myth with no physical
>evidence to back it up. Where did the show get the idea
>that contents of stomachs were examined and found
>buttercups, or whatever?
I believe Paul Heinrich (or maybe Darby South) wrote this
up a while back. Try a search on Dejanews.
>9) These associations between the Americas & Egyptian civilizations are
>difficult to attribute to independant development. At the least they
>support limited diffusionism.
>- large pyramids
>- temples of megalithic stone
>- 1/50" (or better) joints in stones
>- royal headdress style
>- L-shaped corners in stonework
>- metal I-clamps
>- mummification of the dead to facilitate passing on into afterlife
They are separated in time by millenia. How did they diffuse
across time as well as space? A two thousand year old mummy
returning to life and sailing to South America? (Got the
makings of a new Anne Rice novel)
>10) The show states (actually Hancock states) that the
>Earth's second layer (mantle) is semi-liquid! That fact
>alone seems to help validate many arguements pertaining
>to earth crust activity.
>- The purported high friction and energy releases
>- The silly mathematical equations
>- My idea about outer-crust primacy (magnetic, hotspots)
>- My idea about multiple variable chaotic forces beneath
> the crust.
>I know this is nothing new to all you scholars out there
>but many others might find it interesting.
>(and yes I can go into more details)
Sigh. What does "semi-liquid" mean? I'm not familiar with
this highly technical, Hancockesque term.
Without going into it, let me just say that when a material is
under 20 km of rock (or much more), the pressure on it (lithostatic)
makes that material act *much differently* than it does at the earth's
surface (atmospheric pressure). (Kinda like if you went a few thousand
feet below the ocean the hydrostatic pressure would do funny
things to your body--hey this might turn you into a semi-liquid:
Don't try this at home!!).
I'm not sure what you mean by validates "the purported high friction
and energy releases" and silly math equations. Did you leave out a
"not" and mean to indicate that the crust can slide along on the
semi-liquid because there is no friction? If so you may want
to check into the concept of viscosity (resistance to flow).
Different liquids flow at different rates (example: oil, water,
maple syrup, lava, even ice in glacier flows) because of
different viscosities. Heat 'em or pressurize 'em, that'll change again.
This is rheology: the study of matter in the fluid state.
> Sort of a Conclusion
>With the exception of the silly-spheroids I have
>mentioned seemingly valid points regarding every area
>mentioned in the show. The fact that I could easily
>come up with these points from re-watching the show
>testifies to the general lack of conclusive evidence
>that claims this show was a fallacy and an unforgivable
>act on the part of NBC. I am thinking that a
>documentary need not always be documenting proven
>science. It can also document questionable theory.
"Questionable theory" is redundant. Science by its very
nature is constantly questioning hypotheses and theories.
>And that's is all that it claimed to do.
Sorry, but when MOM presented all of this with the
oft made point that science is hiding or ignoring
all this *significant* info without presenting any
of the facts for the other side is dishonest.
Science has known about all of these things and
has repeatedly documented them. Why do you think Paul
and I can find references to things? The whole premise that
science is hiding or ignoring these thing is the big lie.
MOM refusing to tell the whole story after claiming this is
what science has done is PotKettleBlacking.
Regards,
August Matthusen
Anthony Martin
(pet...@iceonline.com) said:
<snip>
<< 3) Without referring me to the Paluxy print page (which
I have read and found pretty convincing) how can one
explain away the contours beneath the individual toes
found on the cross-secion of the Burdik print?
(on the show these were pointed out by Patton who is
a questionable associate of Baugh.) >>
I assume that you mean by the "Paluxy print page," you are talking
about Glen Kuban's Web page where he explains in detail why the Burdick
"print" shown in MOM is a phony. Glen did a great job of compiling
evidence that falsifies this print as a human footprint from Cretaceous
strata in eastern Texas (he even names the person who most likely
carved it about 60 years ago), but if you're wanting independent
corroboration that this "print" is nothing more than a bad carving
imitating a human footprint, I'd be glad to do that here.
Go out on a sandy beach (a sandbox will do, too) and make a footprint
in firm, slightly wet sand by walking across the surface. Now look at
the footprints carefully. Notice that the prints will show "pressure
plates" around the heel and ball of the foot where the forward movement
of the foot pushed back sand (more of these plates will develop with
faster forward movement). The deepest part of the print will also
point in the direction of movement because that's where your weight
shifted. Also look carefully at the overall morphology of a footprint
and notice that a definite arch region is there and the ends of the
metatarsals make the deepest impressions. A firm mud will produce
similar results.
Now go back and look at the Burdick "print" (top view) and compare it
with your direct observations of your own footprints. In the Burdick
"print," there are no pressure plates (which means that if it is a
footprint, the trackmaker was placed directly onto the mud from above,
then magically lifted straight up after making the compression) or
variation in the depth of the "print" that might show direction of
movement. The arch is not defined and the metatarsals show toes that
have nearly equal depth along their entire lengths, rather than just
the ends showing the most depth. Add to this the abnormally large size
of the print and the lack of matching prints from a documented layer in
the Glen Rose Formation, and there is already a lot of evidence
strongly suggesting that this "track" is not what its supporters claim.
I've seen scanned images of the cross-sections of the Burdick slab, did
some image analysis on the images, and think that the "contours"
underneath each "toe print" is a matter of imagination and, as far as I
can tell, are not coincident with each toe. When I first saw them, I
thought that they were bioturbate textures (deformation of the original
unconsolidated sediment by burrowing organisms), but Glen informed me
(as he does in his Web page) that they are algal structures. Algal
structures, among other criteria, are great for telling the "way up" in
geology, and in this instance these structures indicate that the top of
the slab is beneath the "footprint." In other words, through some
miracle, this "footprint" was made as a concavity on the bottom of a
bed, instead of on the top, which is what happens in reality. By the
way, the cross-sections also show in places where the "footprint"
cross-cuts the algal structures, indicating that it is indeed a
bioerosion structure that postdates induration of the Cretaceous mud.
So the question posed on the NBC-MOM Web page ("How old is this
footprint?") is best answered as "It's not a footprint but a bad
carving of a footprint and it's about 60 years old."
<snip>
<< Sort of a Conclusion
With the exception of the silly-spheroids I have
mentioned seemingly valid points regarding every area
mentioned in the show. The fact that I could easily
come up with these points from re-watching the show
testifies to the general lack of conclusive evidence
that claims this show was a fallacy and an unforgivable
act on the part of NBC. I am thinking that a
documentary need not always be documenting proven
science. It can also document questionable theory.
And that's is all that it claimed to do. >>
On just this point (I'll let others discuss the remaining points), they
had no valid points. The Paluxy "human" tracks have been disproven so
many times that there was no excuse for the producers of MOM to present
only their "evidence" and imply that mainstream, scientific
investigations of the tracks (which are dinosaur tracks and forgeries)
constitute "questionable theory." This aspect of the NBC special was a
fallacy, and although perhaps forgiveable, should not be forgotten as
an example of shoddy research and irresponsibility by NBC when viewing
any future productions that claim to be documentaries.
Anthony J. Martin
Geosciences Program, Emory University
Atlanta, Georgia USA
Ichnology Page: http://www.emory.edu/GEOSCIENCE/HTML/TFW3/HTML
***********************************
"There is no branch of science so important and so much neglected as
the art of tracing footprints" - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
***********************************
Count Szabo
August, Matthusen wrote:
>
> Asking questions is good. It's a road to learning. The
> next step is learning how to seek answers for questions
> rather than to seek to have others answer them. For all
> you know, we could be pulling your crank as much as MOM.
Thanks for the mini Sermon. Maybe you don't realize it but this statement of
yours (in the form of advice) is faulty. How do you seek answers to your
questions? Gee, you go to other learned sources for that info. But, be
careful, they could be pulling your crank as much as MOM!
And trust me, I take all your answers with a sprinkle of salt.
> >2) Whoever was inquiring into the background of Virginia
> >McIntyre must not have found the incriminating evidence
> >they were looking for since no critique of her has
> >emerged.
>
> For what kind of "incriminating evidence" are you looking?
I said "whoever was inquiring", IE not me!
> They are separated in time by millenia. How did they diffuse
> across time as well as space? A two thousand year old mummy
> returning to life and sailing to South America? (Got the
> makings of a new Anne Rice novel)
This point of yours is not even a point. Give me one good reason why they
should arise at similar times in order to be diffusionistic?
> The whole premise that
> science is hiding or ignoring these thing is the big lie.
> MOM refusing to tell the whole story after claiming this is
> what science has done is PotKettleBlacking.
If you are unable to see the nature of "suppression of the disagreeable",
then I pity you. To speak of the absolute documentation in science is true,
but it ignores the incorrect documentation and lost documentation, not to
mention jeolously guarded documentation.
An important example would be the "consensus" reached by the "International
Team" working on the Dead Sea Scrolls, which BTW is still widely accepted.
Mary Beth Williams
In <31971A...@iceonline.com> Count Szabo <pet...@iceonline.com>
writes:
>
>August, Matthusen wrote:
>> They are separated in time by millenia. How did they diffuse
>> across time as well as space? A two thousand year old mummy
>> returning to life and sailing to South America? (Got the
>> makings of a new Anne Rice novel)
>
>This point of yours is not even a point. Give me one good reason why
they
>should arise at similar times in order to be diffusionistic?
The whole idea surrounding *diffusion* necessitates that two _cultures_
need to be in _contact_ with one another in order for
information/technology to pass from one to the other. Unless you have
a time machine, these two *cultures* could never have achieved such a
feat.
MB Williams
Dept. of Anthro., UMass-Amherst
Count Szabo
Mary Beth Williams wrote:
>
> In <31971A...@iceonline.com> Count Szabo <pet...@iceonline.com>
> writes:
> >
> >August, Matthusen wrote:
>
> >> across time as well as space? A two thousand year old mummy
> >> returning to life and sailing to South America? (Got the
> >> makings of a new Anne Rice novel)
> >
> they
> >should arise at similar times in order to be diffusionistic?
>
> The whole idea surrounding *diffusion* necessitates that two _cultures_
> need to be in _contact_ with one another in order for
> information/technology to pass from one to the other. Unless you have
> a time machine, these two *cultures* could never have achieved such a
> feat.
Another typically authoritative absolutism.
Perhaps first you need to define the mode of diffusionism.
And that's beside the point. Do you suppose that the early Inca did not
exist at the same time as the later Egyptian empire? I don't know why I
wasted the time typing this...
August Matthusen
Count Szabo <pet...@iceonline.com> wrote:
>August Matthusen wrote:
>>Count Szabo <pet...@iceonline.com> wrote:
>> Asking questions is good. It's a road to learning. The
>> next step is learning how to seek answers for questions
>> rather than to seek to have others answer them. For all
>> you know, we could be pulling your crank as much as MOM.
>Thanks for the mini Sermon. Maybe you don't realize it but this statement of
>yours (in the form of advice) is faulty. How do you seek answers to your
>questions? Gee, you go to other learned sources for that info. But, be
>careful, they could be pulling your crank as much as MOM.
Sorry that I wasn't clearer. How do you seek answers? Go
directly to the published sources (or do the experiment
yourself to test the hypothesis). Do the same thing that
Paul and I have done--hit the libarary. I hope that even after
we've supplied a response that you'll delve into some
of the supporting literature.
>And trust me, I take all your answers with a sprinkle of salt.
Excellent! That's the point I was making above re: crank pulling.
Healthy skepticism is good. BTW, sea salt; iodized salt; or the extra
special, world renowned Purple Salt (tm)?
> >>2) Whoever was inquiring into the background of Virginia
> >>McIntyre must not have found the incriminating evidence
> >>they were looking for since no critique of her has
> >>emerged.
>> For what kind of "incriminating evidence" are you looking?
>I said "whoever was inquiring", IE not me!
Sorry, again. But you did bring up the entirety of point #2. Perhaps I should
have written: "For what kind of "incriminating evidence" should "whoever
was inquiring" be looking?" I think my original response covered this.
>> They are separated in time by millenia. How did they diffuse
>> across time as well as space? A two thousand year old mummy
>> returning to life and sailing to South America? (Got the
>> makings of a new Anne Rice novel).
>This point of yours is not even a point. Give me one good reason why they
>should arise at similar times in order to be diffusionistic?
I would disagree. See Mary Beth Williiams' response to your request.
She said it very well.
>> The whole premise that
>> science is hiding or ignoring these thing is the big lie.
>> MOM refusing to tell the whole story after claiming this is
>> what science has done is PotKettleBlacking.
>If you are unable to see the nature of "suppression of the disagreeable",
>then I pity you. To speak of the absolute documentation in science is true,
>but it ignores the incorrect documentation and lost documentation, not to
>mention jeolously guarded documentation.
No need for a chorus of Warren Zevon's "Poor, Poor Pitiful Me." I saw the
nature of the "suppression of the disagreeable" facts as accomplished by
MOM. Paul Heinrich, others, and I have been able to provide responses
to most (all? I don't know, I lost track) of their allegations. If
the premise of "incorrect documentation and lost documentation, not
to mention jeolously guarded documentation" were a universal, we
should not be able to locate so much background material.
>An important example would be the "consensus" reached by the "International
>Team" working on the Dead Sea Scrolls, which BTW is still widely accepted.
I have no idea about this. It's not something that interests me.
Regards,
August Matthusen
Paul Lyon
Count Szabo (pet...@iceonline.com) wrote:
: Mary Beth Williams wrote:
: >
: > In <31971A...@iceonline.com> Count Szabo <pet...@iceonline.com>
: > writes:
: > >
: > >August, Matthusen wrote:
: > >> They are separated in time by millenia. How did they diffuse
: > >> across time as well as space? A two thousand year old mummy
: > >> returning to life and sailing to South America? (Got the
: > >> makings of a new Anne Rice novel)
: > >This point of yours is not even a point. Give me one good reason why
: > they
: > >should arise at similar times in order to be diffusionistic?
: > The whole idea surrounding *diffusion* necessitates that two _cultures_
: > need to be in _contact_ with one another in order for
: > information/technology to pass from one to the other. Unless you have
: > a time machine, these two *cultures* could never have achieved such a
: > feat.
: And that's beside the point. Do you suppose that the early Inca did not
: exist at the same time as the later Egyptian empire? I don't know why I
: wasted the time typing this...
This I gotta see: some of them Nile river craft making it in one piece thru
the Roaring Forties, or across the South Atlantic all the way up the Amazon,
and then our intrepid Egyptian explorers (including a royal architect,
assorted artisans, etc.) making it the rest of the way thru the jungle and
over the Andes :-)
BTW, there was only one Count and his name was Basie :-)
Ciao,
Paul
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Paul Lyon | "Without true justice
Liberal Arts Computer Lab | there can be no peace."
University of Texas at Austin | Lucretia Coffin Mott
email: p...@la.utexas.edu |
'phone: 512-471-5121 *** fax: 512-471-1061 |
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mary Beth Williams
In <319795...@iceonline.com> Count Szabo <pet...@iceonline.com>
writes:
>
>Mary Beth Williams wrote:
>> The whole idea surrounding *diffusion* necessitates that two
>>_cultures_ need to be in _contact_ with one another in order for
>> information/technology to pass from one to the other. Unless you
>>have a time machine, these two *cultures* could never have achieved
>>such a feat.
>Another typically authoritative absolutism.
>Perhaps first you need to define the mode of diffusionism.
>
>And that's beside the point. Do you suppose that the early Inca did
>not exist at the same time as the later Egyptian empire? I don't know
>why I wasted the time typing this...
Gee, Count Peter, just how _early_ are you talking about? Incan
civilization reached its height in the mid-15th-16th century A.D. Even
earlier Andean civilizations, such as the Chavin, only date to circa
900 B.C. Granted, I'm an Americanist, not an egyptologist, but I do
recall that the last Egyptian pyramids were built in the 17th-18th
centuries B.C. -- after that, stone tombs were favored.
Furthermore, are you sure you're claiming similarities between Egyptian
and _Peruvian_ *pyramids*?
Eric Brunner
[And a grand huzzah to Peter Szabo on the occasion of his election to Count!]
: >And trust me, I take all your answers with a sprinkle of salt.
: Excellent! That's the point I was making above re: crank pulling.
: Healthy skepticism is good. BTW, sea salt; iodized salt; or the extra
: special, world renowned Purple Salt (tm)?
Is Whittet actually selling the stuff now??? Inquiring minds want to know.
--
Kitakitamatsinohpowaw (I'll see you again),
--Eric Brunner
Paul J. Gans
Count Szabo (pet...@iceonline.com) wrote:
: Mary Beth Williams wrote:
: >
: > In <31971A...@iceonline.com> Count Szabo <pet...@iceonline.com>
: > writes:
: > >
: > >August, Matthusen wrote:
: >
: > >> They are separated in time by millenia. How did they diffuse
: > >> across time as well as space? A two thousand year old mummy
: > >> returning to life and sailing to South America? (Got the
: > >> makings of a new Anne Rice novel)
: > >
: > >This point of yours is not even a point. Give me one good reason why
: > they
: > >should arise at similar times in order to be diffusionistic?
: >
: > The whole idea surrounding *diffusion* necessitates that two _cultures_
: > need to be in _contact_ with one another in order for
: > information/technology to pass from one to the other. Unless you have
: > a time machine, these two *cultures* could never have achieved such a
: > feat.
: Another typically authoritative absolutism.
: Perhaps first you need to define the mode of diffusionism.
You are right, O wise one. Clearly mental telepathy is involved.
Or is it diffusion by secret signs (you know, one reads the sky
or sheep entrails for the details of technology in use 1000 years
and far more miles away.) Perhaps it was the Wandering Jew who
brought the news. Who knows? But I am sure that you are right.
: And that's beside the point. Do you suppose that the early Inca did not
: exist at the same time as the later Egyptian empire? I don't know why I
: wasted the time typing this...
A killing ripost to MB's question. We certainly can inagurate
you as a new net.savant.
----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
Stella Nemeth
mbwi...@ix.netcom.com(Mary Beth Williams) wrote:
>In <31971A...@iceonline.com> Count Szabo <pet...@iceonline.com>
>writes:
>>
>>August, Matthusen wrote:
>>> They are separated in time by millenia. How did they diffuse
>>> across time as well as space? A two thousand year old mummy
>>> returning to life and sailing to South America? (Got the
>>> makings of a new Anne Rice novel)
>>
>>This point of yours is not even a point. Give me one good reason why
>they
>>should arise at similar times in order to be diffusionistic?
>The whole idea surrounding *diffusion* necessitates that two _cultures_
>need to be in _contact_ with one another in order for
>information/technology to pass from one to the other. Unless you have
>a time machine, these two *cultures* could never have achieved such a
>feat.
No time machine needed. Greek and Roman culture managed to get
diffused into Italy during the Renaissance and into France and America
at the end of the 18th Century without a time machine. Egypt managed
to get diffused into France, England and to a lesser extent America at
the beginning of the 19th Century again, without a time machine.
As examples for Greece and Room, have a good look at almost any
Federalist building on the East Coast, especially anything in
Washington, DC. Also almost anything built in Rome during the
Renaissance, especially if it has a dome or round arches. Most
Renaissance painting and the paintings of David provide additional
good examples of the influence of one culture upon another through a
time barrier.
Egyptian styles are more obvious in French wooden furniture than
anywhere else I can come up off the top of my head, except for the
Washington Monument in Washington, DC. The other heavily Egyptian
influenced style, as someone pointed out to me recently, is Art
Nouveau, which is early 20th Century.
Stella Nemeth
s.ne...@ix.netcom.com
Count Szabo
> > [still] I don't know why I wasted the time typing this...
Mary Beth Williams wrote:
>
> In <319795...@iceonline.com> Count Szabo <pet...@iceonline.com>
> writes:
> >
> >Mary Beth Williams wrote:
>
> >> The whole idea surrounding *diffusion* necessitates that two
> >>_cultures_ need to be in _contact_ with one another in order for
> >> information/technology to pass from one to the other. Unless you
> >>have a time machine, these two *cultures* could never have achieved
> >>such a feat.
>
> >Another typically authoritative absolutism.
> >Perhaps first you need to define the mode of diffusionism.
> >
> >And that's beside the point. Do you suppose that the early Inca did
> >not exist at the same time as the later Egyptian empire?
>
> Gee, Count Peter, just how _early_ are you talking about? Incan
> civilization reached its height in the mid-15th-16th century A.D. Even
> earlier Andean civilizations, such as the Chavin, only date to circa
> 900 B.C. Granted, I'm an Americanist, not an egyptologist, but I do
> recall that the last Egyptian pyramids were built in the 17th-18th
> centuries B.C. -- after that, stone tombs were favored.
Well, Mary Beth Williams, do you suppose that after the 17th century B.C. the
pyramids suddenly became non-cultural and were thereafter ignored? Would I
be totally unreasonable to say it would have been possible for a boat of
Egyptians to cross the Atlantic around 1000 BC? I could illustrate many,
many possible vehicles of "diffusionism" for you if you lack an imagination
of your own. Just ask.
> Furthermore, are you sure you're claiming similarities between Egyptian
> and _Peruvian_ *pyramids*?
Oh relax.
Count Szabo
Paul J. Gans wrote:
>
> Count Szabo (pet...@iceonline.com) wrote:
>
> : Mary Beth Williams wrote:
> : >
> : > The whole idea surrounding *diffusion* necessitates that two _cultures_
> : > need to be in _contact_ with one another in order for
> : > information/technology to pass from one to the other. Unless you have
> : > a time machine, these two *cultures* could never have achieved such a
> : > feat.
>
> : Another typically authoritative absolutism.
> : Perhaps first you need to define the mode of diffusionism.
>
I see I am creating a following (dogged though it is). ;)
> Or is it diffusion by secret signs (you know, one reads the sky
> or sheep entrails for the details of technology in use 1000 years
> and far more miles away.) Perhaps it was the Wandering Jew who
> brought the news. Who knows? But I am sure that you are right.
Right about what? This is the funny part. Y'all are trying to pretend that
I am proposing a theory. I am not even asserting an opinion! You have been
objecting to my little statement about a few points that corroborate
diffusionism. If you deny the truth of this statement, that only proves your
inability to grow another brain cell.
If you had much creativity you would be able to imagine infinite plausable
explanations for these mysteries, and would never be caught dead saying:
> : > The whole idea surrounding *diffusion* necessitates that two _cultures_
> : > need to be in _contact_ with one another in order for
> : > information/technology to pass from one to the other. Unless you have
> : > a time machine, these two *cultures* could never have achieved such a
> : > feat.
This statement is false in many ways. Perhaps you just can't see it.
> : And that's beside the point. Do you suppose that the early Inca did not
> : exist at the same time as the later Egyptian empire? I don't know why I
> : wasted the time typing this...
>
> A killing ripost to MB's question. We certainly can inagurate
> you as a new net.savant.
Please do. Whatever distances me from your kind, intellectually, will be to
my benefit.
Count Szabo
> Sorry, again. But you did bring up the entirety of point #2. Perhaps I should
> have written: "For what kind of "incriminating evidence" should "whoever
> was inquiring" be looking?" I think my original response covered this.
I think any kind would have suited the wannabe debunkers.
> >> They are separated in time by millenia. How did they diffuse
> >> across time as well as space? A two thousand year old mummy
> >> returning to life and sailing to South America? (Got the
> >> makings of a new Anne Rice novel).
>
> >This point of yours is not even a point. Give me one good reason why they
> >should arise at similar times in order to be diffusionistic?
>
> I would disagree. See Mary Beth Williiams' response to your request.
> She said it very well.
Oh. I shan't comment as the hostility meter is indicating that it is time to
move on.
> No need for a chorus of Warren Zevon's "Poor, Poor Pitiful Me." I saw the
> nature of the "suppression of the disagreeable" facts as accomplished by
> MOM. Paul Heinrich, others, and I have been able to provide responses
> to most (all? I don't know, I lost track) of their allegations. If
> the premise of "incorrect documentation and lost documentation, not
> to mention jeolously guarded documentation" were a universal, we
> should not be able to locate so much background material.
Actually MOM was the least in influencing my understanding of conspiracy
theory. The book listed below is a good start.
> >An important example would be the "consensus" reached by the "International
> >Team" working on the Dead Sea Scrolls, which BTW is still widely accepted.
>
> I have no idea about this. It's not something that interests me.
It shows in your treatment of this subject..
No, academic scandals don't tend to interest academics unless they are
directly affected..
Mary Beth Williams
In <4nh2al$m...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com> S.NE...@IX.NETCOM.COM
(Stella Nemeth) writes:
>
>mbwi...@ix.netcom.com(Mary Beth Williams) wrote:
>
>>In <31971A...@iceonline.com> Count Szabo <pet...@iceonline.com>
>>writes:
>>The whole idea surrounding *diffusion* necessitates that two
_cultures_
>>need to be in _contact_ with one another in order for
>>information/technology to pass from one to the other. Unless you
have
>>a time machine, these two *cultures* could never have achieved such a
>>feat.
>
>No time machine needed. Greek and Roman culture managed to get
>diffused into Italy during the Renaissance and into France and America
>at the end of the 18th Century without a time machine. Egypt managed
>to get diffused into France, England and to a lesser extent America at
>the beginning of the 19th Century again, without a time machine.
>As examples for Greece and Room, have a good look at almost any
>Federalist building on the East Coast, especially anything in
>Washington, DC. Also almost anything built in Rome during the
>Renaissance, especially if it has a dome or round arches. Most
>Renaissance painting and the paintings of David provide additional
>good examples of the influence of one culture upon another through a
>time barrier.
>
>Egyptian styles are more obvious in French wooden furniture than
>anywhere else I can come up off the top of my head, except for the
>Washington Monument in Washington, DC. The other heavily Egyptian
>influenced style, as someone pointed out to me recently, is Art
>Nouveau, which is early 20th Century.
First off, the discussion above is in regards to Ancient Egypt and
Incan Peru, two cultures separated by time as well as _SPACE_.
And you believe that Roman and Italian cultures were _NOT_ in contact
with one another? And that Napoleon's *travels* into Egypt (i.e.,
direct contact) did not influence the *diffusion* of Egyptian
stylistics into Western Europe?
Diffusion is more than just *copying* visual styles. Did the Western
Europeans *diffuse* the custom of feeding their underclass to the lions
when they built their collesiums? Did Napoleon bring back
mummification and the internment of incredible material wealth with the
dead to Paris? Did Brits change their culinary traditions (roasted
peacock, anyone?) How many Philadelphia businessmen during the Federal
period do you think were wandering around town in togas?
Review the arguments that hyperdiffusionists like Mr. Szabo have used
to argue for *diffusion* from Eastern to Western Hemispheres. Its more
than just *copying* pyramid for pyramid (as, in case you've not
noticed, Mesoamerican pyramids look nothing like those of ancient
Giza). Hyperdiffusionists argue that *ideas* and *technology* were
transferred, not just *style*. I live in a Federal/Greek Revival house
-- do you think its builders tried to discover the technology Ancient
Greeks used to construct their buildings, or simply looked at a drawing
in a plan book (or copied their more hip neighbor).
The diffusion of maize horticulture is a perfect example of true
*diffusion*... not only the grain itself, but the technology, and
oftentimes the social structure, diffused from the American Southwest
to the Eastern Woodlands. But also there was change along the way...
As my Californian husband recently found out, the corn I've planted in
my Northern New England garden is a far cry from that which he planted
last year...
MB Williams
Dept. of Anthropology, UMass-Amherst
Mary Beth Williams
In <319C10...@iceonline.com> Count Szabo <pet...@iceonline.com>
writes:
>> > [still] I don't know why I wasted the time typing this...
>
>
>Mary Beth Williams wrote:
>>
>> In <319795...@iceonline.com> Count Szabo <pet...@iceonline.com>
>> writes:
>> >
>> >Mary Beth Williams wrote:
>>
>> >>_cultures_ need to be in _contact_ with one another in order for
>> >> information/technology to pass from one to the other. Unless you
>> >>have a time machine, these two *cultures* could never have
achieved
>> >>such a feat.
>>
>> >Perhaps first you need to define the mode of diffusionism.
>> >
did
>> >not exist at the same time as the later Egyptian empire?
>>
>> civilization reached its height in the mid-15th-16th century A.D.
Even
>> earlier Andean civilizations, such as the Chavin, only date to circa
>> 900 B.C. Granted, I'm an Americanist, not an egyptologist, but I do
>> recall that the last Egyptian pyramids were built in the 17th-18th
>> centuries B.C. -- after that, stone tombs were favored.
>
>Well, Mary Beth Williams, do you suppose that after the 17th century
>B.C. the pyramids suddenly became non-cultural and were thereafter
>ignored? Would I be totally unreasonable to say it would have been
>possible for a boat of Egyptians to cross the Atlantic around 1000 BC?
But Peru doesn't have an Atlantic port. Neither did Peruvians build
pyramids. But Mayans did...1200 years after your Egyptian sailors
landed.
> I could illustrate many, many possible vehicles of "diffusionism" for
>you if you lack an imagination of your own. Just ask.
Oh, gee, I can't resist... Go ahead, tell me.
>> Furthermore, are you sure you're claiming similarities between
Egyptian
>> and _Peruvian_ *pyramids*?
>
>Oh relax.
Good answer. When you make a complete gaff, shift the attention to the
other party...
v187...@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
In article <319795...@iceonline.com>, Count Szabo <pet...@iceonline.com>
writes:
[history of thread deleted]
>Another typically authoritative absolutism.
>Perhaps first you need to define the mode of diffusionism.
>
>And that's beside the point. Do you suppose that the early Inca did not
Because you really wanted an answer, I hope, 'cause here one is.
No, the early Inca did not exist at the same time as the later Egyptian
empire, except in the sense that the early US existed at the same time
as the, say, Han Empire in China. The Inca empire existed for about a
century before being conquered by the Spanish. Other 'horizon' cultures
existed in the Central Andes before that, such as the Moche. What needs
to be the case in order to establish that diffusion took place is to
show that the processes of mummification (that's what we're talking
about, right?) was the same in both cultures, and that some means of
knowledge transfer either did or plausibly could have existed between
the two. I doubt that this situation satisfies the first (though I
don't know for sure), but a large temporal gap between the two forms
of mummification is *not* besides the point, even if continuous culture
contact existed between the two regions for the entire expanse of time.
Hope that helps.
-Pat Crowe, SUNY at Buffalo
Steve Whittet
In article <4nhopf$6...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>, mbwi...@ix.netcom.co
says...
>
>In <4nh2al$m...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com> S.NE...@IX.NETCOM.COM
>(Stella Nemeth) writes:
>>
>>mbwi...@ix.netcom.com(Mary Beth Williams) wrote:
>>
>>>In <31971A...@iceonline.com> Count Szabo <pet...@iceonline.com>
>>>writes:
>
>_cultures_
>>>need to be in _contact_ with one another in order for
>>>information/technology to pass from one to the other.
No, they need not be directly in contact. One method by which
ideas diffuse is through intermediaries.
Unless you
>have
>>>a time machine, these two *cultures* could never have achieved such a
>>>feat.
>>
>>No time machine needed. Greek and Roman culture managed to get
>>diffused into Italy during the Renaissance and into France and America
>>at the end of the 18th Century without a time machine. Egypt managed
>>to get diffused into France, England and to a lesser extent America at
>>the beginning of the 19th Century again, without a time machine.
>>As examples for Greece and Room, have a good look at almost any
>>Federalist building on the East Coast, especially anything in
>>Washington, DC. Also almost anything built in Rome during the
>>Renaissance, especially if it has a dome or round arches. Most
>>Renaissance painting and the paintings of David provide additional
>>good examples of the influence of one culture upon another through a
>>time barrier.
>>
>>Egyptian styles are more obvious in French wooden furniture than
>>anywhere else I can come up off the top of my head, except for the
>>Washington Monument in Washington, DC. The other heavily Egyptian
>>influenced style, as someone pointed out to me recently, is Art
>>Nouveau, which is early 20th Century.
>
>First off, the discussion above is in regards to Ancient Egypt and
>Incan Peru, two cultures separated by time as well as _SPACE_.
No, the discussion is not limited to any two cultures. The principles
of diffusion apply equally well to modern cultures and a good example
is the transmission of ideas by media. Newspapers ,radio, television,
books, alll these things make the world a smaller place.
>
>And you believe that Roman and Italian cultures were _NOT_ in contact
>with one another? And that Napoleon's *travels* into Egypt (i.e.,
>direct contact) did not influence the *diffusion* of Egyptian
>stylistics into Western Europe?
It isn't that direct contact doesn't diffuse ideas. Of course it does.
It's just that indirect contact also can result in diffusion.Indeed
how about the spread of Christianity and other religions as the result
of the work of a few zealots and missionaries. Two cultures widely
separated in space sharing similar attitudes and values as the
result of the work of a few isolated individuals. Do I need to
give specific examples?
>
>Diffusion is more than just *copying* visual styles.
Actually any exchange of ideas by any mechanism could be described
as diffusion.
Did the Western
>Europeans *diffuse* the custom of feeding their underclass to the lions
>when they built their collesiums?
Yes, right along with the diffusion of the collesiums themselves and
the culture they represented.
Did Napoleon bring back
>mummification and the internment of incredible material wealth with the
>dead to Paris?
Actually yes, It was quite a fad in Paris to have Egyptian style
mausoleums, I think John Rohmer did a piece on it
Did Brits change their culinary traditions (roasted
>peacock, anyone?) How many Philadelphia businessmen during the Federal
>period do you think were wandering around town in togas?
Hmmmm, tea anyone? And I don't know about the togas but George
Washington and most of the signers of the Declaration of Independence
did enjoy wearing their masonic robes and aprons, actually though,
you may be right, that is a bit early for the Federal period. So that
would include the elks and odd fellows who were more into hats, I guess
the togas were more of a southern plantation thing with the exception
of a few ivy leauge colleges like Ha v ad.
>
>Review the arguments that hyperdiffusionists like Mr. Szabo have used
>to argue for *diffusion* from Eastern to Western Hemispheres. Its more
>than just *copying* pyramid for pyramid (as, in case you've not
>noticed, Mesoamerican pyramids look nothing like those of ancient
>Giza).
Quite right. They actually look more like those of Saqqara, the true
pyramid form of Giza was a much later development.All over the world
early cultures independently invented raised platforms. Diffusion, by
the way, is not about "copying", it's about exchanging ideas. People
tend to learn from one another. Its really no big deal.
Hyperdiffusionists argue that *ideas* and *technology* were
>transferred, not just *style*.
No, diffusionists also argue that ideas are transmitted, technology
being among the ideas which people talk about when they get together.
It begins with show and tell and works up to trade.
I live in a Federal/Greek Revival house
You do realise those are two completely different architectural styles?
An architectural style is an example of the diffusion of an idea. So
are fads and fashions. Jokes get diffused, so do scandals and gossip.
>-- do you think its builders tried to discover the technology Ancient
>Greeks used to construct their buildings, or simply looked at a drawing
>in a plan book (or copied their more hip neighbor).
Actually all three. The master builders of the original American Gothic
traditions built places like Newport Rhode Island from what they had
learned in their own experience. The Plan Book was to some degree
responsible for the Greek revival, but many notable American architects
such as Thomas Jefferson did indeed try to discover everything they could
about how the ancient Greeks used to construct their buildings going so far
as to study Greek and Latin so they could read Vitruvious for themselves.
>
>The diffusion of maize horticulture is a perfect example of true
>*diffusion*... not only the grain itself, but the technology, and
>oftentimes the social structure, diffused from the American Southwest
>to the Eastern Woodlands. But also there was change along the way...
As it happens MB there are many examples of diffusion. Certainly
you should agree that whenever two cultures exchange the unique seeds of
their inheritence there are liable to be both similarities and some changes.
>As my Californian husband recently found out, the corn I've planted in
>my Northern New England garden is a far cry from that which he planted
>last year...
>
>MB Williams
>Dept. of Anthropology, UMass-Amherst
>
>
I hope that the Williams family will be happy
to reap what they have sown, and that all your
MOM issues will be dealt with to your satisfaction.
steve
Mary Beth Williams
In <4nl9o8$b...@shore.shore.net> whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
writes:
>In article <4nhopf$6...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
mbwi...@ix.netcom.co
>says...
>>
>>In <4nh2al$m...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com> S.NE...@IX.NETCOM.COM
>>(Stella Nemeth) writes:
>>>
>>>mbwi...@ix.netcom.com(Mary Beth Williams) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In <31971A...@iceonline.com> Count Szabo
<pet...@iceonline.com>
>>>>writes:
>>
>>>>The whole idea surrounding *diffusion* necessitates that two
>>_cultures_
>>>>need to be in _contact_ with one another in order for
>>>>information/technology to pass from one to the other.
>
>No, they need not be directly in contact. One method by which
>ideas diffuse is through intermediaries.
Steve, once again you show you're lack of knowledge of your own
espoused theoretical framework. *Diffusion* does not occur _THROUGH_
intermediaries -- Technology may move from one group to another and
then to another, but it is not *diffused* through an intermediary whose
sole purpose is to *move* that information/technology. Diffusion is a
process which involves relationships, most likely built upon some form
of mutual trust, kinship, or power. Thus, group A has a relationship
with group B, passes information/technology on, and then group B may at
some point move to transfer it to group C. But true diffusion,
particularly of technologies which have far reaching social or economic
implications are not taken or passed lightly. Please, read a little
diffusionist theory.
:::snipping discussion on the relevance of the discussion of Peru and
Egypt to modern Western European diffusion of *stylistic*
attributes:::::
>>First off, the discussion above is in regards to Ancient Egypt and
>>Incan Peru, two cultures separated by time as well as _SPACE_.
>
>No, the discussion is not limited to any two cultures. The principles
>of diffusion apply equally well to modern cultures and a good example
>is the transmission of ideas by media. Newspapers ,radio, television,
>books, alll these things make the world a smaller place.
Whittet, go back and read the thread. We were discussing Ancient Egypt
and Peru. If you'd like to start a thread on modern diffusion, please
feel free. Otherwise, please stick to the topic at hand.
>>And you believe that Roman and Italian cultures were _NOT_ in contact
>>with one another? And that Napoleon's *travels* into Egypt (i.e.,
>>direct contact) did not influence the *diffusion* of Egyptian
>>stylistics into Western Europe?
>
>It isn't that direct contact doesn't diffuse ideas. Of course it does.
>It's just that indirect contact also can result in diffusion.Indeed
>how about the spread of Christianity and other religions as the result
>of the work of a few zealots and missionaries. Two cultures widely
>separated in space sharing similar attitudes and values as the
>result of the work of a few isolated individuals. Do I need to
>give specific examples?
Well, the example given above does not support your hypothesis. Are
you saying that Christianity was spread by people who had not developed
relationships (social, economic or otherwise) with those whom they
sought to convert? They simply walked up to strangers who had heard
nothing of this Jesus guy, told them a tale, and they became believers
on the spot? Perhaps you have better examples, particularly ones which
relate to the topic at hand, the spread of technology/information from
Ancient Egypt to pre-Contact Peru.
>>Diffusion is more than just *copying* visual styles.
>
>Actually any exchange of ideas by any mechanism could be described
>as diffusion.
Please provide a citation, as this is far from the application of the
term to archaeological/anthropological contexts.
>Did the Western
>>Europeans *diffuse* the custom of feeding their underclass to the
lions
>>when they built their collesiums?
>
>Yes, right along with the diffusion of the collesiums themselves and
>the culture they represented.
Nineteenth-century Brits were feeding poor limeys to the lions?
Perhaps you have a citation, or you would care to re-read Stella's post
discussing architecture in the *Revivalist* periods.
> Did Napoleon bring back
>>mummification and the internment of incredible material wealth with
the
>>dead to Paris?
>
>Actually yes, It was quite a fad in Paris to have Egyptian style
>mausoleums, I think John Rohmer did a piece on it.
Are you talking once again about stylistic mimicry, or the diffusion of
the actual practice of mummification and other distinct mortuary
customs of Ancient Egypt.
>
> Did Brits change their culinary traditions (roasted
>>peacock, anyone?) How many Philadelphia businessmen during the
Federal
>>period do you think were wandering around town in togas?
>
>Hmmmm, tea anyone?
Uh, a result of direct contact (i.e., colonialism) with India... Your
point was????
And I don't know about the togas but George
>Washington and most of the signers of the Declaration of Independence
>did enjoy wearing their masonic robes and aprons, actually though,
>you may be right, that is a bit early for the Federal period. So that
>would include the elks and odd fellows who were more into hats, I
guess
>the togas were more of a southern plantation thing with the exception
>of a few ivy leauge colleges like Ha v ad.
Which just supports my argument that just because *style* was copied
from ancient cultures by Western Europeans does not indicate
*diffusion* of ideas/technology from one to the other.
>>
>>Review the arguments that hyperdiffusionists like Mr. Szabo have used
>>to argue for *diffusion* from Eastern to Western Hemispheres. Its
more
>>than just *copying* pyramid for pyramid (as, in case you've not
>>noticed, Mesoamerican pyramids look nothing like those of ancient
>>Giza).
>
>Quite right. They actually look more like those of Saqqara, the true
>pyramid form of Giza was a much later development.All over the world
>early cultures independently invented raised platforms. Diffusion, by
>the way, is not about "copying", it's about exchanging ideas. People
>tend to learn from one another. Its really no big deal.
Uh, yes, I have been arguing, in case you missed it, that diffusion is
NOT about copying... However, you claimed in response to my statement:
(direct quote) *Diffusion is more than just *copying* visual styles*
that:
>Actually any exchange of ideas by any mechanism could be described
>as diffusion.
So you seem to be directly contradicting yourself (and in the same
post, no less) wouldn't you say?
>>Hyperdiffusionists argue that *ideas* and *technology* were
>>transferred, not just *style*.
>
>No, diffusionists also argue that ideas are transmitted, technology
>being among the ideas which people talk about when they get together.
>It begins with show and tell and works up to trade.
There is a distinction between *hyperdiffusion*, i.e., an assumption of
a transfer of technology between groups with no evidence (in fact,
negative evidence) of a relationship which would allow for such
transfer, and *diffusion*, a theoretical framework which investigates
the process of the movement of information/technology. You've shown in
the past that you are very familiar with the former, but the statement
above exhibits how little you know of the latter. *Trade* is a
separate issue than diffusion, and in fact, often inhibits the
acceptance of technology within a group, e.g., why learn how to make
guns when you can trade for them.
>> I live in a Federal/Greek Revival house
>You do realise those are two completely different architectural
>styles?
I *thought* you were an architect... Perhaps you slept through your
history of architecture courses? The Federal (Adams) and Greek Revival
periods overlapped for a number of years, and hence many houses built
during the 1820s-1830 (such as mine) exhibit characteristics of both.
This is particularly true in more *remote* or rural areas where houses
were often designed from *books*. As I am well versed in architectural
archaeology (having assisted in preparing of number of sites for
submission for Historic Preservation status) I could provide some cites
on the subject of vernacular houses if you'd like...
>>The diffusion of maize horticulture is a perfect example of true
>>*diffusion*... not only the grain itself, but the technology, and
>>oftentimes the social structure, diffused from the American Southwest
>>to the Eastern Woodlands. But also there was change along the way...
>
>As it happens MB there are many examples of diffusion. Certainly
>you should agree that whenever two cultures exchange the unique seeds
>of
>their inheritence there are liable to be both similarities and some
changes.
Perhaps, perhaps not... This is the root of theoretical *diffusion* --
_how_ and _why_ technology moves from one group to another... And your
assumption of mutual exchange as inherent in diffusion is highly
problematic... Once again, do some reading, please.
Steve Whittet
In article <4nlt6a$a...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>, mbwi...@ix.netcom.co
says...
>
>In <4nl9o8$b...@shore.shore.net> whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
>writes:
>>
>>In article <4nhopf$6...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
>mbwi...@ix.netcom.co
>>says...
>>>
>>>In <4nh2al$m...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com> S.NE...@IX.NETCOM.COM
>>>(Stella Nemeth) writes:
>>>>
>>>>mbwi...@ix.netcom.com(Mary Beth Williams) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In <31971A...@iceonline.com> Count Szabo
><pet...@iceonline.com>
>>>>>writes:
>>>
>>>>>The whole idea surrounding *diffusion* necessitates that two
>>>_cultures_
>>>>>need to be in _contact_ with one another in order for
>>>>>information/technology to pass from one to the other.
>>
>>No, they need not be directly in contact. One method by which
>>ideas diffuse is through intermediaries.
>
>Steve, once again you show you're lack of knowledge of your own
>espoused theoretical framework.
Nice to see you again too MB.
> *Diffusion* does not occur _THROUGH_
>intermediaries -- Technology may move from one group to another and
>then to another, but it is not *diffused* through an intermediary whose
>sole purpose is to *move* that information/technology.
Colin Renfrew, Paul Bahn "Archaeology, Theories, Methods and Practice"
page 364"
"Symbolic Exchange and Interaction"
"...there has been a tendency to label interactions
between neighboring areas as simply diffusion with
one area dominent over another. One response to such
dominence models is to think in terms of autonomy;
of complete independence of one area from another;
but it seems unrealistic to exclude the possibility
of significant interactions."
Diffusion is a
>process which involves relationships, most likely built upon some form
>of mutual trust, kinship, or power. Thus, group A has a relationship
>with group B, passes information/technology on, and then group B may at
>some point move to transfer it to group C. But true diffusion,
>particularly of technologies which have far reaching social or economic
>implications are not taken or passed lightly. Please, read a little
>diffusionist theory.
"when discussing such interactions between polities
(independent societies) of equal status, it has been found
useful to speak of interaction spheres." Ibid.
The list includes:
"1.) Competition...
2.) Competitive emulation...
3.) Warfare...
4.) Transmission of innovation...
5.) Symbolic entrainment...
6.) Ceremonial exchange of valuables...
7.) Flow of commodities...
8.) lanquage and ethnicity..."
"The study of exchange has been a growth area in modern archaeology"
>
>:::snipping discussion on the relevance of the discussion of Peru and
>Egypt to modern Western European diffusion of *stylistic*
>attributes:::::
>
>>>First off, the discussion above is in regards to Ancient Egypt and
>>>Incan Peru, two cultures separated by time as well as _SPACE_.
>>
>>No, the discussion is not limited to any two cultures. The principles
>>of diffusion apply equally well to modern cultures and a good example
>>is the transmission of ideas by media. Newspapers ,radio, television,
>>books, alll these things make the world a smaller place.
>
>Whittet, go back and read the thread. We were discussing Ancient Egypt
>and Peru. If you'd like to start a thread on modern diffusion, please
>feel free. Otherwise, please stick to the topic at hand.
I have been involved in this thread in one way or another for two years
MB, none of this should be news to you. The point is that diffusion
does not equate to hyperdiffusion, end of story.
>
>>>And you believe that Roman and Italian cultures were _NOT_ in contact
>>>with one another? And that Napoleon's *travels* into Egypt (i.e.,
>>>direct contact) did not influence the *diffusion* of Egyptian
>>>stylistics into Western Europe?
>>
>>It isn't that direct contact doesn't diffuse ideas. Of course it does.
>>It's just that indirect contact also can result in diffusion.Indeed
>>how about the spread of Christianity and other religions as the result
>>of the work of a few zealots and missionaries. Two cultures widely
>>separated in space sharing similar attitudes and values as the
>>result of the work of a few isolated individuals. Do I need to
>>give specific examples?
>
>Well, the example given above does not support your hypothesis. Are
>you saying that Christianity was spread by people who had not developed
>relationships (social, economic or otherwise) with those whom they
>sought to convert?
Yes. One example would be the attempt of missionaries from New England
to get Hawaian women to wear bras and even bustles. I would have to
say that while the friendly and polite Hawaians induldged the
missionaries in public with the possible motive of wanting to make their
guests feel more comfortable, real social relationships, economic
or otherwise were much slower to develop with the missionaries than
with the crews of the whalers who stopped over in Hawaii.
> They simply walked up to strangers who had heard
>nothing of this Jesus guy, told them a tale, and they
>became believers on the spot?
The missionaries did simply walk up to strangers who had
heard nothing of this Jesus guy, and tell them a tale, yes;
and the polite Hawaians did whatever was necessary to make
their guests feel comfortable because the issue was not
important to them.
I rather doubt the hawaians became believers on the spot however
since they continued to dance the hula with the whaling crews at
night when the missionaries had gone to bed!
> Perhaps you have better examples, particularly ones which
>relate to the topic at hand, the spread of technology/information from
>Ancient Egypt to pre-Contact Peru.
Do you want to discuss archaeology or confine the discussion
to an arena where the issues are limited to those you can score
points on? Lets take the wraps off the horns of the bull and
dance.
Would you deny that the ancesters of the pre contact
inhabitants of Peru can trace their original roots back
to Africa? I admit it is a contraversial issue to which there
are perhaps more than two sides.
The bottom line still contines to present some unanswered questions.
When did this migration occur?
What was the route?
Was there one migration and one route only, or was there more than one?
Did people come and go back and forth along various segments of the route?
How long did it take?
Once you have admitted that there was an African people who
journeyed from Africa to Peru, perhaps we can put this nonsense
about hyperdiffusion aside?!?
>
>>>Diffusion is more than just *copying* visual styles.
>>
>>Actually any exchange of ideas by any mechanism could be described
>>as diffusion.
>
>Please provide a citation, as this is far from the application of the
>term to archaeological/anthropological contexts.
"Diffusion: a positive example. One instance where an innovation
in one place is known to have spread widely elsewhere through
diffusion is that of the alphabet. Around the 12th century BC
on the Levantine coast the Phoenicians developed a simplified
phoenetic script to write their semitic lanquage (a script
now believed to derive ultimately from Egyptian Hieroglyphics)
By the early 1st millenium BC the script had been adopted by
the Greeks to write their language. This ultimately formed the
basis for the Roman alphabet used today. (The Phoenician script
also gave rise to the Hebrew, Arabic, and manyother alphabets.)
But of course the Greek alphabet had first to be modified and
adopted in Italy to write the Etruscan language and then Latin
the Roman language. It was through Latin that the Roman alphabet
came to much of Europe and later the rest of the world."
Ibid page 446
>
>
>>Did the Western
>>>Europeans *diffuse* the custom of feeding their underclass to the
>lions
>>>when they built their collesiums?
>>
>>Yes, right along with the diffusion of the collesiums themselves and
>>the culture they represented.
>
>Nineteenth-century Brits were feeding poor limeys to the lions?
How about Spanish bullfighting? Medieval bear-baiting?
The inquisition and public torture? Drawing and quartering,
Public execution?
>Perhaps you have a citation, or you would care to re-read Stella's post
>discussing architecture in the *Revivalist* periods.
>
>> Did Napoleon bring back
>>>mummification and the internment of incredible material wealth with
>the
>>>dead to Paris?
>>
>>Actually yes, It was quite a fad in Paris to have Egyptian style
>>mausoleums, I think John Rohmer did a piece on it.
>
>Are you talking once again about stylistic mimicry, or the diffusion of
>the actual practice of mummification and other distinct mortuary
>customs of Ancient Egypt.
The imitation went so far as to include the practice of mummification
and so far as they were known, all the mortuary customs. This is far
from the only area in which the ancient Egyptian practicies, so far as
they were known, were slavishly copied. Obelisks were raised, and as
Stella and Colin Renfrew have pointed out there have been several other
areas of diffusion from Egypt to Europe.
>
>>
>> Did Brits change their culinary traditions (roasted
>>>peacock, anyone?) How many Philadelphia businessmen during the
>>>Federal period do you think were wandering around town in togas?
>>
>>Hmmmm, tea anyone?
>
>Uh, a result of direct contact (i.e., colonialism) with India... Your
>point was????
There was a tea trade before there were colonies. I would rather
attribute the colonies to the desire of the English to have their
tea, than the desire of the English to have their tea to the presence
of colonies.
>
>>And I don't know about the togas but George
>>Washington and most of the signers of the Declaration of Independence
>>did enjoy wearing their masonic robes and aprons, actually though,
>>you may be right, that is a bit early for the Federal period. So that
>>would include the elks and odd fellows who were more into hats, I
>>guess the togas were more of a southern plantation thing with the
>>exception of a few ivy leauge colleges like Ha v ad.
>
>Which just supports my argument that just because *style* was copied
>from ancient cultures by Western Europeans does not indicate
>*diffusion* of ideas/technology from one to the other.
A sense of style is some evidence of the presence of ideas,
though I can see where you would have difficulty with this.
>>>Review the arguments that hyperdiffusionists like Mr. Szabo have used
>>>to argue for *diffusion* from Eastern to Western Hemispheres.
>>>Its more than just *copying* pyramid for pyramid (as, in case you've not
>>>noticed, Mesoamerican pyramids look nothing like those of ancient
>>>Giza).
>>
>>Quite right. They actually look more like those of Saqqara, the true
>>pyramid form of Giza was a much later development.All over the world
>>early cultures independently invented raised platforms. Diffusion, by
>>the way, is not about "copying", it's about exchanging ideas. People
>>tend to learn from one another. Its really no big deal.
>
>Uh, yes, I have been arguing, in case you missed it, that diffusion is
>NOT about copying... However, you claimed in response to my statement:
>
>(direct quote) *Diffusion is more than just *copying* visual styles*
>
>that:
>
>>Actually any exchange of ideas by any mechanism could be described
>>as diffusion.
>
>So you seem to be directly contradicting yourself (and in the same
>post, no less) wouldn't you say?
Not at all, in both cases I would describe the diffusion of ideas
as a part of the process by which people communicate with one another.
You do have a point where, if there is no exchange of ideas there is no
communication and thus no diffusion.
>
>>>Hyperdiffusionists argue that *ideas* and *technology* were
>>>transferred, not just *style*.
>>
>>No, diffusionists also argue that ideas are transmitted, technology
>>being among the ideas which people talk about when they get together.
>>It begins with show and tell and works up to trade.
>
>There is a distinction between *hyperdiffusion*, i.e., an assumption of
>a transfer of technology between groups with no evidence (in fact,
>negative evidence) of a relationship which would allow for such
>transfer, and *diffusion*, a theoretical framework which investigates
>the process of the movement of information/technology.
We agree that there is a distinction between hyperdiffussion and diffusion.
I still don't think that your definitions adequately make that distinction
">an assumption of a transfer of technology between groups with
>no evidence (in fact,negative evidence) of a relationship which
>would allow for such transfer," would apply equally well to
assumptions, speculations and conjectures regarding many things
other than a transfer of technology.
The corollary however is that *assumptions* of the lack of a
relationship which would allow for such transfer would need
to be rexamined in the light of evidence that there was a
transfer of anything (ideas, an alphabet, tradegoods, etc;)
">a theoretical framework which investigates
>the process of the movement of information/technology."
This simply defines the evolution of ideas. It could include
diffusion and independent invention both.
Where independent invention is as much a part of the evolutionary
process as is diffusion your definition really fails to show the
essence of the similarities and differences between the two perspectives.
>You've shown in the past that you are very familiar with the
>former, but the statement above exhibits how little you know
>of the latter. *Trade* is a separate issue than diffusion,
No, trade is one of several mechanisms used to explain
how an idea gets from point A to point B instead of
requiring it be independently invented.
>and in fact, often inhibits the acceptance of technology
>within a group, e.g., why learn how to make
>guns when you can trade for them.
Because if you can make them better you can make money from
the trade.
>
>>> I live in a Federal/Greek Revival house
>
>>You do realise those are two completely different architectural
>>styles?
>
>I *thought* you were an architect... Perhaps you slept through your
>history of architecture courses? The Federal (Adams) and Greek Revival
>periods overlapped for a number of years, and hence many houses built
>during the 1820s-1830 (such as mine) exhibit characteristics of both.
Oh my goodness! You seriously want to challenge me on architecture?!
For your information:
Lets start with the periods.
Carole RifKind "A Field Guide to American Architecture"
Bonanza Books, New York, 1980
"1790-1820 Federal"
"1820-1860 Greek Revival"
Virginia and Lee McAlester, "A Field Guide to American Houses"
Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1988
The "Adam" 1780-1820 is one of three subdivisions of the Renaissance
Classical. The other two are "Georgian" 1770-1780, and "Colonial Revival"
1880-1955
"The majority of styled American houses are loosely modeled on one of
four architectural traditions. Ancient Classical, Renaissance Classical,
Medieval or Modern."
"The earliest, The Ancient Classical is based upon the monuments of ancient
Greece and Rome. The closely related Renaissance Classical tradition stems
from a revival of interest in classicism during the Renaisance."
[see "Normand's Parallel of the Orders of Architecture" edited by R A
Cordingley, Alex Trianti Ltd, London, 1959 for a fuller discussion]
"Three styles of American Classical houses are based on ancient classical
precedents. The first is the Early Classic Revival Style (1780-1830)
These are loosely based upon Roman models and are simple side gabled
or hipped roof houses with full height entry porches, usually with a
classic pediment above.
[See Asher Bejamins influential builders guide "The American Builders
Companion: Or a new system of architecture particularly adapted to the
present style of building in the United States of America" published in
Boston in 1806]
The next Ancient Classical style is the Greek Revival (1820-1860)
Greek Revival houses normally have a very wide band of trim below the eaves,
mimicking the entablature of Greek Temples. Many have full facade or
full entry height porches with large columns, but some only have a small
entry porch and others have no porch or columns. Both side gabled and hipped
roofs are common. In some regions many of the houses built in this style
are oriented so that the gable end becomes the front facade. These most
closely resemble their prototype Greek temples."
[I will skip the discussion of Neoclassical as it does not apply]
Basically what you are doing is confusing a house of the Ancient Classical
tradition c 1820-1860 with one of the Renaissance Classical tradition
c 1790-1820. lets give you the benefit of the doubt and allow that your
house was built in 1820. I will allow that both can have either gabled or
hipped and sometimes flat roofs. Look and see if the windows forms include
arched heads with oval ornament or if they are predominately rectangular.
That should be sufficient to make your determination.If that won't do it the
next clue is that Renaissance Classical usually has a balanced, symetrical
facade and the Adam has a fanlight above the door.Federal houses generally
have more ornamental grillage and Greek Revival houses are simple and
elegant.
>This is particularly true in more *remote* or rural areas where houses
>were often designed from *books*. As I am well versed in architectural
>archaeology (having assisted in preparing of number of sites for
>submission for Historic Preservation status) I could provide some cites
>on the subject of vernacular houses if you'd like...
You want to teach me architecture? Why don't you start by explaining the
relevance of the Tuscan order to our discussion...
>
>>>The diffusion of maize horticulture is a perfect example of true
>>>*diffusion*... not only the grain itself, but the technology, and
>>>oftentimes the social structure, diffused from the American Southwest
>>>to the Eastern Woodlands. But also there was change along the way...
>>
>>As it happens MB there are many examples of diffusion. Certainly
>>you should agree that whenever two cultures exchange the unique seeds
>>of their inheritence there are liable to be both similarities and some
>>changes.
>
>Perhaps, perhaps not... This is the root of theoretical *diffusion* --
>_how_ and _why_ technology moves from one group to another... And your
>assumption of mutual exchange as inherent in diffusion is highly
>problematic... Once again, do some reading, please.
This time, since you have decided to instruct me in the essentials
of my profession, I rather expect it will be you who needs to visit
the library ...cheers...
>
>MB Williams
>Dept. of Anthro., UMass-Amherst
>
steve
Mary Beth Williams
In <4nnhtc$h...@shore.shore.net> whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
writes:
>
>In article <4nlt6a$a...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,
mbwi...@ix.netcom.co
>says...
>>>> I live in a Federal/Greek Revival house
>>
>>>You do realise those are two completely different architectural
>>>styles?
>>
>>I *thought* you were an architect... Perhaps you slept through your
>>history of architecture courses? The Federal (Adams) and Greek
>>Revival periods overlapped for a number of years, and hence many
>>houses built during the 1820s-1830 (such as mine) exhibit
>>characteristics of both.
>Oh my goodness! You seriously want to challenge me on architecture?!
>For your information:
>
>Lets start with the periods.
>Virginia and Lee McAlester, "A Field Guide to American Houses"
>Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1988
:::snipping details regarding Federal (Adam) and Greek Revival
houses:::
>Basically what you are doing is confusing a house of the Ancient
>Classical tradition c 1820-1860 with one of the Renaissance Classical
>tradition c 1790-1820. lets give you the benefit of the doubt and
>allow that your house was built in 1820. I will allow that both can
>have either gabled or hipped and sometimes flat roofs. Look and see if
>the windows forms include arched heads with oval ornament or if they
>are predominately rectangular. That should be sufficient to make your
>determination.If that won't do it the next clue is that Renaissance
>Classical usually has a balanced, symetrical facade and the Adam has a
>fanlight above the door. Federal houses generally have more
>ornamental grillage and Greek Revival houses are simple and
>elegant.
Perhaps you need to read your sources more thoroughly, rather than just
flipping to the sections on Adam or Greek Revival.
From page 12, McAlester and McAlester _A Field Guide to American
Houses_: "Most American houses have been built in one of the any
architectural styles outlined in the preceding sections. Some,
however, do not fit neatly into one of these stylistic categories but,
instead, have characteristics of two or more styles. Such houses may
have been originally built as stylistic mixtures or may have resulted
from later attempts to alter the style through remodeling... Most early
stylistic mixtures occurred during the transitional periods when these
persistent fashions were changing. Thus, some transitional houses in
the English colonies share Georgian and Adam features, while others
blend Adam with Greek Revival detailing [as in my house].*
>>This is particularly true in more *remote* or rural areas where
>>houses were often designed from *books*. As I am well versed in
>>architectural archaeology (having assisted in preparing of number of
>>sites for submission for Historic Preservation status) I could
>>provide some cites on the subject of vernacular houses if you'd
>>like...
>
>You want to teach me architecture?
No, as I'm sure I would not be any more successful than your earlier
instructors. But perhaps reading your own citations more thoroughly
would help.
Count Szabo
Firstly, Mary Beth, I am not a diffusionist. The reason you think I am is
because I listed some points supporting this theory. This is yet another
example of your absolutist thinking. Of course, I acknowledge points
supporting all reasonable theories. i would be narrow minded not to.
So be careful how you label people if you want them to treat you as an honest
and perceptive person.
Also, thanks to Steve Whittet for having the patience to point out some of
the variable ways information can carry. (the possibilities are infinite if
you are capable of creative thought.)
Mary Beth Williams wrote:
>
> Steve, once again you show you're lack of knowledge of your own
> espoused theoretical framework. *Diffusion* does not occur _THROUGH_
> intermediaries -- Technology may move from one group to another and
> then to another, but it is not *diffused* through an intermediary whose
> sole purpose is to *move* that information/technology. Diffusion is a
> process which involves relationships, most likely built upon some form
> of mutual trust, kinship, or power. Thus, group A has a relationship
> with group B, passes information/technology on, and then group B may at
> some point move to transfer it to group C. But true diffusion,
> particularly of technologies which have far reaching social or economic
> implications are not taken or passed lightly. Please, read a little
> diffusionist theory.
Oh Gawd. This is a classic example of a scientific thinker literally
analyzing something to death. She attempts to categorize and summarize a
process that is toally variable, chaotic, and chancy. She chooses to define
"diffusion" (which by definition means "spread out,not concentrated")
according to what she thinks this means.
> Whittet, go back and read the thread. We were discussing Ancient Egypt
> and Peru. If you'd like to start a thread on modern diffusion, please
> feel free. Otherwise, please stick to the topic at hand.
Actually YOU (MB) are the only one limiting it to Ancient Egypt and Incan
Peru. There's no reason to limit it to this since you can't provide any
reason exactly why this transferance of knowledge could not have occured.
(fr'instance, why a boat couldn't have come across c900 B.C.)
> Which just supports my argument that just because *style* was copied
> from ancient cultures by Western Europeans does not indicate
> *diffusion* of ideas/technology from one to the other.
You consistently show your limited treatment of the word diffusion.
> >>Review the arguments that hyperdiffusionists like Mr. Szabo have used
> >>to argue for *diffusion* from Eastern to Western Hemispheres.
Diffusion implies a many-branching and re-branching transferal of ideas.
This is not what I believe in. Actually I don't have a firm belief, but if
anything I would bet on a transferral by only one or a few individuals. This
is certainly not diffusionism. (so quit incorrectly categorizing everything)
> >>than just *copying* pyramid for pyramid (as, in case you've not
> >>noticed, Mesoamerican pyramids look nothing like those of ancient
> >>Giza).
Nothing? Sounds terribly absolute to me.
> There is a distinction between *hyperdiffusion*, i.e., an assumption of
> a transfer of technology between groups with no evidence (in fact,
> negative evidence) of a relationship which would allow for such
> transfer, and *diffusion*, a theoretical framework which investigates
> the process of the movement of information/technology. You've shown in
> the past that you are very familiar with the former, but the statement
> above exhibits how little you know of the latter. *Trade* is a
> separate issue than diffusion, and in fact, often inhibits the
> acceptance of technology within a group, e.g., why learn how to make
> guns when you can trade for them.
More attempts to classify all forms of diffusion (there are infinite
possibilities depending on what is diffusing and to what extent) into one
*diffusion* "a theoretical framework which investigates the process of
movement of information/technology". Personally, I am not bound by so many
self-imposed constraints.
Count Szabo
Mary Beth Williams wrote:
>
> In <319C10...@iceonline.com> Count Szabo <pet...@iceonline.com>
> writes:
> >
> >> > [still] I don't know why I wasted the time typing this...
> >
> >
> >Mary Beth Williams wrote:
> >>
> >> In <319795...@iceonline.com> Count Szabo <pet...@iceonline.com>
> >> writes:
> >> >
> >> >Mary Beth Williams wrote:
> >>
> >> >>_cultures_ need to be in _contact_ with one another in order for
> >> >>have a time machine, these two *cultures* could never have
> achieved
> >> >>such a feat.
> >>
> >> >Perhaps first you need to define the mode of diffusionism.
> >> >
> >> >And that's beside the point. Do you suppose that the early Inca
> did
> >> >not exist at the same time as the later Egyptian empire?
> >>
> >> civilization reached its height in the mid-15th-16th century A.D.
> Even
> >> earlier Andean civilizations, such as the Chavin, only date to circa
> >> 900 B.C. Granted, I'm an Americanist, not an egyptologist, but I do
> >> recall that the last Egyptian pyramids were built in the 17th-18th
> >> centuries B.C. -- after that, stone tombs were favored.
> >
> >Well, Mary Beth Williams, do you suppose that after the 17th century
> >B.C. the pyramids suddenly became non-cultural and were thereafter
> >ignored? Would I be totally unreasonable to say it would have been
> >possible for a boat of Egyptians to cross the Atlantic around 1000 BC?
>
> But Peru doesn't have an Atlantic port. Neither did Peruvians build
> pyramids. But Mayans did...1200 years after your Egyptian sailors
> landed.
OK, you're right about that. Lousy example on my part. I should have said
"Mayan" with the boat coming across c0 B.C.
> > I could illustrate many, many possible vehicles of "diffusionism" for
> >you if you lack an imagination of your own. Just ask.
>
> Oh, gee, I can't resist... Go ahead, tell me.
So, do you find imagining to be childish or something to be ashamed of? You
want me to look silly listing off fantastic sounding reasons how info could
have crossed the oceans to America in ancient times. Well, lucky for I don't
suffer from this stigma that you do.
These points can and should be mixed and mangled at will.
1) The Americas technologies could be improvements on ones that came across
earlier.
2) The chinese (or anyone) could have sailed across the Aleutians bringing
knowledge of pyramid building etc.
3) A seafaring nation could have brought world-wide technology to the
Americas.
4) A now defunct or hidden race could have sailed and ruled the world in
prehistory.
5) Extra terrestrials could have done it.
(of course in this another infinity of possibilties exist)
6) Freak storms could have forced fisherman (or sailors with lots of
supplies) across the ocean.
7) A ship full of parchment papers and cylinder seals was lost at sea and
washed up in Norht America. (I doubt it too)
My creativity is starting to run dry and I have a friend at the window...
This should illustrate the endless possibilities somewhat.
> >> Furthermore, are you sure you're claiming similarities between
> Egyptian
> >> and _Peruvian_ *pyramids*?
> >
> >Oh relax.
>
> Good answer. When you make a complete gaff, shift the attention to the
> other party...
Heh heh. You were right about this. I meant Mayan.
Which probably predated 100 BC or whatever you were saying.
(but this is not necessary to prove any point)
Eric Brunner
Steve Whittet (whi...@shore.net) wrote:
...
In his defense of Peter Szabo (pyramids is pyramids), taking up his (Steve's)
theoretical basis for SeaPeoplesisms (gm) against MB Williams, Steve Whittet
writes that:
"any exchange of ideas by any mechanism... is (diffusion)".
About 40 lines later in the same post he writes that:
"diffusion ... is not about `copying', it's about exchanging
ideas".
Is this a typo or a lack of clarity on the subject at hand or simply the
manifestation of a limited attention span? What a bother having to scan
through almost 600 lines of mostly included prior posts to see this mind
at work in two posts in this thread.
One simply wonders why this theory thread hasn't been boosted into low
orbit (SAM).
Steve Whittet
In article <4nog1m$h...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>, mbwi...@ix.netcom.co
says...
>
>In <4nnhtc$h...@shore.shore.net> whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
>writes:
>>
>>In article <4nlt6a$a...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,
>mbwi...@ix.netcom.co
>>says...
>
>>>>> I live in a Federal/Greek Revival house
>>>
>>>>You do realise those are two completely different architectural
>>>>styles?
>>>
>>>I *thought* you were an architect... Perhaps you slept through your
>>>history of architecture courses? The Federal (Adams) and Greek
>>>Revival periods overlapped for a number of years, and hence many
>>>houses built during the 1820s-1830 (such as mine) exhibit
>>>characteristics of both.
>
>>Oh my goodness! You seriously want to challenge me on architecture?!
>>For your information:
>>
>>Lets start with the periods.
>
>>Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1988
>
>houses:::
>
>>Classical tradition c 1820-1860 with one of the Renaissance Classical
>>tradition c 1790-1820. lets give you the benefit of the doubt and
>>allow that your house was built in 1820. I will allow that both can
>>have either gabled or hipped and sometimes flat roofs. Look and see if
>>the windows forms include arched heads with oval ornament or if they
>>are predominately rectangular. That should be sufficient to make your
>>determination.If that won't do it the next clue is that Renaissance
>>Classical usually has a balanced, symetrical facade and the Adam has a
>>ornamental grillage and Greek Revival houses are simple and
>>elegant.
>
>flipping to the sections on Adam or Greek Revival.
>
>From page 12, McAlester and McAlester _A Field Guide to American
>Houses_: "Most American houses have been built in one of the any
>architectural styles outlined in the preceding sections.
1.) Generally speaking when we talk of style we mean something other
than a muddy mixture of any available elements.
">Some, however, do not fit neatly into one of these
>stylistic categories but,instead, have characteristics
>of two or more styles.
2.) This is a somewhat tactful way of putting it.I suppose it is
a fact that nobody ever went broke catering to bad taste in America.
3.) There are some people unfortunate enough to have spent a lot of
money to live in houses which are of indefinite antecedent. You may
be one of them.
> Such houses may have been originally built as stylistic mixtures
>or may have resulted from later attempts to alter the style through
>remodeling...
4.) Translation: Some houses have been butchered by less than
scrupulous remodeling contractors who don't know the difference
between Federal and Greek Revival details.
(If your house was designed by a carpenter in his twenties
driving a pickup with a big black dog in the back you may
know what I mean)
>Most early stylistic mixtures occurred during the transitional
>periods when these persistent fashions were changing.
Historically this is the period of the Clipper ship when a
talented woodworker found employment working in the shipyards,
and people began to resort to barn raising to get their houses
built.
>Thus, some transitional houses in the English colonies share
>Georgian and Adam features, while others blend Adam with Greek Revival
>detailing [as in my house].*
What you are telling me is that you live in something
designed and built by a farmer, not an architect. Yeccch...
>
>>>This is particularly true in more *remote* or rural areas where
>>>houses were often designed from *books*.
Perhaps by people who couldn't read?...
>>>As I am well versed in architectural archaeology (having assisted in
>>>preparing of number of sites for submission for Historic Preservation
>>>status) I could provide some cites on the subject of vernacular houses
>>>if you'd like...
Actually you are quite right to correct me MB as it is evident you
are a talented amateur, well read in your source material and
interested in your subject...<g>
Perhaps we can extrapolate from this the uselessness of wasting
time in studying a field for if farmers can build houses surely
you can present me with some new ideas about my specialty.
>>
>>You want to teach me architecture?
>
>No, as I'm sure I would not be any more successful than your earlier
>instructors. But perhaps reading your own citations more thoroughly
>would help.
True, its hard to improve on perfection... but
I note that you neglected to respond to my question.
"You want to teach me architecture? Why don't you start by explaining the
relevance of the Tuscan order to our discussion..."
or is that just entirely obvious...
In point of fact while Renaissance Europeans were busy being enamoured
of the Classical Greek and Roman Architecture they took time out from
their diffusion of ideas to independently invent a new classical order...
the original fifth column.
While there were no buildings of the Tuscan order built in Greece
or Rome it was a favorite of the Greek Revival in America...
Was this diffusion or independent invention would you say?
Mary Beth Williams
In <4nr6at$p...@shore.shore.net> whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
writes:
>
>In article <4nog1m$h...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,
mbwi...@ix.netcom.co
>says...
>>
>>In <4nnhtc$h...@shore.shore.net> whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
>>writes:
>>>
>>>In article <4nlt6a$a...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,
>>mbwi...@ix.netcom.co
>>>says...
>>
>>>>>> I live in a Federal/Greek Revival house
>>>>
>>>>>You do realise those are two completely different architectural
>>>>>styles?
>>>>
>>>>I *thought* you were an architect... Perhaps you slept through your
>>>>history of architecture courses? The Federal (Adams) and Greek
>>>>Revival periods overlapped for a number of years, and hence many
>>>>houses built during the 1820s-1830 (such as mine) exhibit
>>>>characteristics of both.
>>
>>>Oh my goodness! You seriously want to challenge me on architecture?!
>>>For your information:
>>>
>>>Lets start with the periods.
>>
>>>Virginia and Lee McAlester, "A Field Guide to American Houses"
>>>Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1988
>>
>>:::snipping details regarding Federal (Adam) and Greek Revival
overlapping of attributes:::::
>>Perhaps you need to read your sources more thoroughly, rather than
just
>>flipping to the sections on Adam or Greek Revival.
>>
>>From page 12, McAlester and McAlester _A Field Guide to American
>>Houses_: "Most American houses have been built in one of the any
>>architectural styles outlined in the preceding sections.
>
>1.) Generally speaking when we talk of style we mean something other
>than a muddy mixture of any available elements.
Steve, _you_ were the one to first use McAlester and McAlester as a
source... Now you have a problem with their terminology?
>">Some, however, do not fit neatly into one of these
>>stylistic categories but,instead, have characteristics
>>of two or more styles.
>
>2.) This is a somewhat tactful way of putting it.I suppose it is
>a fact that nobody ever went broke catering to bad taste in America.
>
>3.) There are some people unfortunate enough to have spent a lot of
>money to live in houses which are of indefinite antecedent. You may
>be one of them.
Steve, I would go around your lovely New England town and count the
number of pre-Victorian houses which exhibit no stylistic alterations.
I would bet money that you won't find more than 10-20% (if that) which
didn't suffer the fate of the *bad taste* you attribute to early
European Americans.
>> Such houses may have been originally built as stylistic mixtures
>>or may have resulted from later attempts to alter the style through
>>remodeling...
>
>4.) Translation: Some houses have been butchered by less than
>scrupulous remodeling contractors who don't know the difference
>between Federal and Greek Revival details.
This shows either immense snobbery or a complete ignorance of the
social and economic impetus behind architectural alterations. Do you
have any clue as to why one sees extensive *remodelling* in New
England, hence Federals with Greek columns, while Greek Revivals in
other regions were *pristine*?
>>Most early stylistic mixtures occurred during the transitional
>>periods when these persistent fashions were changing.
>
>Historically this is the period of the Clipper ship when a
>talented woodworker found employment working in the shipyards,
>and people began to resort to barn raising to get their houses
>built.
Funny, Essex, Connecticut, one of the largest shipbuilding ports in New
England during the Early National Period exhibits a remarkably large
number of Federals with Greek, Italianate, and/or Gothic features.
Check out the houses of the Haydens, owners of the town's largest
shipyard, the one with produced the U.S. navy's first commissioned
vessel, the Oliver Cromwell. Almost all Federal's with later stylistic
alterations. Are you claiming that Mathew Hayden couldn't pull a few
of the talented woodworkers off his yard to work on his house for a few
months? So _why_ does one see remodelling rather than reconstruction
in this most talent-rich environment?
>>Thus, some transitional houses in the English colonies share
>>Georgian and Adam features, while others blend Adam with Greek
>>Revival detailing [as in my house].*
>
>What you are telling me is that you live in something
>designed and built by a farmer, not an architect. Yeccch...
Well, the *farmer* who originally built this house was the largest and
wealthiest landowner in town. And btw, just _how many_ houses in New
England were built by architects? In my old town in Connecticut, only
one house in an area accepted by the National Register was designed by
someone with architectural training -- well, at least I _believe_
Thomas Jefferson had such training... But, unfortunately the
descendants of the original owner had the *bad taste* to alter the
pristine Classical Revival building by adding some Greek Revival
details to a later addition... But you know those country yokels...
Particularly those descendants (over 4 generations) heading the State
Supreme Court.
>>>>This is particularly true in more *remote* or rural areas where
>>>>houses were often designed from *books*.
>
>Perhaps by people who couldn't read?...
Hmmm... The Connecticut town mentioned above possessed the first
lending library in the British American colonies. But I'm sure they
were all just looking at the pictures since the town's economy was
based in agriculture and husbandry.
>>>>As I am well versed in architectural archaeology (having assisted
in
>>>>preparing of number of sites for submission for Historic
Preservation
>>>>status) I could provide some cites on the subject of vernacular
houses
>>>>if you'd like...
>Actually you are quite right to correct me MB as it is evident you
>are a talented amateur, well read in your source material and
>interested in your subject...<g>
Gee, as I'm paid for this kind of work, doesn't that negate my
*amateur* status?
>Perhaps we can extrapolate from this the uselessness of wasting
>time in studying a field for if farmers can build houses surely
>you can present me with some new ideas about my specialty.
Steve, I thought your specialty was building houses for living humans.
I take it now that besides being an architect, you're claiming to be an
architectural historian and/or historical archaeologist? You have a
degree/degrees in either? Publications? Employment experience?
I've snipped your discussions on Tuscans as I believe the matter at
hand, i.e., _why_ renovation not reconstruction dominated in much of
Eastern British North America during the Early National/Antebellum
periods has not been thoroughly addressed by the n.g.'s self-proclaimed
specialist on the subject.
Cheers,
Steve Whittet
In article <4nrjeh$q...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>, mbwi...@ix.netcom.co says...
I don't limit the capacity for bad taste to European Americans, MB.
The city of Newburyport, as a city, is classified as an historic district.
There are certainly houses with stylistic alterations, many more have
been designed by architects to an individual program. I live there
because it is one of the most beautiful places I have ever been.
>
>>> Such houses may have been originally built as stylistic mixtures
>>>or may have resulted from later attempts to alter the style through
>>>remodeling...
>>
>>4.) Translation: Some houses have been butchered by less than
>>scrupulous remodeling contractors who don't know the difference
>>between Federal and Greek Revival details.
>
>This shows either immense snobbery or a complete ignorance of the
>social and economic impetus behind architectural alterations. Do you
>have any clue as to why one sees extensive *remodelling* in New
>England, hence Federals with Greek columns, while Greek Revivals in
>other regions were *pristine*?
Take a look at a house which has been properly restored, then
compare it to one which has been remodeled. Are you really unaware
that both are technical terms? A house which has been remodeled
is ineligible for the national historic register unless it can
be restored.
>
>>>Most early stylistic mixtures occurred during the transitional
>>>periods when these persistent fashions were changing.
>>
>>Historically this is the period of the Clipper ship when a
>>talented woodworker found employment working in the shipyards,
>>and people began to resort to barn raising to get their houses
>>built.
>
>Funny, Essex, Connecticut, one of the largest shipbuilding ports in New
>England during the Early National Period exhibits a remarkably large
>number of Federals with Greek, Italianate, and/or Gothic features.
Houses with combinations of Italianate, Greek, Federal and or
Gothic features often evidence an eclecticism which came to be
described as "Victorian".Early Victorian houses mark the period
1840 - 1860.
>Check out the houses of the Haydens, owners of the town's largest
>shipyard, the one with produced the U.S. navy's first commissioned
>vessel, the Oliver Cromwell. Almost all Federal's with later stylistic
>alterations. Are you claiming that Mathew Hayden couldn't pull a few
>of the talented woodworkers off his yard to work on his house for a few
>months? So _why_ does one see remodelling rather than reconstruction
>in this most talent-rich environment?
No just that by the time he did, the sort of houses that New England
shipwrights developed into a style of their own were already being
called Victorian.
>
>>>Thus, some transitional houses in the English colonies share
>>>Georgian and Adam features, while others blend Adam with Greek
>>>Revival detailing [as in my house].*
>>
>>What you are telling me is that you live in something
>>designed and built by a farmer, not an architect. Yeccch...
>
>Well, the *farmer* who originally built this house was the largest and
>wealthiest landowner in town.
The reason nobody ever went broke catering to bad taste is that
many very large and wealthy people share the trait.
>And btw, just _how many_ houses in New England were built by architects?
Not many, most were built by builders. Now if you wanted to ask
how many houses in New England were designed by architects...
> In my old town in Connecticut, only
>one house in an area accepted by the National Register was designed by
>someone with architectural training
I suppose that would explain your lack of familiarity with the subject.
-- well, at least I _believe_Thomas Jefferson had such training...
No, he was self taught.Jefferson was an interested amateur archaeologist
as well as architect, (he was one of the first surface collectors actually),
and oh yes, he was very well read for his day and also played the violin.
>But, >unfortunately the
>descendants of the original owner had the *bad taste* to alter the
>pristine Classical Revival building by adding some Greek Revival
>details to a later addition...
Jefferson, 1743-1826 is generally credited with responsibility for
the Greek Revival in the United States. Whether he invented the style
or was simply the instrument of its diffusion to the colonies is still
a matter of some debate, but the reason the Greek revival is dated
from 1820 had something to do with his design of Monticello as I
recall...It seems odd you would describe his buildings as "pristine
Classical Revival" (1780-1830; based on Roman models) especially given
his identification with Greek Revival and then describe their detailing
as altered by "adding some Greek Revival details to a later addition".
Do you know what element that would suggest got changed?
But you know those country yokels...
actually,... though I am a bit older than you ...
I must admit I never actually met Jefferson...
>Particularly those descendants (over 4 generations) heading the State
>Supreme Court.
Unfortunately I don't hang out around courthouses much, I never much
liked the smell of sewers...
>
>>>>>This is particularly true in more *remote* or rural areas where
>>>>>houses were often designed from *books*.
>>
>>Perhaps by people who couldn't read?...
>
>Hmmm... The Connecticut town mentioned above possessed the first
>lending library in the British American colonies. But I'm sure they
>were all just looking at the pictures since the town's economy was
>based in agriculture and husbandry.
If you say so.
>
>>>>>As I am well versed in architectural archaeology (having assisted
>>>>>in preparing of number of sites for submission for Historic
>>>>>Preservation status) I could provide some cites on the subject of
>>>>>vernacular houses if you'd like...
>
>>Actually you are quite right to correct me MB as it is evident you
>>are a talented amateur, well read in your source material and
>>interested in your subject...<g>
>
>Gee, as I'm paid for this kind of work, doesn't that negate my
>*amateur* status?
No it just means you are practicing without a license...
>
>>Perhaps we can extrapolate from this the uselessness of wasting
>>time in studying a field for if farmers can build houses surely
>>you can present me with some new ideas about my specialty.
>
>Steve, I thought your specialty was building houses for living humans.
>I take it now that besides being an architect, you're claiming to be an
>architectural historian and/or historical archaeologist? You have a
>degree/degrees in either? Publications? Employment experience?
"Badges!, badges?, we don't need no stinking badges!!!"
I am an architect. Architects are not specialists, just plain old
generalists. As a knowledgeable amateur I know you are aware of this.
What it means to be a registered architect is that my education
and experience are registered with NCARB and I had to meet their
requirements before I got to sit for my exam.
I am also entitled to refer to myself as SOTE and OFT. While that
happens to mean a lot to me, I doubt it would mean any more to you
than the totally unrelated fact that I was Wilbur Burnams apprentice.
True, when I used to take my urban planning class around to meet
the players in what was then Bostons $6 Billion dollar central
artery project I enjoyed being able to point out that my BSA
focal group had studied the Bullfinch triangle.
When the AIA assigned me to the town of Rowley to advise their
Historic District Commission as they approached the 350th
anniversary of their towns founding I enjoyed that also.
Now I have less time for other interests but I trust that
adequately addresses your concerns. Should I also mention
that I served on the Port Clyde volunteer fire department?
Ok, yes, I do have one of those little gold AIA pins, although
I never wear it, I feel it doesn't say much for my humility.
Bottom line, if you want to ask and answer with me on the basis
of what you think you know thats great. Give it your best shot.
>
>I've snipped your discussions on Tuscans as I believe the matter at
>hand, i.e., _why_ renovation not reconstruction dominated in much of
>Eastern British North America during the Early National/Antebellum
>periods has not been thoroughly addressed by the n.g.'s self-proclaimed
>specialist on the subject.
Sorry, I forgot myself for a minute there and almost slipped some
archaeology back in the discussion, don't worry MB if you want to
tell us why remodeling is better than restoration I am sure you won't
mind if someone interperts that to apply to sites as well as the
buildings on them and wants to put a housing development in and
around Four Corners to "protect it".
>
>Cheers,
>
>MB Williams
>Dept. of Anthropology, UMass-Amherst
steve
Mary Beth Williams
In <4nu187$k...@shore.shore.net> whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
writes:
>
>> In my old town in Connecticut, only
>>one house in an area accepted by the National Register was designed
>>by someone with architectural training
>I suppose that would explain your lack of familiarity with the
subject.
Hmmmm... so what would explain your lack of familiarity with Colonial
and Early National architecture? Fortunately where one resided does
not necessarily limit one's knowledge on a particular subject... Were
this the case, there would be a distinct shortage of non-Nilinian
Egytologists <g>.
>> -- well, at least I _believe_Thomas Jefferson had such training...
>No, he was self taught. Jefferson was an interested amateur
>archaeologist as well as architect, (he was one of the first surface
>collectors actually), and oh yes, he was very well read for his day
>and also played the violin.
Funny, as one can see from the excerpt below, McAlester and McAlester
consider Jefferson to be an architect, (and do not denote his status as
*amateur*), and a very influential one at that.
>>But, unfortunately the
>>descendants of the original owner had the *bad taste* to alter the
>>pristine Classical Revival building by adding some Greek Revival
>>details to a later addition...
>
>Jefferson, 1743-1826 is generally credited with responsibility for
>the Greek Revival in the United States. Whether he invented the style
>or was simply the instrument of its diffusion to the colonies is still
>a matter of some debate, but the reason the Greek revival is dated
>from 1820 had something to do with his design of Monticello as I
>recall...It seems odd you would describe his buildings as "pristine
>Classical Revival" (1780-1830; based on Roman models) especially given
>his identification with Greek Revival and then describe their
>detailing as altered by "adding some Greek Revival details to a later
>addition".
From the chapter *Early Classical Revivial* in McAlester and McAlester,
_A Field Guide to American Houses_:
*Following the Revolution there was an immediate need for public
buildings to house the newly organized government at both the state and
national levels. It was natural to have taken Rome as a model, with
its Republican ideas and monumental architecture, a choice that
symbolized the mood and politicx of the new country. Roman Revival
architecture thus became fashionable... Among the prominent architects
working in the style were William Jay (Savannah, Georgia); Benjamin H.
Latrobe (Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington); Robert Mills
(Charleston, South Carolina and elsewhere); and William Thorton
(Washington). Most influential of all, however, was Thomas Jefferson,
who not only designed Roman Revival buildings himself, but used the
influence of his political office, and his considerable powers of
personal persuasion, to push the United States toward his classical
ideal. Jefferson thus shaped early Washington, D.C., the Virginia
capitol at Richmond, and, almost single-handedly, the University of
Virginia at Charlottesville. Because of his influence, the style is
sometimes referred to as Jefferson Classicism...Apart from Jefferson's
influence on public architecture, his home, Monticello, his summer
home, Poplar Forest, and other houses he designed for friends set the
stage for Early Classical domestic architecture. These high-style
examples probably sprang from Jefferson's familiarity with the writings
of the Italian Renaissance architect Palladio (1508-80). Inspired by
such high-style landmarks, typical Palladian entry proches were soon
being built throughout the South, some at the time of original
construction, but many also as additions to earlier houses* [I guess
the guy with the pickup truck and black lab was REALLY busy.]
Although it is hypothesized that Greek Revival evolved from Classical
Revival (Roman Revival) architecture, it was not until sympathy for the
Greeks developed during the War for Independence (1821-1830) that the
later style took hold. Jefferson's Monticello, as well as his other
architectural designs, were purely Classical Revival, influenced, as
described above by the Italian Palladio (hence, the Palladium window),
not the Greeks as you claim.
So your comments on Monticello as a the epitome of a Greek Revival
design are false. Monticello ("little mountain"), which is located in
Albemarle County, Va., near Charlottesville, was designed by Thomas
Jefferson as his his private residence. Furthermore, it was erected in
two building campaigns, one in 1770-82 with additions in 1793-1809. A
tad early for the Greek Revival Period, wouldn't you say? (Then again,
perhaps he _knew_ the Greeks were going to revolt 50 years they did
<g>.)
>actually,... though I am a bit older than you ...
>I must admit I never actually met Jefferson...
And I can see that you're not very familiar with his architectural
works either.
Paul J. Gans
I've been out of town for most all of two weeks. I get back and
find that Count Szabo is still at it. This is getting quite
silly. Especially the part below where he suggests that he's
not *actually* proposed anything...
Count Szabo (pet...@iceonline.com) wrote:
: Paul J. Gans wrote:
: >
: > Count Szabo (pet...@iceonline.com) wrote:
: >
: > : Mary Beth Williams wrote:
: > : >
: > : > The whole idea surrounding *diffusion* necessitates that two _cultures_
: > : > need to be in _contact_ with one another in order for
: > : > information/technology to pass from one to the other. Unless you have
: > : > a time machine, these two *cultures* could never have achieved such a
: > : > feat.
: >
: > : Another typically authoritative absolutism.
: > : Perhaps first you need to define the mode of diffusionism.
: >
: > You are right, O wise one. Clearly mental telepathy is involved.
: I see I am creating a following (dogged though it is). ;)
: > Or is it diffusion by secret signs (you know, one reads the sky
: > or sheep entrails for the details of technology in use 1000 years
: > and far more miles away.) Perhaps it was the Wandering Jew who
: > brought the news. Who knows? But I am sure that you are right.
: Right about what? This is the funny part. Y'all are trying to pretend that
: I am proposing a theory. I am not even asserting an opinion! You have been
: objecting to my little statement about a few points that corroborate
: diffusionism. If you deny the truth of this statement, that only proves your
: inability to grow another brain cell.
Ah yes, the old "growing a brain cell" argument. The above is quite
amusing, especially in the light of the other recent postings of the
good Count.
Nobody has ever denied diffusion. Happens all the time. Things
diffuse in time and space -- and the connection is often apparent.
However, asserting that Peru and Egypt are somehow connected (which
is where I came in) is, well, really....
: If you had much creativity you would be able to imagine infinite plausable
: explanations for these mysteries, and would never be caught dead saying:
It is clear that a "mystery" is something that YOU don't understand,
even if it is well-understood by other folks. I don't need to imaging
"infinite plausible explanations" -- which by the way would be more
plausible to you, who knows little, than to someone who knows much and
thus is more limited in what they might consider "plausible".
[deletions]
: > A killing ripost to MB's question. We certainly can inagurate
: > you as a new net.savant.
: Please do. Whatever distances me from your kind, intellectually, will be to
: my benefit.
And just what *is* my kind? The kind that reads books? The kind that
goes and looks? Or the kind that smokes good weed and sees things that
others don't and claims that *that* is wisdom?
Paul J. Gans
Mary Beth Williams (mbwi...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
[deletions]
: Steve, once again you show you're lack of knowledge of your own
: espoused theoretical framework. *Diffusion* does not occur _THROUGH_
: intermediaries -- Technology may move from one group to another and
: then to another, but it is not *diffused* through an intermediary whose
: sole purpose is to *move* that information/technology. Diffusion is a
: process which involves relationships, most likely built upon some form
: of mutual trust, kinship, or power. Thus, group A has a relationship
: with group B, passes information/technology on, and then group B may at
: some point move to transfer it to group C. But true diffusion,
: particularly of technologies which have far reaching social or economic
: implications are not taken or passed lightly. Please, read a little
: diffusionist theory.
[more deletions]
This is, in my opinion, not quite true. As is often the case,
it depends. There is, for example, a relatively clear path that
can be traced for the diffusion of the stirrup from China-Korea
to Europe (and thence to the Americas). On the other hand, the
development of printing in the west does not so easily trace.
It is clear that other cultures "printed" before western Europe,
but the actual diffusion path (if there is one) is not clear.
It (and this is the point) *could* have been ONE traveller
telling the tale of what he or she saw, or it could have been an
independent invention. We don't know.
------ Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
Mary Beth Williams
In <4nvchh$n...@news.nyu.edu> ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu (Paul J. Gans)
writes:
>: Steve, once again you show you're lack of knowledge of your own
>: espoused theoretical framework. *Diffusion* does not occur
_THROUGH_
>: intermediaries -- Technology may move from one group to another and
>: then to another, but it is not *diffused* through an intermediary
whose
>: sole purpose is to *move* that information/technology. Diffusion is
a
>: process which involves relationships, most likely built upon some
form
>: of mutual trust, kinship, or power. Thus, group A has a
relationship
>: with group B, passes information/technology on, and then group B may
at
>: some point move to transfer it to group C. But true diffusion,
>: particularly of technologies which have far reaching social or
economic
>: implications are not taken or passed lightly. Please, read a little
>: diffusionist theory.
>
>
>This is, in my opinion, not quite true. As is often the case,
>it depends. There is, for example, a relatively clear path that
>can be traced for the diffusion of the stirrup from China-Korea
>to Europe (and thence to the Americas). On the other hand, the
>development of printing in the west does not so easily trace.
>It is clear that other cultures "printed" before western Europe,
>but the actual diffusion path (if there is one) is not clear.
>It (and this is the point) *could* have been ONE traveller
>telling the tale of what he or she saw, or it could have been an
>independent invention. We don't know.
>
Paul, what is the chance that all the groups involved are going to
*trust* that one single traveller, a traveller most of them had never
laid eyes on before in their lives? Do you believe everything that
every stranger tells you, or are you much more likely to believe those
people with whom you have a relationship. Or those who are more
physically/economically *persuasive*. Yes, diffusion does happen, but
chances are that it goes from groups/individuals who have
*relationships*, e.g., kindship, economic, power, rather than through
casual contact between strangers.
Steve Whittet
In article <4nust3$k...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>, mbwi...@ix.netcom.co says...
>
>In <4nu187$k...@shore.shore.net> whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
>writes:
>>
>>In article <4nrjeh$q...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>, mbwi...@ix.netcom.co
>says...
>
>>> In my old town in Connecticut, only
>>>one house in an area accepted by the National Register was designed
>>>by someone with architectural training
>
>>I suppose that would explain your lack of familiarity with the
>subject.
>
>Hmmmm... so what would explain your lack of familiarity with Colonial
>and Early National architecture? Fortunately where one resided does
>not necessarily limit one's knowledge on a particular subject... Were
>this the case, there would be a distinct shortage of non-Nilinian
>Egytologists <g>.
>
>>> -- well, at least I _believe_Thomas Jefferson had such training...
>
>>No, he was self taught. Jefferson was an interested amateur
>>archaeologist as well as architect, (he was one of the first surface
>>collectors actually), and oh yes, he was very well read for his day
>>and also played the violin.
>
>Funny, as one can see from the excerpt below, McAlester and McAlester
>consider Jefferson to be an architect, (and do not denote his status as
>*amateur*), and a very influential one at that.
While I have the highest regard for the effort this research project
represents, it presumes some facility for architectural concepts on
the part of the reader.
1.) Architects are not trained, they are encouraged to learn
proactively.
2.) Most if not all architects in Jeffersons time were amateurs.
Jefferson was influential because he was interesting. Like many
architects he was a generalist and had a very wide range of interests.
If he was "trained" in anything it was the Law which he studied at
William and Mary, when it came to architecture and archaeology he
was just rather well read.
At a time when American intellectual activity was coming to be
spoken of as the enlightenment his energetic pursuit of a wide
range of interests was noteworthy, and when it comes to style it
is fair to say that Jefferson independently invented his own.
>
>>>But, unfortunately the
>>>descendants of the original owner had the *bad taste* to alter the
>>>pristine Classical Revival building by adding some Greek Revival
>>>details to a later addition...
>>
>>Jefferson, 1743-1826 is generally credited with responsibility for
>>the Greek Revival in the United States. Whether he invented the style
>>or was simply the instrument of its diffusion to the colonies is still
>>a matter of some debate, but the reason the Greek revival is dated
>>from 1820 had something to do with his design of Monticello as I
>>recall...It seems odd you would describe his buildings as "pristine
>>Classical Revival" (1780-1830; based on Roman models) especially given
>>his identification with Greek Revival and then describe their
>>detailing as altered by "adding some Greek Revival details to a later
>>addition".
>
>From the chapter *Early Classical Revivial* in McAlester and McAlester,
>_A Field Guide to American Houses_:
(The chapter begins)
"Identifying Features
Entry Porch (Portico) dominating the front facade and normally
equaling it in height.Porch roof usually supported by four simple
columns (Roman, Doric or Tuscan Types)"
In other words far from being a pristine "style", its very
essence is the remodeling of a porch.
(Two paragraphs preceeding that cited by MB)
Many Georgian and early Adam (Federalist) houses,
as well as simple folk houses,were updated during the early
nineteenth century by the addition of a full height
Classic Revival entry porch"
"Folk houses" are a technical euphemism for "nondescript structures".
The rounded or eliptical window elements illustrated as
"high style elaborations" are one of the definitive
Federalist elements
(The paragraph preceeding that cited by MB)
"Occurance
This is a relatively uncommon style found in isolated examples
throughout the areas settled by 1820. It is rare north of
Pensylvannia, most examples occur in the southern states,
particularly Virginia....By 1830 the subsequent and more
universally popular phase of classical revivalism. The Greek
Revival, had replaced Early Classical models even in Virginia."
>
>*Following the Revolution there was an immediate need for public
>buildings to house the newly organized government at both the state and
>national levels. It was natural to have taken Rome as a model, with
>its Republican ideas and monumental architecture, a choice that
>symbolized the mood and politicx of the new country. Roman Revival
>architecture thus became fashionable...
It helps to know that classical Roman architecture was actually Greek.
"A History of Architecture", Fiske Kimball, G H Edgell,
Harper, New York, 1918 p 103 chapter V Roman Architecture.
"Between Greek architecture and Roman architecture there is no
such sharp distinction as between the various preclassical styles."
"..The Romans realized the superior advancement of Greek architecture"
"Greek influence made itself felt in three different ways. Until about
300 BC the Romans shared with the Etruscans a diluted Hellenism
mingled with Italic elements. From then until the end of the Republic,
about two hundred and fifty years, they were absorbing from the
western Greek colonies and from Greece itself the grammar of the orders...
From the establishment of the Empire until its fall they drew more and more
on the orientalized Hellenism of Asia"
"Columnar system The architectural forms of the columnar system reflected
those of Greece, all three orders finding crude counterparts. Most important
was the derivitive of the Doric which had always remained dominent in
western Greece.
Among the prominent architects
>working in the style were William Jay (Savannah, Georgia); Benjamin H.
>Latrobe (Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington); Robert Mills
>(Charleston, South Carolina and elsewhere); and William Thorton
>(Washington). Most influential of all, however, was Thomas Jefferson,
>who not only designed Roman Revival buildings himself, but used the
>influence of his political office, and his considerable powers of
>personal persuasion, to push the United States toward his classical
>ideal. Jefferson thus shaped early Washington, D.C., the Virginia
>capitol at Richmond, and, almost single-handedly, the University of
>Virginia at Charlottesville. Because of his influence, the style is
>sometimes referred to as Jefferson Classicism...
[Jeffersonian Classicism]
Apart from Jefferson's
>influence on public architecture, his home, Monticello, his summer
>home, Poplar Forest, and other houses he designed for friends set the
>stage for Early Classical domestic architecture. These high-style
>examples probably sprang from Jefferson's familiarity with the writings
>of the Italian Renaissance architect Palladio (1508-80). Inspired by
>such high-style landmarks, typical Palladian entry proches
[porches]
were soon
>being built throughout the South, some at the time of original
>construction, but many also as additions to earlier houses* [I guess
>the guy with the pickup truck and black lab was REALLY busy.]
In other words what we are talking about is a remodeling project
involving the addition of a front porch and or a domed roof.
If the porch was two stories high, which is somewhat more common in the
south, it was generally on a prominent structure. A Plantation house or
a capitol, college or university building which enclosed large open
halls with a domed roof. Where we have public buildings with the porch and
dome these somewhat more formal structures are considered
early classic revival but then this form became Greek revival when
it got scaled down to residential buildings with one story porches
and no great hall.
p 179 "Greek Revival
six principal subtypes can be distinguished on the basis of porch and
roof configurations.
Entry porch less than full height or absent
About 20 percent of Greek Revival houses have small entry porches
which do not extend the full height of the facade"
Full height entry porch
...It thus resembles the Early Classical Revival style from which the
Greek Revival sprang."
>
>Although it is hypothesized that Greek Revival evolved from Classical
>Revival (Roman Revival) architecture, it was not until sympathy for the
>Greeks developed during the War for Independence (1821-1830) that the
>later style took hold. Jefferson's Monticello, as well as his other
>architectural designs, were purely Classical Revival, influenced, as
>described above by the Italian Palladio (hence, the Palladium window),
>not the Greeks as you claim.
Strange that you would change from direct quote to paraphrase just there...
Here is what the source material said.
"A national sympathy for the Greek War of Independence (1821-1830)
and an increasingly archaeological understanding of the Greek roots
of Roman architecture and culture made the years 1820-1830 a
transition to the suceeding Greek Revival style. Although relatively
uncommon and primarily southern the Early Classical Revival movement
provided the background for this more pervasive classicism which
dominated the new country for the next thirty years."
>
>So your comments on Monticello as a the epitome of a Greek Revival
>design are false. Monticello ("little mountain"), which is located in
>Albemarle County, Va., near Charlottesville, was designed by Thomas
>Jefferson as his his private residence. Furthermore, it was erected in
>two building campaigns, one in 1770-82 with additions in 1793-1809. A
>tad early for the Greek Revival Period, wouldn't you say? (Then again,
>perhaps he _knew_ the Greeks were going to revolt 50 years they did
><g>.)
Monticello was built as a plantation house with arched and oval
windows, a dome and a full height porch to strict Palladian canons.
It was Thomas Jeffersons first shot at building anything.
After declining a third term in 1808 Jefferson continued to be
active in such affairs as founding the University of Virginia
in 1819 and the State Capitol at Richmond where his interest
in archaeology combined with a better understanding of the
intricacies of the Greek influence on Roman architecture and
the spread of the Greek revival style to residential structures.
The evolution was subtle. We are talking about the trim details
of the heads of windows and the height of porches and about a
different scale from public to private structures. Monticello
brought the design vocabulary of Vitruvius into harmony with
the Palladian strictures.Jefferson brought Monticello to the
American people.
>
>>actually,... though I am a bit older than you ...
>>I must admit I never actually met Jefferson...
>
>And I can see that you're not very familiar with his architectural
>works either.
I find it interesting to recap here.
You claimed Jefferson was trained as an architect,
(he was not, he did study Law at William and Mary)
You also stated in discussing a private residence in Connecticut
that "the descendants of the original owner had the *bad taste*
to alter the pristine Classical Revival building by adding some
Greek Revival details to a later addition..."
As I have shown, Classical Revivals were generally porch
additions, so not pristine to begin with, and evolved from
the early classical form to the Greek revival form as public
buildings with large halls covered with domes were scaled down
to residential structures without them.
Adding Greek revival details to a residence would not change
the style.
>
>Cheers,
>
>MB Williams
>Dept. of Anthropology, UMass-Amherst
steve
Mary Beth Williams
In <4o0lc5$k...@shore.shore.net> whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
You're playing with words here, Steve. Should I post to the
architecture NG and ask how many professional architects object to the
term *training*? When I was working in an architectural firm in
Cambridge 10 years ago, I seem to remember the term being used quite a
bit.
>2.) Most if not all architects in Jeffersons time were amateurs.
But you argued previously that the only architecture in *good taste* in
New England was designed by *architects*, not *builders*. As you now
claim that *most if not all* architects in the late Colonial-Early
National period were *amateurs*, how do you distinguish between an
amateur architect and a builder?
:::snip:::
>At a time when American intellectual activity was coming to be
>spoken of as the enlightenment his energetic pursuit of a wide
>range of interests was noteworthy, and when it comes to style it
>is fair to say that Jefferson independently invented his own.
I think that you're understanding of the concept of *independent
invention* is somewhat skewed. Jefferson was very well versed in the
designs of Italian and Renaissance architects, Palladio in particular,
and actively borrowed part and parcel from them... This is obviously
the stylistic *diffusion* Stella was commenting on, and in no way can
be termed *independent invention.*
You forgot to continue with the other identifying features, Steve.
"the columns support a prominent centered gable; a semi-circular or
elliptical fanlight normally occurs above the panelled front door;
windows align horizontally and vertically in symmetrical rows, usually
five-ranked on the front facade, less commonly three-ranked or
seven-ranked." (pg. 169)
More than just the remodelling of a house with a porch, eh Steve?
Particularly when you take into account the predominent N.E. house
styles which preceeded ECR, namely Georgian and Post-Medieval English
(English center-chimney Colonial, see Morrison 1952).
>(Two paragraphs preceeding that cited by MB)
>Many Georgian and early Adam (Federalist) houses,
>as well as simple folk houses,were updated during the early
>nineteenth century by the addition of a full height
>Classic Revival entry porch"
>"Folk houses" are a technical euphemism for "nondescript structures".
On pg. 78, in the chapter on *folk houses*, McAlester and McAlester
give a very in-depth description of the *New England Tradition*, i.e.,
the traditional salt-box, Cape or center-chimney colonial predominate
in pre-Revolutionary New England. These *non-descript structures* are
the very same which also dominate the Federal Register of Historic
Homes for the period.
>The rounded or eliptical window elements illustrated as
>"high style elaborations" are one of the definitive
>Federalist elements
According to McAlester and McAlester, who place the start of the ECR
Period (1770-1830) a decade ahead of the Adam (Federal) Period
(1780-locally 1840), it is also a definitive ECR feature.
>(The paragraph preceeding that cited by MB)
>
>"Occurance
>This is a relatively uncommon style found in isolated examples
>throughout the areas settled by 1820. It is rare north of
>Pensylvannia, most examples occur in the southern states,
>particularly Virginia....By 1830 the subsequent and more
>universally popular phase of classical revivalism. The Greek
>Revival, had replaced Early Classical models even in Virginia."
Whether or not uncommon, the truth of the matter is that you claimed a
Connecticut house designed by Thomas Jefferson was a Greek Revival, not
an Early Classical Revival, just as you claimed that all Jeffersonian
architecture was Greek Revival, rather than ECR. And as is quite
evident in the _Field Guide_, which you obviously possess, the Early
Classical Revival, which may predate Greek Revival by 50 years, is more
than just a folk house with a porch added.
>
>>
>>*Following the Revolution there was an immediate need for public
>>buildings to house the newly organized government at both the state
and
>>national levels. It was natural to have taken Rome as a model, with
>>its Republican ideas and monumental architecture, a choice that
>>symbolized the mood and politicx of the new country. Roman Revival
>>architecture thus became fashionable...
>
>It helps to know that classical Roman architecture was actually Greek.
:::deleting Steve's allegations that there is no difference between
ancient Greek and Roman architecture:::::
Even if this _was_ true (and I'm sure many classicists would argue that
it is not), the motivations behind early National Americans chosing one
ancient civilization over the other as their model _is_ in fact the
important issue here. Rome was chosen because it was a *Republic*...
The LAST thing our founding fathers wanted in 1776/1787 was a direct
democracy. However, by the time the Greek Revolution ignited in the
1830's, Western Europe and the US in particular romanticised the Greek
struggle against non-Christian Turkish *tyranny*, and incorporated that
romanticism into not only their architecture but their dress, music,
art, and literature.
> Among the prominent architects
>>working in the style were William Jay (Savannah, Georgia); Benjamin
H.
>>Latrobe (Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington); Robert Mills
>>(Charleston, South Carolina and elsewhere); and William Thorton
>>(Washington). Most influential of all, however, was Thomas
Jefferson,
>>who not only designed Roman Revival buildings himself, but used the
>>influence of his political office, and his considerable powers of
>>personal persuasion, to push the United States toward his classical
>>ideal. Jefferson thus shaped early Washington, D.C., the Virginia
>>capitol at Richmond, and, almost single-handedly, the University of
>>Virginia at Charlottesville. Because of his influence, the style is
>>sometimes referred to as Jeffersonian Classicism...
>Apart from Jefferson's
>>influence on public architecture, his home, Monticello, his summer
>>home, Poplar Forest, and other houses he designed for friends set the
>>stage for Early Classical domestic architecture. These high-style
>>examples probably sprang from Jefferson's familiarity with the
writings
>>of the Italian Renaissance architect Palladio (1508-80). Inspired by
>>such high-style landmarks, typical Palladian entry porches
>> were soon
>>being built throughout the South, some at the time of original
>>construction, but many also as additions to earlier houses* [I guess
>>the guy with the pickup truck and black lab was REALLY busy.]
>
>In other words what we are talking about is a remodeling project
>involving the addition of a front porch and or a domed roof.
You _did_ claim (erroneously, however) that *remodelling* made a house
ineligible for the Historic Register. And adding these modifications
to a simple New England *folk house* dramatically altered the outward
visual *style* of the facade.
:::snip:::
>p 179 "Greek Revival
>six principal subtypes can be distinguished on the basis of porch and
>roof configurations.
>Entry porch less than full height or absent
>About 20 percent of Greek Revival houses have small entry porches
>which do not extend the full height of the facade"
>Full height entry porch
>...It thus resembles the Early Classical Revival style from which the
>Greek Revival sprang."
Yes, but Steve, let's return to the original point of my earlier post,
that you, an acclaimed architect, could not distinguish between Early
Classical Revival and Greek Revival, although one temporally precedes
the other significantly.
:::snip:::
>>So your comments on Monticello as a the epitome of a Greek Revival
>>design are false. Monticello ("little mountain"), which is located
in
>>Albemarle County, Va., near Charlottesville, was designed by Thomas
>>Jefferson as his his private residence. Furthermore, it was erected
in
>>two building campaigns, one in 1770-82 with additions in 1793-1809.
A
>>tad early for the Greek Revival Period, wouldn't you say? (Then
again,
>>perhaps he _knew_ the Greeks were going to revolt 50 years they did
>><g>.)
>
>Monticello was built as a plantation house with arched and oval
>windows, a dome and a full height porch to strict Palladian canons.
Exactly -- which means, contrary to your arguments that Jefferson
*independently invented* his style, he was _copying_ Italian
architecture.
>
>It was Thomas Jeffersons first shot at building anything.
>
>After declining a third term in 1808 Jefferson continued to be
>active in such affairs as founding the University of Virginia
>in 1819 and the State Capitol at Richmond where his interest
>in archaeology combined with a better understanding of the
>intricacies of the Greek influence on Roman architecture and
>the spread of the Greek revival style to residential structures.
Steve, we both agreed earlier that the Greek Revival style was not
initiated until the mid-1820's, around the same time as Jefferson's
death (from *old age*.)
>The evolution was subtle. We are talking about the trim details
>of the heads of windows and the height of porches and about a
>different scale from public to private structures. Monticello
>brought the design vocabulary of Vitruvius into harmony with
>the Palladian strictures.Jefferson brought Monticello to the
>American people.
Perhaps the evolution was subtle in Virginia, where the ECR
predominated, but how do you explain the evolution from Adam to Greek
in the Northeast, where ECR was rare? (Perhaps there were other
influences, particularly since Jefferson was not particularly popular
in the region after the *Embargo*.. Somehow I don't think they really
were enamored with his bringing *Monticello to the American people*.
>>
>>>actually,... though I am a bit older than you ...
>>>I must admit I never actually met Jefferson...
>>
>>And I can see that you're not very familiar with his architectural
>>works either.
>
>I find it interesting to recap here.
>
>You claimed Jefferson was trained as an architect,
>(he was not, he did study Law at William and Mary)
>
>You also stated in discussing a private residence in Connecticut
>that "the descendants of the original owner had the *bad taste*
>to alter the pristine Classical Revival building by adding some
>Greek Revival details to a later addition..."
>
>As I have shown, Classical Revivals were generally porch
>additions, so not pristine to begin with, and evolved from
>the early classical form to the Greek revival form as public
>buildings with large halls covered with domes were scaled down
>to residential structures without them.
Only in your own mind have you shown that Classical Revival
architecture were *generally porch additions*, as McAlester and
McAlester define the style as unique in the period in which it was
developed.... They even give it its own chapter. When ECR details were
added to earlier structures, they often took the form of porch
additions, but this does not diminsh the fact that the style was
decidedly separate from preceding Georgian and Colonial styles, as well
as contempory Federal styles.
>Adding Greek revival details to a residence would not change
>the style.
According to you, such *remodelling* would make the residence
ineligible for the Historic Register. Of course, this is not true, as
the Historic Register recognizes the social and historic import in
stylistic alteration, and might in fact see *resoration* to a home's
original state as stripping it of its history and character.
You have forgotten to add to this recap, however, that you were
unfamiliar with the origins and development of Early Classical Revival,
particularly Jeffersonian Classical, and thus provided erroneous
information to the readers of this newsgroup.
Matt Silberstein
mbwi...@ix.netcom.com(Mary Beth Williams) wrote:
>In <4nvchh$n...@news.nyu.edu> ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu (Paul J. Gans)
>writes:
>>
>>Mary Beth Williams (mbwi...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>>
>>[deletions]
>>
>>: Steve, once again you show you're lack of knowledge of your own
>>: espoused theoretical framework. *Diffusion* does not occur
>_THROUGH_
>>: intermediaries -- Technology may move from one group to another and
>>: then to another, but it is not *diffused* through an intermediary
>whose
>>: sole purpose is to *move* that information/technology. Diffusion is
>a
>>: process which involves relationships, most likely built upon some
>form
>>: of mutual trust, kinship, or power. Thus, group A has a
>relationship
>>: with group B, passes information/technology on, and then group B may
>at
>>: some point move to transfer it to group C. But true diffusion,
>>: particularly of technologies which have far reaching social or
>economic
>>: implications are not taken or passed lightly. Please, read a little
>>: diffusionist theory.
>>
>>[more deletions]
>>
>>This is, in my opinion, not quite true. As is often the case,
>>it depends. There is, for example, a relatively clear path that
>>can be traced for the diffusion of the stirrup from China-Korea
>>to Europe (and thence to the Americas). On the other hand, the
>>development of printing in the west does not so easily trace.
>>It is clear that other cultures "printed" before western Europe,
>>but the actual diffusion path (if there is one) is not clear.
>>It (and this is the point) *could* have been ONE traveller
>>telling the tale of what he or she saw, or it could have been an
>>independent invention. We don't know.
>>
>Paul, what is the chance that all the groups involved are going to
>*trust* that one single traveller, a traveller most of them had never
>laid eyes on before in their lives? Do you believe everything that
>every stranger tells you, or are you much more likely to believe those
>people with whom you have a relationship. Or those who are more
>physically/economically *persuasive*. Yes, diffusion does happen, but
>chances are that it goes from groups/individuals who have
>*relationships*, e.g., kindship, economic, power, rather than through
>casual contact between strangers.
Mary Beth, what you say is correct, but would like to make a small
comment. I have been following this debate and I see what looks to me to
be an unfortunate tendency to argue from theory rather than fact. By that
I mean something like "Diffusion means ...., therefore .... happened."
Instead the arguements should always go "Fact1, Fact2, therefore
Conclusion (which may or may not be diffusionist."
For instance, as "attractive" (in a Prince Valent way) as the idea of the
"lost tribe" going to Central America, we have no evidence of it at all.
OTOH, I think there was far more communication between "East" and "West"
than is normally considered.
In any case, I think the diffusionist debate should be shelved, we should
discuss events and explainations and build theories of history, not argue
THEORIES OF HISTORY. Hyperdiffusionism, OTOH, seems by definition and
intent, to be racist, and should be ignored.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I intend this as a indecent, and even obscene, message. It is
especially unsuitable for minors.
--Because I am human, nothing human is beyond me. S.A. --
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Stella Nemeth
mbwi...@ix.netcom.com(Mary Beth Williams) wrote:
>In <4nvchh$n...@news.nyu.edu> ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu (Paul J. Gans)
>writes:
>>
>>Mary Beth Williams (mbwi...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>>This is, in my opinion, not quite true. As is often the case,
>>it depends. There is, for example, a relatively clear path that
>>can be traced for the diffusion of the stirrup from China-Korea
>>to Europe (and thence to the Americas). On the other hand, the
>>development of printing in the west does not so easily trace.
>>It is clear that other cultures "printed" before western Europe,
>>but the actual diffusion path (if there is one) is not clear.
>>It (and this is the point) *could* have been ONE traveller
>>telling the tale of what he or she saw, or it could have been an
>>independent invention. We don't know.
>>
>Paul, what is the chance that all the groups involved are going to
>*trust* that one single traveller, a traveller most of them had never
>laid eyes on before in their lives? Do you believe everything that
>every stranger tells you, or are you much more likely to believe those
>people with whom you have a relationship. Or those who are more
>physically/economically *persuasive*. Yes, diffusion does happen, but
>chances are that it goes from groups/individuals who have
>*relationships*, e.g., kindship, economic, power, rather than through
>casual contact between strangers.
I left both posts intact because I would like to point out that Paul
wasn't talking about picking up an idea from a stranger. I took it
for granted that what he was describing was the Marco Polo type of
traveller, who went out and saw strange things in foreign parts and
returned to tell of it, and also perhaps to try some of those strange
things for himself.
As an example, since Europe already had all of the parts necessary for
printing, it could easily have been a single returning traveller who
suggested using the mecanism of the wine or olive oil press to press
ink onto paper. This is one invention which doesn't seem to have
involved long term relationships, but which probably does involve
diffusion since European printing came into being almost immediately
after the Silk Road was reopened.
Stella Nemeth
s.ne...@ix.netcom.com
Mary Beth Williams
In <4o1sk2$5...@news1.slip.net> ma...@lainet.com (Matt Silberstein)
writes:
>For instance, as "attractive" (in a Prince Valent way) as the idea of
the
>"lost tribe" going to Central America, we have no evidence of it at
all.
>OTOH, I think there was far more communication between "East" and
"West"
>than is normally considered.
When you use the terms *East* and *West*, are you talking Eastern and
Western Hemispheres, or the traditional *East*, i.e, Asia, and *West*,
i.e., Europe?
Matt Silberstein
mbwi...@ix.netcom.com(Mary Beth Williams) wrote:
Those who point out how "words" have value may be right. I tried to make a
clear distinction and instead made a muddled mess.
By "East" and "West" I intended Europe/Asia. As I said I think the idea of
Egyptian influence in Central America is cool, very Prince Valent/ERB
like. But no, I don't think that there is much (or even any) evidence
there.
Paul J. Gans
Mary Beth Williams (mbwi...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
[deletions]
I had written:
: >This is, in my opinion, not quite true. As is often the case,
: >it depends. There is, for example, a relatively clear path that
: >can be traced for the diffusion of the stirrup from China-Korea
: >to Europe (and thence to the Americas). On the other hand, the
: >development of printing in the west does not so easily trace.
: >It is clear that other cultures "printed" before western Europe,
: >but the actual diffusion path (if there is one) is not clear.
: >It (and this is the point) *could* have been ONE traveller
: >telling the tale of what he or she saw, or it could have been an
: >independent invention. We don't know.
: >
: Paul, what is the chance that all the groups involved are going to
: *trust* that one single traveller, a traveller most of them had never
: laid eyes on before in their lives? Do you believe everything that
: every stranger tells you, or are you much more likely to believe those
: people with whom you have a relationship. Or those who are more
: physically/economically *persuasive*. Yes, diffusion does happen, but
: chances are that it goes from groups/individuals who have
: *relationships*, e.g., kindship, economic, power, rather than through
: casual contact between strangers.
You are, of course, right. But (and it is a big but) it depends.
In the case of printing it is easy to see how one individual could
bring the idea. Printing from woodcuts was already well-known, so
a merchant, a stranger, downing a beer at a table next to you, could
say, "I really saw something strange in China last year. They were
printing from re-usable carved bits" and, *IF* you were thinking along
the right lines, that could do it for you.
All one would need to do is watch a fellow get up and down from a
horse using stirrups. That would do it.
But you are correct. It is much more likely to take place among
friends.
Indeed, I've just had a thought. It depends on what we are diffusing.
If it is a new type of plow, I'd have to *know* that it would work,
*know* how to build one, and *know* how to use it. I won't get that
by happenstance.
On the other hand if I saw a fork in use at table for the first time,
and if I was familiar with forks used in the kitchen, I'd have no
problem at all.
Mary Beth Williams
In <4o2i8q$h...@news.nyu.edu> ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu (Paul J. Gans)
writes:
This is the kind of *diffusion* question academic archaeologists now
incorporate into their work... Questions where the *process* of
diffusion is critical to whether or not it took place.
Hyperdiffusionists (who now seem to prefer the term *diffusionists*)
claim that _if_ diffusion _could_ have taken place, i.e., the
opportunity was there, then it _did_ take place. I hate to beat the
old maize example to death, but unless a group on the receiving end of
maize technology was familiar with horticultural practices, had tools
to work maize, were sedentary long enough to tend to the maize, and had
a significant dietary niche they needed to fill, the chances of maize
being adopted was slight. Your example of the stirrup is another
example -- unless those on the receiving end kept horses, were sick of
having to find a tree stump every time they wanted to mount, and
thought it helped them waste their enemy in battle, etc., then the new
technology is wasted. Indians quickly saw that the gun filled a niche
and adopted it as a weapon and/or hunting tool rather rapidly; On the
other hand, iron kettles were initially cut up into lots of neat
goodies such as points, ladles, cutting implements, beads, etc. It
took quite a while before a niche was found for unmodified kettles -
namely that the lifeways of Indians changed dramatically, and kettles
were more easily acquired than pottery.
>On the other hand if I saw a fork in use at table for the first time,
>and if I was familiar with forks used in the kitchen, I'd have no
>problem at all.
Sure... You'd have the peasant slave take it back to the kitchen <g>.
Stella Nemeth
mbwi...@ix.netcom.com(Mary Beth Williams) wrote:
>In <4o0lc5$k...@shore.shore.net> whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
>writes:
>>At a time when American intellectual activity was coming to be
>>spoken of as the enlightenment his energetic pursuit of a wide
>>range of interests was noteworthy, and when it comes to style it
>>is fair to say that Jefferson independently invented his own.
>I think that you're understanding of the concept of *independent
>invention* is somewhat skewed. Jefferson was very well versed in the
>designs of Italian and Renaissance architects, Palladio in particular,
>and actively borrowed part and parcel from them... This is obviously
>the stylistic *diffusion* Stella was commenting on, and in no way can
>be termed *independent invention.*
Since I've been referred to, I figure I had better step into the
discussion and make the following point.
Mary Beth, there is a difference between the kind of diffusion I was
talking about (no need to put it into quotes of any kind since it
certainly does qualify as diffusion) and slavish copying. I said that
the influence of Greek and Roman building styles was obvious in
Federal buildings. I didn't say that the Greeks and Romans used red
brick, which the Federal builders certainly do. Just because an idea,
or technique is taken up by a culture that didn't invent it
independently doesn't mean that they don't change that idea to fit the
time and place where it will be used by the new group.
Stella Nemeth
s.ne...@ix.netcom.com
Mary Beth Williams
In <4o3437$s...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> S.NE...@IX.NETCOM.COM (Stella
>>>spoken of as the enlightenment his energetic pursuit of a wide
>>>range of interests was noteworthy, and when it comes to style it
>>>is fair to say that Jefferson independently invented his own.
>
>>I think that you're understanding of the concept of *independent
>>invention* is somewhat skewed. Jefferson was very well versed in the
>>designs of Italian and Renaissance architects, Palladio in
particular,
>>and actively borrowed part and parcel from them... This is obviously
>>the stylistic *diffusion* Stella was commenting on, and in no way can
>>be termed *independent invention.*
>
>discussion and make the following point.
>
>Mary Beth, there is a difference between the kind of diffusion I was
>talking about (no need to put it into quotes of any kind since it
>certainly does qualify as diffusion) and slavish copying. I said that
>the influence of Greek and Roman building styles was obvious in
>Federal buildings. I didn't say that the Greeks and Romans used red
>brick, which the Federal builders certainly do. Just because an idea,
>or technique is taken up by a culture that didn't invent it
>independently doesn't mean that they don't change that idea to fit the
>time and place where it will be used by the new group.
Stella, I'm not sure that you're getting Steve's point. He's claimed
that Jefferson *independently invented* his own style, which was not
the case, as he borrowed heavily from Palladio and other Renaissance
architects. *Diffusion* does not require exact mimicry -- in fact, it
almost never occurs that way, as no two cultures are exactly the same,
even if related. But to claim (as Steve did) that adaptation of a
particular style/technology is *independent invention* is highly
erroneous.
Cheers,
MB Williams
Dept. of Anthro., UMass-Amherst
Paul J. Gans
Mary Beth Williams (mbwi...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
[deletions]
: Hyperdiffusionists (who now seem to prefer the term *diffusionists*)
: claim that _if_ diffusion _could_ have taken place, i.e., the
: opportunity was there, then it _did_ take place. I hate to beat the
: old maize example to death, but unless a group on the receiving end of
: maize technology was familiar with horticultural practices, had tools
: to work maize, were sedentary long enough to tend to the maize, and had
: a significant dietary niche they needed to fill, the chances of maize
: being adopted was slight. Your example of the stirrup is another
: example -- unless those on the receiving end kept horses, were sick of
: having to find a tree stump every time they wanted to mount, and
: thought it helped them waste their enemy in battle, etc., then the new
: technology is wasted. Indians quickly saw that the gun filled a niche
: and adopted it as a weapon and/or hunting tool rather rapidly; On the
: other hand, iron kettles were initially cut up into lots of neat
: goodies such as points, ladles, cutting implements, beads, etc. It
: took quite a while before a niche was found for unmodified kettles -
: namely that the lifeways of Indians changed dramatically, and kettles
: were more easily acquired than pottery.
: >On the other hand if I saw a fork in use at table for the first time,
: >and if I was familiar with forks used in the kitchen, I'd have no
: >problem at all.
: Sure... You'd have the peasant slave take it back to the kitchen <g>.
I think that MB and I have alternate definitions of hyperdiffusionism.
I bow to her in terms of the definition used in archaeology. My point
(see, I get one more chance :-) was to define hyperdiffusionism as
asserting that some cultural artifact or trait tracelessly "leaped" over
intervening societies and cultures. That, to me, is the "hyper"
part of it.
So there is no real disagreement. My definition was different, not
superior.
Steve Whittet
In article <4o1juj$q...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>, mbwi...@ix.netcom.co says...
>
>In <4o0lc5$k...@shore.shore.net> whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
>writes:
>>
>>In article <4nust3$k...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>, mbwi...@ix.netcom.co
>says...
>>>
>>>In <4nu187$k...@shore.shore.net> whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
>>>writes:
>>>>
>>>>In article <4nrjeh$q...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>,
>mbwi...@ix.netcom.co
>>>says...
>>>
>>>>> In my old town in Connecticut, only
>>>>>one house in an area accepted by the National Register was designed
>>>>>by someone with architectural training
>>>
>>>>I suppose that would explain your lack of familiarity with the
>>>subject.
>>>
>>>Hmmmm... so what would explain your lack of familiarity with Colonial
>>>and Early National architecture?
Disagreeing with your untutored opinion does not necessarily evidence
a lack of familiarity with the subject at hand.
As mentioned earlier, the majority of American houses are based
on one of four principal architectural traditions; Ancient Classical,
Renaissance Classical, Medieval or Modern. "Colonial" is a term much in
favor among real estate agents.
In actuality America was colonized by people from many different
traditions. There are post medieval English, Dutch Colonial,
French Colonial, Spanish Colonial, Georgian, Adam and
Early Classical revival forms. "Early National architecture"
is what, precisely? Can you define it? Can you define "Colonial"
as a style?
>>>Fortunately where one resided does
>>>not necessarily limit one's knowledge on a particular subject... Were
>>>this the case, there would be a distinct shortage of non-Nilinian
>>>Egytologists <g>.
>>>
>>>>> -- well, at least I _believe_Thomas Jefferson had such training...
>>>
>>>>No, he was self taught. Jefferson was an interested amateur
>>>>archaeologist as well as architect, (he was one of the first surface
>>>>collectors actually), and oh yes, he was very well read for his day
>>>>and also played the violin.
>>>
>>>Funny, as one can see from the excerpt below, McAlester and McAlester
>>>consider Jefferson to be an architect, (and do not denote his status
>as
>>>*amateur*), and a very influential one at that.
>>
>>While I have the highest regard for the effort this research project
>>represents, it presumes some facility for architectural concepts on
>>the part of the reader.
>>
>>1.) Architects are not trained, they are encouraged to learn
>>proactively.
>
>You're playing with words here, Steve. Should I post to the
>architecture NG and ask how many professional architects object to the
>term *training*? When I was working in an architectural firm in
>Cambridge 10 years ago, I seem to remember the term being used quite a
>bit.
It is often used carelessly. A soldier is trained, his craft is
drilled into him. For some education is like that. Plato called
it a "torch race on horseback". The very essence of the "diffusion
you so vehemently object to, is the education of students by teachers.
Architecture has a lot more to do with independent invention. We often
end up teaching ourselves as we go.Thats how the process works. In an
architectural firm junior architects are allowed to learn, but nobody
has much time to teach you anything.
Where you learn your trade is by working things out for yourself,
researching materials, interviewing user groups, creating a vision
fixing some goals and developing a solution.
As a project develops people do present their work in progress
for critical review. I have worked at some firms where there was
a weekly design problem where everyone was expected to put a scheme
on the wall.
Solutions, or attempts at solutions are freely discussed in such firms,
and occasionaly, if something seems to work ie; doesn't get shot down
too bad in one situation, it may be incorporated into something else,
and eventually become an office standard.
>
>>2.) Most if not all architects in Jeffersons time were amateurs.
>
>But you argued previously that the only architecture in *good taste* in
>New England was designed by *architects*, not *builders*.
No, actually the English word "Architect" began as the Greek word
"Arch Tectos", meaning Master Builder. I began my career in that
fashion, why would I depreciate the work of such craftsmen?
What I said was:
"
1.) Generally speaking when we talk of style we mean something other
than a muddy mixture of any available elements.
>Some, however, do not fit neatly into one of these
>stylistic categories but,instead, have characteristics
>of two or more styles.
2.) This is a somewhat tactful way of putting it.I suppose it is
a fact that nobody ever went broke catering to bad taste in America.
3.) There are some people unfortunate enough to have spent a lot of
money to live in houses which are of indefinite antecedent. You may
be one of them.
> Such houses may have been originally built as stylistic mixtures
>or may have resulted from later attempts to alter the style through
>remodeling...
4.) Translation: Some houses have been butchered by less than
scrupulous remodeling contractors who don't know the difference
between Federal and Greek Revival details.
(If your house was designed by a carpenter in his twenties
driving a pickup with a big black dog in the back you may
know what I mean)
>Most early stylistic mixtures occurred during the transitional
>periods when these persistent fashions were changing.
Historically this is the period of the Clipper ship when a
talented woodworker found employment working in the shipyards,
and people began to resort to barn raising to get their houses
built."
In other words hiring a kid in his twenties who undertakes
to go in business as a "remodeling contractor" because he
will do the work cheap,is not quite the same thing as hiring a
"Master Builder" who has paid his dues and the results show it.
This is not to be confused with being a "Master Baiter" which,
(whether or not defined as being a person specialising in insulting
people into confrontational disputes), would be a title for which
you are well qualified.
>As you now claim that *most if not all* architects in the late
>Colonial-Early National period were *amateurs*, how do you distinguish
>between an amateur architect and a builder?
I think it is extremely important for an architect to be an amateur.
As we used to say "When money comes in the door, art goes out the window"
A builder generally wants to make money. An architect ought to be able
to say "Money is not a good reason for doing or not doing anything"
Architects ought to be idealists, ideas are the essence of their craft.
Moreover, since architects are generalists and not specialists,
they need to keep learning less and less about more and more...
An architect cannot have too much hands on experience.
A good architect will have worked most trades and gradually
advanced in responsibility through foreman, superintendent,
clerk of the works and project manager to estimator and
perhaps eventually owner of a construction company.
At the same time the architect is learning how to execute the works
which gradually become the foundations of the designs which will
themselves eventually evolve into a style there is also a need to
spend some time polishing the communication skills that will allow
someone else to follow the plan once it has been drawn.
In addition a modern architect often has become reasonably
computer literate through a decade or so of CAD drafting.
The architect is expected to be a reasonably competent accountant
and lawyer,and to have some engineering background because of the
responsibilities regarding approval of bids, requisitions for payment,
contract administration and other professional responsibilities.
Think of all the different special requirements each building
demands the architect to have familiarity with.
>
>:::snip:::
>
>>At a time when American intellectual activity was coming to be
>>spoken of as the enlightenment his energetic pursuit of a wide
>>range of interests was noteworthy, and when it comes to style it
>>is fair to say that Jefferson independently invented his own.
>
>I think that you're understanding of the concept of *independent
>invention* is somewhat skewed. Jefferson was very well versed in the
>designs of Italian and Renaissance architects, Palladio in particular,
>and actively borrowed part and parcel from them... This is obviously
>the stylistic *diffusion* Stella was commenting on, and in no way can
>be termed *independent invention.*
Understanding the strict proportional discipline of Palladian
architecture no more requires an intellectual bankruptcy than
having learned the scales prevents one from composing music.
>>>>>But, unfortunately the
>>>>>descendants of the original owner had the *bad taste* to alter the
>>>>>pristine Classical Revival building by adding some Greek Revival
>>>>>details to a later addition...
>>>>
>>>>Jefferson, 1743-1826 is generally credited with responsibility for
>>>>the Greek Revival in the United States. Whether he invented the
>>>>style or was simply the instrument of its diffusion to the colonies
>>>>is still a matter of some debate, but the reason the Greek revival
>>>>is dated from 1820 had something to do with his design of Monticello
>>>>as I recall...It seems odd you would describe his buildings as
>>>>"pristine Classical Revival" (1780-1830; based on Roman models)
>>>>especially given his identification with Greek Revival and then
>>>>describe their detailing as altered by "adding some Greek Revival
>>>>details to a later addition".
>>>
>>>From the chapter *Early Classical Revivial* in McAlester and
>McAlester,
>>>_A Field Guide to American Houses_:
>>
>>(The chapter begins)
>>"Identifying Features
>>Entry Porch (Portico) dominating the front facade and normally
>>equaling it in height.Porch roof usually supported by four simple
>>columns (Roman, Doric or Tuscan Types)"
>>
>>In other words far from being a pristine "style", its very
>>essence is the remodeling of a porch.
>
>You forgot to continue with the other identifying features, Steve.
>"the columns support a prominent centered gable; a semi-circular or
>elliptical fanlight normally occurs above the panelled front door;
>windows align horizontally and vertically in symmetrical rows, usually
>five-ranked on the front facade, less commonly three-ranked or
>seven-ranked." (pg. 169)
Your confusion is understandable given that you are just paroting
back what you have read without giving it the least bit of thought.
All of the above elements are a part of the "Entry Porch".
The "eleptical fanlights" are vestigal from the earlier Federalism
and the combination of elements found in many other styles marks
this as a period of transitional style. The symmetrical allignment
of the windows differentiates the style from the more casual folk
house which constituted a good part of the American colonial tradition.
Paneled front doors are a common Georgian element
>
>More than just the remodelling of a house with a porch, eh Steve?
There are a number of important elements here. The attempts at
ostentation were focused on and personified the entry.
Americans were trying to show they were more than just "colonials".
The reaching out to a classical tradition was an attempt at
credibility through a very republican conservatism.
The style is associated primarily with large important buildings
such as Universities, plantation houses and state capitols. It is
consequently somewhat rare.
Its eventual residential reflection was the Greek revival which
came forth from Jeffersons design for the University of Virginia
in 1819 and that in turn evolved from Monticello where the
elements were first composed.
Architecturaly the reason is clear.
At a residential scale a two story porch is a very difficult
composition with which to bring across a classic sense of
simplicity and elegance. The same is true of domes. Both
these elements work well at the scale of a public building
which requires a large open space for meetings. They do
not work well in a small residential house.
With the desire of Americans to reflect the ideals of their
nation in their homes what they copied in scaled down form
became the Greek Revival. By 1820 the two story porch had
become a one story porch in most of the Northeast.
>Particularly when you take into account the predominent N.E. house
>styles which preceeded ECR, namely Georgian and Post-Medieval English
>(English center-chimney Colonial, see Morrison 1952).
Now you are confusing Ancient Classical with Renaissance Classical
and Medieval forms all in one sentence.
>
>>(Two paragraphs preceeding that cited by MB)
>>Many Georgian and early Adam (Federalist) houses,
>>as well as simple folk houses,were updated during the early
>>nineteenth century by the addition of a full height
>>Classic Revival entry porch"
>
>>"Folk houses" are a technical euphemism for "nondescript structures".
>
>On pg. 78, in the chapter on *folk houses*, McAlester and McAlester
>give a very in-depth description of the *New England Tradition*, i.e.,
>the traditional salt-box, Cape or center-chimney colonial predominate
>in pre-Revolutionary New England. These *non-descript structures* are
>the very same which also dominate the Federal Register of Historic
>Homes for the period.
"Indeed most Colonial dwellings built during the 1600's lacked even
Medieval decorative detailing and might be classified as folk houses"
As to the center chimney,
Here I will refer you to "Village Architecture of Early New England"
edited by Lisa C. Mullins, National Historical Society,
Main Street Press, Pittstown, New Jersey, 1987, Page 60
Look at the evolution of the center chimney form in the Judge
Samuel Holten House in Danvers Massachusetts.
You might also want to read "
"A Field Guide to the Folk Architecture of the Northeastern United States"
Richard Pillsbury and Andrew Kardos,
Geography Publications at Dartmouth, NH, 1970
>
>>The rounded or eliptical window elements illustrated as
>>"high style elaborations" are one of the definitive
>>Federalist elements
>
>According to McAlester and McAlester, who place the start of the ECR
>Period (1770-1830) a decade ahead of the Adam (Federal) Period
>(1780-locally 1840), it is also a definitive ECR feature.
>>(The paragraph preceeding that cited by MB)
Features shared by more than one style remain a useful filter
when used in proper combination with other sets of features.
>>
>>"Occurance
>>This is a relatively uncommon style found in isolated examples
>>throughout the areas settled by 1820. It is rare north of
>>Pensylvannia, most examples occur in the southern states,
>>particularly Virginia....By 1830 the subsequent and more
>>universally popular phase of classical revivalism. The Greek
>>Revival, had replaced Early Classical models even in Virginia."
>
>Whether or not uncommon, the truth of the matter is that you claimed a
>Connecticut house designed by Thomas Jefferson was a Greek Revival, not
>an Early Classical Revival,
No. what you said was:
>>>>>"But, unfortunately the
>>>>>descendants of the original owner had the *bad taste* to alter the
>>>>>pristine Classical Revival building by adding some Greek Revival
>>>>>details to a later addition... "
and I replied:
>>>>
>>>>"Jefferson, 1743-1826 is generally credited with responsibility for
>>>>the Greek Revival in the United States. Whether he invented the
>>>>style or was simply the instrument of its diffusion to the colonies
>>>>is still a matter of some debate,"
just as you claimed that all Jeffersonian
>architecture was Greek Revival, rather than ECR.
I didn't say that either, please put down the book and
listen more closely to the lecture. What I said was"
>>>>"It seems odd you would describe his buildings as
>>>>*"pristine Classical Revival"* (1780-1830; based on Roman models)
>>>>especially *given his identification with Greek Revival* and then
>>>>describe their detailing as altered by "adding some Greek Revival
>>>>details to a later addition".
Greek Revival (primarily residential)evolved from the ideas either
independently invented or diffused to the Americas by Jefferson and
others primarily in designs for large imposing public buildings or
mansions, within a year of Jeffersons designing
the University of Virginia.
And as is quite
>evident in the _Field Guide_, which you obviously possess, the Early
>Classical Revival, which may predate Greek Revival by 50 years, is more
>than just a folk house with a porch added.
I have a rather extensive library of books, that is indeed one I
happen to like. What I like about it is its catagorical organization
of stylistic components. That does not mean I don't feel a need to
occasionaly consult some second opinions.
>
>>
>>>
>>>*Following the Revolution there was an immediate need for public
>>>buildings to house the newly organized government at both the state
>and
>>>national levels. It was natural to have taken Rome as a model, with
>>>its Republican ideas and monumental architecture, a choice that
>>>symbolized the mood and politicx of the new country. Roman Revival
>>>architecture thus became fashionable...
>>
>>It helps to know that classical Roman architecture was actually Greek.
>
>:::deleting Steve's allegations that there is no difference between
>ancient Greek and Roman architecture:::::
Actually, deleting my citations from "A History of Architecture"
which point out the extent of Greek influence on the Roman forms.
>
>Even if this _was_ true (and I'm sure many classicists would argue that
>it is not),
Good. Go get some cites to the contrary to prove you aren't
just blowing smoke.
the motivations behind early National Americans chosing one
>ancient civilization over the other as their model _is_ in fact the
>important issue here.
No. The issue is not a choice of civilizations but a choice of
architectural components. Residential houses tend to require
somewhat different choices than large public buildings. The
result was an evolution away from two story porches and
domed roofs in residential structures.
Rome was chosen because it was a *Republic*...
Baloney, nobody wanted a Rebublic anymore than they did a Democracy
what was desired was an Oligarchy and that is indeed what was created.
>The LAST thing our founding fathers wanted in 1776/1787 was a direct
>democracy.
Plato explains it rather well.
When looking at forms of government
The first choice would be the rule of wise men
Philosopher kings are wise but there are not many of them.
Timocracies arise when honourable men are seen as being wise enough
Oligarchies arise when rich men are seen as being honourable enough
Democracies arise when everyone gets rich enough
Tyranies arise when the few decent people remaining call for a strong man
to bring an end to the licentious liberties of the liberal democrats
The people never really get wise to the system until they are ruled
by a tyrant who is brutal enough.
snip
>>> Inspired by such high-style landmarks, typical Palladian entry porches
>>> were soon being built throughout the South, some at the time of original
>>>construction, but many also as additions to earlier houses* [I guess
>>>the guy with the pickup truck and black lab was REALLY busy.]
>>
>>In other words what we are talking about is a remodeling project
>>involving the addition of a front porch and or a domed roof.
>
>You _did_ claim (erroneously, however) that *remodelling* made a house
>ineligible for the Historic Register. And adding these modifications
>to a simple New England *folk house* dramatically altered the outward
>visual *style* of the facade.
what I said was:
"Take a look at a house which has been properly restored, then
compare it to one which has been remodeled. Are you really unaware
that both are technical terms? A house which has been remodeled
is ineligible for the national historic register *unless it can
be restored.*"
Restoration is a very important part of the Historic Registration process.
Remodeling a house sometimes involve a complete gut of the existing
structure without making any record of what was there. It is akin
to clearing an archaeological site without recording what was removed.
>:::snip:::
>
>>p 179 "Greek Revival
>>six principal subtypes can be distinguished on the basis of porch and
>>roof configurations.
>>Entry porch less than full height or absent
>>About 20 percent of Greek Revival houses have small entry porches
>>which do not extend the full height of the facade"
>>Full height entry porch
>>...It thus resembles the Early Classical Revival style from which the
>>Greek Revival sprang."
>
>Yes, but Steve, let's return to the original point of my earlier post,
>that you, an acclaimed architect, could not distinguish between Early
>Classical Revival and Greek Revival, although one temporally precedes
>the other significantly.
Once again you not only miss the point but fail to follow the discussion.
I stated that Early Classical revival architecture was predominately
found on large, imposing, often public structures and that Greek Revival
which evolved from it was a solution to designing components to fit the
greatly reduced scale of residential structures.
You claimed that Greek Revival elements on a Classical Revival
structure were in bad taste.
I have yet to see you explain why.
>:::snip:::
>
>>>So your comments on Monticello as a the epitome of a Greek Revival
>>>design are false.
Perhaps you should take notes so you get the story straight.
I said
"Jefferson, 1743-1826 is generally credited with responsibility for
the Greek Revival in the United States. Whether he invented the style
or was simply the instrument of its diffusion to the colonies is still
a matter of some debate, but the reason the Greek revival is dated
from 1820 had something to do with his design of Monticello as I
recall..."
Obviously you didn't recall, but Monticello evolved into the
Capitol at Richmond which evolved into the University of Virginia
which was the point of transition to the Greek Revival style
in America.
I went on to say:
"It seems odd you would describe his buildings as "pristine
Classical Revival"
As discussed, Classical Revival often amounted to the addition
of such elements as a front porch and anything but a "pristine"
form.
(1780-1830; based on Roman models) especially given
his identification with Greek Revival and then describe their detailing
as altered by "adding some Greek Revival details to a later addition".
Do you know what element that would suggest got changed?
Well do ya, ..?
Monticello ("little mountain"), which is located
>in
>>>Albemarle County, Va., near Charlottesville, was designed by Thomas
>>>Jefferson as his his private residence. Furthermore, it was erected
>in
>>>two building campaigns, one in 1770-82 with additions in 1793-1809.
>A
>>>tad early for the Greek Revival Period, wouldn't you say? (Then
>again,
>>>perhaps he _knew_ the Greeks were going to revolt 50 years they did
>>><g>.)
>>
>>Monticello was built as a plantation house with arched and oval
>>windows, a dome and a full height porch to strict Palladian canons.
>
>Exactly -- which means, contrary to your arguments that Jefferson
>*independently invented* his style, he was _copying_ Italian
>architecture.
No, Actually the introduction of academic forms into England
was principally the work of one man, Inigo Jones (1573-1652)
His architectural career began after a journey to Italy in
which he visited Rome and Vicenza, and studied the writings of
Palladio and others.
Some of the others in the sucession, such as Sir Christopher Wren
included strong Baroque elements also seen in the work of Vanbrugh
and Hawksmoor, Lord Burlington, Colin Campbell and William Kent
"For the Assembly room at York Burlington adopted an imitation of
Paladios "Egyptian Hall" (A History of Architecture, p 443)
Jeffersons design for Monticello used these "strict Palladian
canons" the way a composer uses the musical scales; He did
read Lord Burlingtons book on Palladios restoration of
ancient buildings published in 1730, but it hardly inhibited
him from paneling the interior with raised panels and molded trim.
>>It was Thomas Jeffersons first shot at building anything.
>>
>>After declining a third term in 1808 Jefferson continued to be
>>active in such affairs as founding the University of Virginia
>>in 1819 and the State Capitol at Richmond where his interest
>>in archaeology combined with a better understanding of the
>>intricacies of the Greek influence on Roman architecture and
>>the spread of the Greek revival style to residential structures.
>
>Steve, we both agreed earlier that the Greek Revival style was not
>initiated until the mid-1820's, around the same time as Jefferson's
>death (from *old age*.)
Greek Revival as a style dates from 1820 following Jeffersons design of
the Capital of Virginia at Richmond and the University of Virginia c 1819 .
It reached its peak about 1826 when Jefferson died. The importance
of Jeffersons design for the University of Virginia in 1819 was that
it contained some residential housing.
Rumours of his death in 1820 seem a bit premature as he remained active
until 1826, when Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) died at the age of 83.
>
>>The evolution was subtle. We are talking about the trim details
>>of the heads of windows and the height of porches and about a
>>different scale from public to private structures. Monticello
>>brought the design vocabulary of Vitruvius into harmony with
>>the Palladian strictures.Jefferson brought Monticello to the
>>American people.
>
>Perhaps the evolution was subtle in Virginia, where the ECR
>predominated, but how do you explain the evolution from Adam to Greek
>in the Northeast, where ECR was rare?
The Early Classic Revival was rare. It never "predominated" anywhere.
The evolution of Greek Revival from a classical tradition provided
respectablity and classic simplicity at a residential scale.
(Perhaps there were other
>influences, particularly since Jefferson was not particularly popular
>in the region after the *Embargo*.. Somehow I don't think they really
>were enamored with his bringing *Monticello to the American people*.
Quite right MB, its a wonder we remember the man at all. Must be cause
he has his picture plastered all over our money...take away that and
he'd be a nobody overnight...well ok, unless you had an insurance claim,
but certainly we wouldn't remember him for anything like the Louisiana
Purchase or opening up the west...
>>>
>>>>actually,... though I am a bit older than you ...
>>>>I must admit I never actually met Jefferson...
>>>
>>>And I can see that you're not very familiar with his architectural
>>>works either.
>>
>>I find it interesting to recap here.
>>
>>You claimed Jefferson was trained as an architect,
>>(he was not, he did study Law at William and Mary)
>>
>>You also stated in discussing a private residence in Connecticut
>>that "the descendants of the original owner had the *bad taste*
>>to alter the pristine Classical Revival building by adding some
>>Greek Revival details to a later addition..."
>>
>>As I have shown, Classical Revivals were generally porch
>>additions, so not pristine to begin with, and evolved from
>>the early classical form to the Greek revival form as public
>>buildings with large halls covered with domes were scaled down
>>to residential structures without them.
>
>Only in your own mind have you shown that Classical Revival
>architecture were *generally porch additions*, as McAlester and
>McAlester define the style as unique in the period in which it was
>developed....
Which is it MB? strictly Palladian or a unique independent invention?
They even give it its own chapter. When ECR details were
>added to earlier structures, they often took the form of porch
>additions, but this does not diminsh the fact that the style was
>decidedly separate from preceding Georgian and Colonial styles, as well
>as contempory Federal styles.
Sure it was decidedly separate. Early Classic Revival buildings had
porches.... put the book away and think about it...
>
>>Adding Greek revival details to a residence would not change
>>the style.
>
>According to you, such *remodelling* would make the residence
>ineligible for the Historic Register.
No, remodeling which destroys the character of a building in such a fashion
that it cannot be restored such as gutting or demolishing a structure.
how about trying to get in at least an occasional correct cite?
Of course, this is not true, as
>the Historic Register recognizes the social and historic import in
>stylistic alteration, and might in fact see *resoration* to a home's
>original state as stripping it of its history and character.
what I said was:
"Take a look at a house which has been properly restored, then
compare it to one which has been remodeled. Are you really unaware
that both are technical terms? A house which has been remodeled
is ineligible for the national historic register *unless it can
be restored.*"
Restoration is a very important part of the Historic Registration process.
Remodeling a house sometimes involve a complete gut of the existing
structure without making any record of what was there. It is akin
to clearing an archaeological site without recording what was removed.
>
>You have forgotten to add to this recap, however, that you were
>unfamiliar with the origins and development of Early Classical Revival,
>particularly Jeffersonian Classical, and thus provided erroneous
>information to the readers of this newsgroup.
Once again, disagreeing with your untutored opinion does not
necessarily evidence a lack of familiarity with the subject at hand.
Mary Beth Williams
In <4o5024$4...@news.nyu.edu> ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu (Paul J. Gans)
writes:
>
>I think that MB and I have alternate definitions of hyperdiffusionism.
>I bow to her in terms of the definition used in archaeology. My point
>(see, I get one more chance :-) was to define hyperdiffusionism as
>asserting that some cultural artifact or trait tracelessly "leaped"
over
>intervening societies and cultures. That, to me, is the "hyper"
>part of it.
>
>So there is no real disagreement. My definition was different, not
>superior.
Paul, I can accept that you (and other here) may take the word
*diffusion* (and its prefix *hyper*) in a different context, but this
_is_ sci.archaeology, and so, as the terms have a long history in
archaeological theory (and continue to do so) it is important to place
them within their _archaeological_ contexts. There are many such terms
in archaeology, some of which have evolved so as to have little to do
with the original theory. Marxist archaeology is one such term -- few
Marxists now refer to his works, but rather use a framework where
capitalism is a moving force for cultural change.
As I've mentioned before -- archaeologists do not deny that *diffusion*
of technology occurs between cultures in contact. But it is now
incorporated into larger theoretical frameworks/methodologies where it
is not placed _above_ other explanations for change. Most
archaeologists now describe what you have described with printing and
stirrups as being a characteristic of *interaction spheres*, where
groups who may not come into direct contact, but are familiar with one
another and share many similar cultural atrributes (may even have
kinship ties) exchange information and technology.
Hope this helps,
Stella Nemeth
mbwi...@ix.netcom.com(Mary Beth Williams) wrote:
>In <4o3437$s...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> S.NE...@IX.NETCOM.COM (Stella
>Nemeth) writes:
>>
>>mbwi...@ix.netcom.com(Mary Beth Williams) wrote:
>>
>>>In <4o0lc5$k...@shore.shore.net> whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
>>>writes:
>>
>>>>At a time when American intellectual activity was coming to be
>>>>spoken of as the enlightenment his energetic pursuit of a wide
>>>>range of interests was noteworthy, and when it comes to style it
>>>>is fair to say that Jefferson independently invented his own.
>Stella, I'm not sure that you're getting Steve's point. He's claimed
>that Jefferson *independently invented* his own style, which was not
>the case, as he borrowed heavily from Palladio and other Renaissance
>architects. *Diffusion* does not require exact mimicry -- in fact, it
>almost never occurs that way, as no two cultures are exactly the same,
>even if related. But to claim (as Steve did) that adaptation of a
>particular style/technology is *independent invention* is highly
>erroneous.
I've left all of the headers and quote references, but I've clipped
everything except Steve's original paragraph and Mary Beth's response
to what I wrote.
Mary Beth points out that Steve claims that Jefferson invented his own
style of architecture. I'd like to point out that Jefferson did
indeed **invent** his own style of architecture. I don't think that
the word "invent" is a reasonable word for the process, however. One
works in a style. Styles evolve. And once in a while someone, like
Jefferson, does something so original, that it is considered a new
style in itself.
In Jefferson's case the cultural borrowing is very obvious. But that
doesn't negate the fact that he also **invented** (for want of a
better word for the process) something new.
One of Mary Beth's problems in this conversation is that she doesn't
understand stylistic differences or how styles work, which isn't too
odd considering her educational background.
Stella Nemeth
s.ne...@ix.netcom.com
Mary Beth Williams
In <4o5tja$n...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> S.NE...@IX.NETCOM.COM
(Stella Nemeth) writes:
>In Jefferson's case the cultural borrowing is very obvious. But that
>doesn't negate the fact that he also **invented** (for want of a
>better word for the process) something new.
The key term under debate here is not so much *invented* as it is
*INDEPENDENTLY*. Obviously, as you admit above, Jefferson did not come
up with his *style* alone.
>One of Mary Beth's problems in this conversation is that she doesn't
>understand stylistic differences or how styles work, which isn't too
>odd considering her educational background.
Stella, dear, please see my latest work on Shantock Castellated and
Contact Period Haudenosaunee *stylistic* variation as relating to
social and economic interaction. I presented it at the 1995 American
Society for Ethnohistory Conference. If you can't find a copy, I'll
mail you one.
BTW, as far as relating style to archaeology (as we _are_ in an
archaeological N.G.), you _have_ heard of Martin Wobst, I assume?
Steve Whittet
In article <4o6lf2$i...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>, mbwi...@ix.netcom.co says...
>
>In <4o5tja$n...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> S.NE...@IX.NETCOM.COM
>(Stella Nemeth) writes:
>
>>In Jefferson's case the cultural borrowing is very obvious. But that
>>doesn't negate the fact that he also **invented** (for want of a
>>better word for the process) something new.
>
>The key term under debate here is not so much *invented* as it is
>*INDEPENDENTLY*. Obviously, as you admit above, Jefferson did not come
>up with his *style* alone.
This is an extremely good point. Very few ideas come out of the blue.
When I am looking at architecture I often wonder where a particularly
wonderful idea originated. It may not be immediately obvious, but if
you think about it it becomes clearer.
The following snippets are from:
"Normand's Parallel of the Orders of Architecture", R A Cordingley
Alex Trianti Ltd, London, 1959, pages 6-7
In discussing the Palladian contributions to the orders of architecture
it is important to note that the Tuscan order used in the Jeffersonian
Classical Revival style was recreated as a separate order by the Italian
Renaissance architect - writers of the 15th-16th centuries.
The Golden amateurs such as Inigo Jones, based their individual versions upon
a description by the Roman writer Vitruvious "who however speaks of timber
for the entablature and stone only for the columns".
"The Tuscan Order is really nothing but a simplified Roman Doric and truly
authentic examples of the complete order are non existent in antiquity."
"The Romans absorbed the Greek architectural tradition and
ensured its continuence."
"The elongation of the orders and the lightening of their entablatures
became even more marked. In other words, the earliest monumental
architecture of Rome is imitative of that of the latest phases
of the Greek"
One imagines Jefferson in 1819 presenting his design for the University
of Virginia to the Universities board of review composed of a number of
eminent classical scholars familiar with the writings of the classical
authors in the original Greek and Latin.
I can almost hear them saying
"The Tuscan Order is really nothing but a simplified Roman Doric and truly
authentic examples of the complete order are non existent in antiquity."
"The Romans absorbed the Greek architectural tradition and ensured its
continuence."
Jefferson with his interest in archaeology would have been fascinated.
Columns spaced systematically apart crowned by their entablature
constitute a colonade. In general the simpler the order the graver
and more imposing the air while more ornate orders convey a lighter
and more graceful impression.
The Palladian arcade is actually a combination of two of the more
elementary types, a colonade at large scale interpenetrated by
an arcade at small scale of the Renaissance alternating type.
The Renaissance arcade was a very light and graceful affair, hardly
capable of expressing the dignified severity required to impress
the right of a new nation to exist.
With the Renaissance orders as with the Roman, the entablature
usually bears a regular relation to the column height no matter
what the order used. Vitruvious devised a means of regulating the
proportions of the entablature in accordance with the height of the
column, the proportion increasing with the size.
A full discussion of the system is available to the reader in the
"Orders of Architecture".
We should consider that the pediment which originated as a structural
element, but was used aesthetically to enbrace and unify local compositions
of the architectural elements; collonades, porticos entrances and door and
window surrounds,was a key element of the transition from Jeffersonian
Classicism to the Greek Revival.
In addition to stepping down the monumental architecture of
universities and state capitals to a residential scale I should
point out that I suspect the Greek Revival was particularly popular
in New England because it made use of a disproportionately wide
entablature to return the cornice frieze and architrave complete with
mutules, modillions, dentils and other elements of the raked cornice
in a fashion which could deal with the somewhat steeper slope of northern
roofs which were designed to deal with snow loads by letting it slide off.
>
>>One of Mary Beth's problems in this conversation is that she doesn't
>>understand stylistic differences or how styles work, which isn't too
>>odd considering her educational background.
In understanding architecture it is important to set ones book down
from time to time and try to work the details out by drawing a scheme
which connects all the elements together so they fit.
The essence of style is to have nothing which is not required by
the design, in the design.
>
>Stella, dear, please see my latest work on Shantock Castellated and
>Contact Period Haudenosaunee *stylistic* variation as relating to
>social and economic interaction. I presented it at the 1995 American
>Society for Ethnohistory Conference. If you can't find a copy, I'll
>mail you one.
As was said before, money is not a good reason for doing or not doing
anything."*stylistic* variation as relating to social and economic
interaction." is really more to do with information exchange and
communicating status ("Stella, dear"), than style....
>
>BTW, as far as relating style to archaeology (as we _are_ in an
>archaeological N.G.), you _have_ heard of Martin Wobst, I assume?
Yes. "Martin Wobst asserted that "much of what archaeologists label
'stylistic behavior' may be viewed as a strategy for information exchange"
Using Yugoslavian peasant costume as his example he showed how variations in
dress can convey stylistic messages about status, age and so forth"
There is a difference between "stylistic behavior" and "style" however...
Other prominent archaeologists dealing with style include
James Sackett,(passive style, longlasting traditions of style),
Stephen Plog (the degree of stylistic similarity in the pottery of
neighboring areas is seen to be dependent on the degree of
social interaction),
Polly Weissner (distinquished between assertive style which is personaly
based and emblematic style which carries information about group activities)
from: "Archaeology, Theories, Methods and Practice", Colin Renfrew, Paul Bahn
Thames and Hudson, London, 1996, pages 400-401
cheers
Steve Whittet
In article <4o44nh$o...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>, mbwi...@ix.netcom.co says...
>
>In <4o3437$s...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> S.NE...@IX.NETCOM.COM (Stella
>Nemeth) writes:
>>
>>mbwi...@ix.netcom.com(Mary Beth Williams) wrote:
>>
>>>>spoken of as the enlightenment his energetic pursuit of a wide
>>>>range of interests was noteworthy, and when it comes to style it
>>>>is fair to say that Jefferson independently invented his own.
I guess I need to take it a little slower with some members of the class
but it is fair to say that a reasonably intelligent reader should
undertand that the above sentence is phrased so as to refer to either
or, both Jeffersons personal style and his architecture.
>>
>>>I think that you're understanding of the concept of *independent
>>>invention* is somewhat skewed. Jefferson was very well versed in the
>>>designs of Italian and Renaissance architects, Palladio in
>particular,
I am sure you recognise that the work of Andreas Palladio (1508-80)
as popularised by Inigo Jones was a part of the design vocabulary
of most architects and builders from the first origins of European
settlement in the Americas.
With the possible exception of the Newport Tower, it is hard to think
of a building in America identifiable as precedent to his work.
Equating this vocabulary with a negation of Jeffersons role in
developing his own ideas is like claiming that if someone paints
a house white, Sherwin Williams should be given a part of the
architectural credit.
>>>and actively borrowed part and parcel from them... This is obviously
>>>the stylistic *diffusion* Stella was commenting on, and in no way can
>>>be termed *independent invention.*
"Thomas Jefferson not only designed buildings himself, but used the
influence of his political office and his considerable powers of
persuasion to push the United Staes toward his classical ideal.
Jefferson shaped early Washington DC, the Virginia capitol at Richmond,
and almost single handedly the University of Virginia at Charlottesville"
While, as we have said, *diffusion is a part of any exchange of ideas*
and whatever similarities in whatever it is that makes things what they are
points to that exchange, there is also a certain amount of independent
invention in making things something else besides.
Some things stand out from the pack and have a sense of style.
In the case of Jefferson's influence on *public architecture* the style is
sometimes reffered to as Jeffersonian Classicism. In the case of his
influence on *residential architecture* the style became Greek Revival.
>>
>>Since I've been referred to, I figure I had better step into the
>>discussion and make the following point.
>>
>>Mary Beth, there is a difference between the kind of diffusion I was
>>talking about (no need to put it into quotes of any kind since it
>>certainly does qualify as diffusion) and slavish copying.
That is a very good point.
>>I said that the influence of Greek and Roman building styles was obvious
>>in Federal buildings. I didn't say that the Greeks and Romans used red
>>brick, which the Federal builders certainly do. Just because an idea,
>>or technique is taken up by a culture that didn't invent it
>>independently doesn't mean that they don't change that idea to fit the
>>time and place where it will be used by the new group.
That is my point exactly.
>
>Stella, I'm not sure that you're getting Steve's point. He's claimed
>that Jefferson *independently invented* his own style, which was not
>the case, as he borrowed heavily from Palladio and other Renaissance
>architects.
I began by saying that "Whether he invented the style or was simply
the instrument of its diffusion to the colonies is still a matter
of some debate, perhaps we should have that debate now.
Is a writer who uses the English language considered to have borrowed
his ideas from everyone who contributed a word to the language he uses?
Palladian ideas were a part of the architectural vocabulary in
Georgian and Federal style houses. Up until Jeffersons time
houses had gradually evolved to have doors and windows, roofs,
stairs, walls, ceilings, chimneys, foundations and rooms as
pretty common elements.
Were those things independently invented or did they diffuse?
If they diffused, where did they come from and who invented
them there?
Some Georgian houses had projected entries long before Thomas
Jefferson was around and some public buildings had colonnades.
What Jefferson added was the potential to make a major
transformation of classical colonnade and arcade into front porch.
Later architects went farther and added side porches, back porches
and decks. Get the picture?
*Diffusion* does not require exact mimicry -- in fact, it
>almost never occurs that way, as no two cultures are exactly the same,
>even if related. But to claim (as Steve did) that adaptation of a
>particular style/technology is *independent invention* is highly
>erroneous.
The ongoing and continuous process by which our ideas evolve
often has a few places where one individual makes a difference
Jefferson was that kind of individual.
>
>Cheers,
>
>MB Williams
>Dept. of Anthro., UMass-Amherst
steve
Stella Nemeth
mbwi...@ix.netcom.com(Mary Beth Williams) wrote:
>In <4o5tja$n...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> S.NE...@IX.NETCOM.COM
>(Stella Nemeth) writes:
>>In Jefferson's case the cultural borrowing is very obvious. But that
>>doesn't negate the fact that he also **invented** (for want of a
>>better word for the process) something new.
>The key term under debate here is not so much *invented* as it is
>*INDEPENDENTLY*. Obviously, as you admit above, Jefferson did not come
>up with his *style* alone.
Of course he did. No one else did the drawings. The problem isn't
with the word **independently** the problem is with the word
**invented** which isn't appropriate to any art form. No one is
claiming that Jefferson invented the building of large buildings.
What he independently created was a personal style, which was very
heavily copied. Unfortunately the best example of that copying done
in private buildings is something you are unlikely to ever see. I
don't expect you to hop on a plane and visit the row of town houses on
Rochester Street in Scottsville, New York which are straight out of a
Jefferson copybook.
>>One of Mary Beth's problems in this conversation is that she doesn't
>>understand stylistic differences or how styles work, which isn't too
>>odd considering her educational background.
>Stella, dear, please see my latest work on Shantock Castellated and
>Contact Period Haudenosaunee *stylistic* variation as relating to
>social and economic interaction. I presented it at the 1995 American
>Society for Ethnohistory Conference. If you can't find a copy, I'll
>mail you one.
If you can send it by e-mail, please do. I promise to read it and
report back.
My statement stands. You might know a great deal about "social and
economic interaction" but you know diddly about art history.
>BTW, as far as relating style to archaeology (as we _are_ in an
>archaeological N.G.), you _have_ heard of Martin Wobst, I assume?
No, I haven't. Tell me about him. Does he talk about style as an art
historian does (which is what this thread is about) or as a
sociologist would?
Stella Nemeth
s.ne...@ix.netcom.com
Stella Nemeth
whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>In article <4o1juj$q...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>, mbwi...@ix.netcom.co says...
>>
>>>>Hmmmm... so what would explain your lack of familiarity with Colonial
>>>>and Early National architecture?
[snip]
>... "Early National architecture"
>is what, precisely? Can you define it?
I think she might mean "Federal".
Stella Nemeth
s.ne...@ix.netcom.com
Stella Nemeth
whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>In article <4o1juj$q...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>, mbwi...@ix.netcom.co says...
>>
>>>It helps to know that classical Roman architecture was actually Greek.
>>
>>:::deleting Steve's allegations that there is no difference between
>>ancient Greek and Roman architecture:::::
>Actually, deleting my citations from "A History of Architecture"
>which point out the extent of Greek influence on the Roman forms.
>>
>>Even if this _was_ true (and I'm sure many classicists would argue that
>>it is not),
>Good. Go get some cites to the contrary to prove you aren't
>just blowing smoke.
At this point all I can say is, Steve, give it up. If Mary Beth
doesn't know that Roman architecture is one of the Hellenistic styles,
it is pretty useless to continue. What would she do if confronted with
art from Carthage or Phoenicia? It just totally boggles the mind.
>Restoration is a very important part of the Historic Registration process.
>Remodeling a house sometimes involve a complete gut of the existing
>structure without making any record of what was there. It is akin
>to clearing an archaeological site without recording what was removed.
For a good example of the complete gut school of remodeling just look
at the early This Old House. Bob Villa got his education while on the
air and the first couple of projects were pretty scary.
Stella Nemeth
s.ne...@ix.netcom.com
Mary Beth Williams
In <4o7jfe$d...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com> S.NE...@IX.NETCOM.COM
>>>One of Mary Beth's problems in this conversation is that she doesn't
>>>understand stylistic differences or how styles work, which isn't too
>>>odd considering her educational background.
>
>>Stella, dear, please see my latest work on Shantock Castellated and
>>Contact Period Haudenosaunee *stylistic* variation as relating to
>>social and economic interaction. I presented it at the 1995 American
>>Society for Ethnohistory Conference. If you can't find a copy, I'll
>>mail you one.
>
>If you can send it by e-mail, please do. I promise to read it and
>report back.
Will do so.
>My statement stands. You might know a great deal about "social and
>economic interaction" but you know diddly about art history.
Are you lost, Stella? We are still in sci.archaeology, are we not?
And the subject we are discussing is *historical* archaeology, as we
are looking at archaeological artifacts, in this case, Early
Euro-American residential structures, not *works* of art (at least
according to Steve Whittet's definition.)
And, btw, how do you know that I know *diddly* about art history? You
mean those two years working as a guide in the MFA in Boston were for
naught?
>>BTW, as far as relating style to archaeology (as we _are_ in an
>>archaeological N.G.), you _have_ heard of Martin Wobst, I assume?
>
>No, I haven't. Tell me about him. Does he talk about style as an art
>historian does (which is what this thread is about) or as a
>sociologist would?
Martin Wobst is probably the foremost authority on *style* as it
relates to archaeology, and, since, last time I checked, we are still
in sci.archaeology, that would be on-point, would it not? If you like,
though, we could start a new thread on all of this in soc.art.history
or sci.sociology (if either exist, that is...)
Cheers,
MB Williams
Dept. of Anthro., UMass-Amherst
Mary Beth Williams
In <4o7jfg$d...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com> S.NE...@IX.NETCOM.COM
(Stella Nemeth) writes:
>whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>
>>In article <4o1juj$q...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>, mbwi...@ix.netcom.co
says...
>>>
>
Colonial
>>>>>and Early National architecture?
>
>
>>... "Early National architecture"
>
As I used the terms before, i.e., Colonial _Period_ and Early National
_Period_ architecture, it seemed rather redundant to use them over and
over... Somehow, I thought readers were intelligent enough to
understand the use of _periods_ for denoting blocks of *time*. Thus,
Colonial _Period_ architecture is that architecture which appears in
continental North America during the *Colonial* Period, i.e., post-1520
to 1776, and includes Post-Medieval English, Georgian, Dutch Colonial,
etc., whereas the Early National Period usually includes the first 3
score years thereafter, but sometimes including the years after the
start of the Revolution and ending with the Civil War, and is marked by
houses from the Classical Revival, Federal, Greek Revival, Italianate,
etc.
Mary Beth Williams
In <4o7jfi$d...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com> S.NE...@IX.NETCOM.COM
Greek.
>>>
>>>:::deleting Steve's allegations that there is no difference between
>>>ancient Greek and Roman architecture:::::
>
>>Actually, deleting my citations from "A History of Architecture"
>>which point out the extent of Greek influence on the Roman forms.
>>>
>>>Even if this _was_ true (and I'm sure many classicists would argue
that
>>>it is not),
>
>>Good. Go get some cites to the contrary to prove you aren't
>>just blowing smoke.
>
>doesn't know that Roman architecture is one of the Hellenistic styles,
>it is pretty useless to continue. What would she do if confronted with
>art from Carthage or Phoenicia? It just totally boggles the mind.
Stella, this thread was already finished before it began, as Mr.
Whittet had no clue that Roman architecture and the Renaissance
architects who revived it, was the basis for Jefferson's work. You're
just playing games by claiming I know nothing about Greek
architecture/history, as it was never the topic of discussion.
Jefferson choose Rome not Greece as his model for political as well as
aesthetic reasons, ones which were discussed earlier, but I can review
if you'd like.
Oh, and if you'd really like to discuss the dynamics of Roman and Greek
interaction, I'd be happy to move over to sci.classics. I haven't had
a chance to use my undergrad minor (Classics) in quite some time, and
it might be fun. We could do it in Latin if you'd like.
Stella Nemeth
Is it your turn to take me on this weekend? What is the matter? Has
Lenny gotten tired of the battle?
mbwi...@ix.netcom.com(Mary Beth Williams) wrote:
>In <4o7jfe$d...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com> S.NE...@IX.NETCOM.COM
>(Stella Nemeth) writes:
>>
>>My statement stands. You might know a great deal about "social and
>>economic interaction" but you know diddly about art history.
>Are you lost, Stella? We are still in sci.archaeology, are we not?
>And the subject we are discussing is *historical* archaeology, as we
>are looking at archaeological artifacts, in this case, Early
>Euro-American residential structures, not *works* of art (at least
>according to Steve Whittet's definition.)
We are still in sci.archaeology, but if you think we haven't been
taking about works of art, you haven't been paying attention again.
"Early Euro-American residential structures"? "archaeological
artifacts"? I'm not sure if you are trying to trivialize the subject
at hand or trying to make it important enough to discuss by bringing
it up to some kind of off the wall, personal standard.
>And, btw, how do you know that I know *diddly* about art history? You
>mean those two years working as a guide in the MFA in Boston were for
>naught?
I don't know what you did when you worked as a guide for the Museum of
Fine Arts in Boston, but you obviously weren't paying attention there
either.
By the way, I used to live there, so figuring out "MFA" wasn't all
that hard. One more attempt at Tag Team put-downism failed.
>>>BTW, as far as relating style to archaeology (as we _are_ in an
>>>archaeological N.G.), you _have_ heard of Martin Wobst, I assume?
>>
>>No, I haven't. Tell me about him. Does he talk about style as an art
>>historian does (which is what this thread is about) or as a
>>sociologist would?
>Martin Wobst is probably the foremost authority on *style* as it
>relates to archaeology, and, since, last time I checked, we are still
>in sci.archaeology, that would be on-point, would it not? If you like,
>though, we could start a new thread on all of this in soc.art.history
>or sci.sociology (if either exist, that is...)
Style as it relates to archaeology would be on topic for
sci.archaeology, but not on topic for this particular conversation.
I find it very odd that you are either unwilling, or unable to discuss
art, and art history, on its own merits. If only as a background to
understanding the artifacts found through archaeological means.
Nevertheless you are welcome to start a side-thread about style as it
relates to archaeology. I am willing to join you there. There is no
need, IMHO, to make a whole independent thread out of it unless you
have the desire to do so. I don't think that bringing this
particular flame fest into some other group is particularly useful, or
that it would be welcome in that other group. By the way,
soc.art.history doesn't exist. Neither does sci.sociology.
Or we could just continue to discuss what is and what isn't on topic
on sci.archaeology, but that, again IMHO, requires a thread of its
own.
Stella Nemeth
s.ne...@ix.netcom.com
Stella Nemeth
mbwi...@ix.netcom.com(Mary Beth Williams) wrote:
>In <4o7jfg$d...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com> S.NE...@IX.NETCOM.COM
>(Stella Nemeth) writes:
>>
Steve Whittet said...
>>>... "Early National architecture"
>>>is what, precisely? Can you define it?
>>
>>I think she might mean "Federal".
>As I used the terms before, i.e., Colonial _Period_ and Early National
>_Period_ architecture, it seemed rather redundant to use them over and
>over...
Redundent perhaps, but nevertheless correct. If I was talking about
the art of a particular period of Egyptian history, I wouldn't
suddenly decide to invent a new term for that period because it
sounded "redundent."
>Somehow, I thought readers were intelligent enough to
>understand the use of _periods_ for denoting blocks of *time*. Thus,
>Colonial _Period_ architecture is that architecture which appears in
>continental North America during the *Colonial* Period, i.e., post-1520
>to 1776, and includes Post-Medieval English, Georgian, Dutch Colonial,
>etc., whereas the Early National Period usually includes the first 3
>score years thereafter, but sometimes including the years after the
>start of the Revolution and ending with the Civil War, and is marked by
>houses from the Classical Revival, Federal, Greek Revival, Italianate,
>etc.
We weren't talking about blocks of time. We were discussing a
particular period of architecture. If you insist on using incorrect
terminology, you can't blame everyone else listening in for thinking
that you don't know the correct terms for the subjects being
discussed.
Stella Nemeth
s.ne...@ix.netcom.com
Stella Nemeth
mbwi...@ix.netcom.com(Mary Beth Williams) wrote:
>Oh, and if you'd really like to discuss the dynamics of Roman and Greek
>interaction, I'd be happy to move over to sci.classics. I haven't had
>a chance to use my undergrad minor (Classics) in quite some time, and
>it might be fun. We could do it in Latin if you'd like.
Is this supposed to crush me Mary Beth. It doesn't.
I have no problem admitting that I have no Latin and I have no Greek.
Neither is very important to the discussion since I can recognize a
Helledic, or a Hellenic, or a Hellinistic piece of sculpture, and can
even tell them apart.
I see no reason to move a discussion about physical objects of art,
art styles, and the evolution of architectural forms in the early
period of the United States over to sci.classics. I'm sure the last
thing they need is a flamewar migrating over to their newsgroup.
Stella Nemeth
s.ne...@ix.netcom.com
Mary Beth Williams
In <4oe0mg$3...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> S.NE...@IX.NETCOM.COM (Stella
Nemeth) writes:
>
>Is it your turn to take me on this weekend? What is the matter? Has
>Lenny gotten tired of the battle?
Stella, as I recall, you were the one who jumped into this discussion
between myself and Steve on early Euro-American residential structures.
I have no interest in *taking you on*, merely to educate the readers
of this n.g. on the archaeological significance of architectural style.
>mbwi...@ix.netcom.com(Mary Beth Williams) wrote:
>
>>In <4o7jfe$d...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com> S.NE...@IX.NETCOM.COM
>>(Stella Nemeth) writes:
>>>
>
>>>My statement stands. You might know a great deal about "social and
>>>economic interaction" but you know diddly about art history.
>
>>Are you lost, Stella? We are still in sci.archaeology, are we not?
>>And the subject we are discussing is *historical* archaeology, as we
>>are looking at archaeological artifacts, in this case, Early
>>Euro-American residential structures, not *works* of art (at least
>>according to Steve Whittet's definition.)
>
>We are still in sci.archaeology, but if you think we haven't been
>taking about works of art, you haven't been paying attention again
>
>"Early Euro-American residential structures"? "archaeological
>artifacts"? I'm not sure if you are trying to trivialize the subject
>at hand or trying to make it important enough to discuss by bringing
>it up to some kind of off the wall, personal standard.
So, let me see if I understand your logic. Unprovenienced quilts _are_
archaeological artifacts, whereas houses, in particular provenienced
ones, are not? You do know that there is a huge segment of the
archaeological community, historic as well as *pre-historic*
archaeologists, who ONLY excavate/research/interpret residential
structures? Thus, as it is already a field of some import (at least to
a number of professionals) my discussion of such is neither a *personal
standard* nor an attempt to trivialize (the latter would be ridiculous,
as I still profit economically and professionally from this area of
expertise.)
>>And, btw, how do you know that I know *diddly* about art history?
You
>>mean those two years working as a guide in the MFA in Boston were for
>>naught?
>
>I don't know what you did when you worked as a guide for the Museum of
>Fine Arts in Boston, but you obviously weren't paying attention there
>either.
>
>By the way, I used to live there, so figuring out "MFA" wasn't all
>that hard. One more attempt at Tag Team put-downism failed.
Gee, I guess I thought everyone knew the anacronym for a nationally
renowned museum, and thus it wasn't an attempt at a *put-down*
(although its obvious that your comments were meant as just that.)
Should I expect this level of paranoia to continue with this thread, or
are you prepared to accept a discussion on the level of professionalism
that I have thus far tried to maintain?
>>>>BTW, as far as relating style to archaeology (as we _are_ in an
>>>>archaeological N.G.), you _have_ heard of Martin Wobst, I assume?
>>>
>>>No, I haven't. Tell me about him. Does he talk about style as an
art
>>>historian does (which is what this thread is about) or as a
>>>sociologist would?
>
>>Martin Wobst is probably the foremost authority on *style* as it
>>relates to archaeology, and, since, last time I checked, we are still
>>in sci.archaeology, that would be on-point, would it not? If you
like,
>>though, we could start a new thread on all of this in soc.art.history
>>or sci.sociology (if either exist, that is...)
>
>Style as it relates to archaeology would be on topic for
>sci.archaeology, but not on topic for this particular conversation.
So you are determined to maintain that the style of an artifact, in
this case early Euro-American residential structures, is NOT *on-topic*
for this discussion? I just checked the subject line and it certainly
appears to be so.
>I find it very odd that you are either unwilling, or unable to discuss
>art, and art history, on its own merits. If only as a background to
>understanding the artifacts found through archaeological means.
Art history is only as important to the style of an artifact as it was
to the producer of that artifact. Thus, if Greek art was important to
Jefferson, then its history, as far as Jefferson understood it, becomes
integral to a researchers understanding of that artifact. However, the
relationship between that style and another one may be completely
insignificant to the production of the artifact. For example, a potter
copies the style of a pot she sees in her cousin's village. The fact
that the copied pot was copied from one in a third village has no
impact upon the actions of our potter, as she may in all likelyhood be
unaware, or not care, about the history of the style. She liked what
she saw, or she was attempting to establish a bond between herself and
her cousin, etc., etc. The same can be said for Jefferson. He may
have been aware of the relationship between Greek and Roman
architecture, but the assumption that it thus effected his adoption of
the styles is unproven. If anything, there is _negative_ evidence,
judging from Jefferson's views on direct democracy and his promotion of
Roman over Greek culture as more civilized* and less corrupt.
>Nevertheless you are welcome to start a side-thread about style as it
>relates to archaeology. I am willing to join you there. There is no
>need, IMHO, to make a whole independent thread out of it unless you
>have the desire to do so. I don't think that bringing this
>particular flame fest into some other group is particularly useful, or
>that it would be welcome in that other group. By the way,
>soc.art.history doesn't exist. Neither does sci.sociology.
Stella, this is only a *flame fest* if you continue to make it so. I'm
perfectly happy to continue to discuss the importance of style in
archaeology, although if we are to continue on Jefferson, then no new
subject is needed, as his work is completely appropriate for
archaeological review.
Mary Beth Williams
In <4oe0mi$3...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> S.NE...@IX.NETCOM.COM (Stella
>>(Stella Nemeth) writes:
>>>
>
>Steve Whittet said...
>
>>>
>
>>As I used the terms before, i.e., Colonial _Period_ and Early
National
>>_Period_ architecture, it seemed rather redundant to use them over
and
>>over...
>
>Redundent perhaps, but nevertheless correct. If I was talking about
>the art of a particular period of Egyptian history, I wouldn't
>suddenly decide to invent a new term for that period because it
>sounded "redundent."
Please, Stella, now you're picking just for sake of picking. I didn't
*invent* a new term by merely dropping the word *Period* from Colonial
or Early American architecture. In archaeology, its perfectly normal
to talk about Early Holocene tools, or Late Woodland pottery, without
the use of the more correct Early Holocene _Period_ tools or Late
Woodland _Period pottery.
>>Somehow, I thought readers were intelligent enough to
>>understand the use of _periods_ for denoting blocks of *time*. Thus,
>>Colonial _Period_ architecture is that architecture which appears in
>>continental North America during the *Colonial* Period, i.e.,
post-1520
>>to 1776, and includes Post-Medieval English, Georgian, Dutch
Colonial,
>>etc., whereas the Early National Period usually includes the first 3
>>score years thereafter, but sometimes including the years after the
>>start of the Revolution and ending with the Civil War, and is marked
by
>>houses from the Classical Revival, Federal, Greek Revival,
Italianate,
>>etc.
>
>We weren't talking about blocks of time. We were discussing a
>particular period of architecture. If you insist on using incorrect
>terminology, you can't blame everyone else listening in for thinking
>that you don't know the correct terms for the subjects being
>discussed.
Please review the discussion. You will see that when I wanted to use
particular stylistic terms, such as Federal (Adam) or Greek Revival, I
did such. When I was discussion those styles from a particular time, I
used the more general term. Once again this is not unusual in
archaeology, although you seem unfamiliar with the practice. One can
talk about distinct Niantic or Shantock Castellated styles of pottery,
or one can describe the traditions under the more general description
of Final Woodland [Period] ceramics. I am not the only one to do such,
and in fact you can see the practice on Arch-Net, in Lizee's
discussions of Northeastern pottery styles.
Mary Beth Williams
In <4oe0mk$3...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> S.NE...@IX.NETCOM.COM (Stella
Greek
>>interaction, I'd be happy to move over to sci.classics. I haven't
had
>>a chance to use my undergrad minor (Classics) in quite some time, and
>>it might be fun. We could do it in Latin if you'd like.
>
>Is this supposed to crush me Mary Beth. It doesn't.
No, this was not meant to crush you, although I should call you on your
assumptions, perhaps because I'm merely an ignorant Indian, that I have
not had the benefits of a Classical education. As I've given you no
indication as to my educational background, other than I'm currently a
grad student, I have to question from where does your bias derive.
Although it is interesting to see that you cut from this discussion
your previous comments, supposedly to Steve, that I am completely
ignorant as to the the history and culture of *civilizations* including
Rome, Greece, Carthage, etc.
>I have no problem admitting that I have no Latin and I have no Greek.
>Neither is very important to the discussion since I can recognize a
>Helledic, or a Hellenic, or a Hellinistic piece of sculpture, and can
>even tell them apart.
Well, I have both Latin and Greek, as well as significant coursework in
the history, architecture, archaeology, economics and politics of both
areas, which means that not only can I tell the difference between the
material culture of both, but can more probably research first hand,
i.e, through primary documents, from whence they derived. No, this is
not meant to *brag*, only to establish that your unfounded assumptions
of my ignorance in these areas only highlight your own.
>I see no reason to move a discussion about physical objects of art,
>art styles, and the evolution of architectural forms in the early
>period of the United States over to sci.classics. I'm sure the last
>thing they need is a flamewar migrating over to their newsgroup.
As I've stated before, if we plan on talking about the relevance of
architectural style, even those initially adopted from earlier European
styles, on archaeological artifacts, in this case early Euro-American
residential structures, then this is an appropriate forum. However, if
you want to discuss the dynamics millenia earlier between Rome and
Greece and the *diffusion* of style as it relates to the art of that
period, then sci.classics is much more appropriate, or at the minimum,
as change in the subject line relating to such.
Steve Whittet
In article <4odi58$3...@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>, mbwi...@ix.netcom.co
says...
>
>In <4o7jfi$d...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com> S.NE...@IX.NETCOM.COM
>(Stella Nemeth) writes:
>>
>>whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>>
>Greek.
>>>>
>>>>:::deleting Steve's allegations that there is no difference between
>>>>ancient Greek and Roman architecture:::::
>>
>>>Actually, deleting my citations from "A History of Architecture"
>>>which point out the extent of Greek influence on the Roman forms.
>>>>
>>>>Even if this _was_ true (and I'm sure many classicists would argue
>that
>>>>it is not),
>>
>>>Good. Go get some cites to the contrary to prove you aren't
>>>just blowing smoke.
>>
>>doesn't know that Roman architecture is one of the Hellenistic styles,
>>it is pretty useless to continue. What would she do if confronted with
>>art from Carthage or Phoenicia? It just totally boggles the mind.
>
>Stella, this thread was already finished before it began, as Mr.
>Whittet had no clue that Roman architecture and the Renaissance
>architects who revived it, was the basis for Jefferson's work.
Roman architecture was not revived by the Renaissance architects.
They invented a new order "Tuscan" which was used by Jefferson
because it was more imposing the the much lighter "Corinthian"
It is refered to as "Roman" because of Andrea Palladios reliance
on and reference to the works of Vitruvious, but in fact if you
don't know that the essence of the discussion is the selection
of various elements from among the "Greek Orders", you probably
are also unaware that the Tuscan order was never actually used
in classical antiquity.
You will recall that I began by asking you if you knew what the
relevance to our discussion of the Tuscan order was...and as is
now obvious, you have no clue.
You're
>just playing games by claiming I know nothing about Greek
>architecture/history, as it was never the topic of discussion.
>Jefferson choose Rome not Greece as his model for political as well as
>aesthetic reasons, ones which were discussed earlier, but I can review
>if you'd like.
Jefferson chose the "Tuscan" order because its severity was more
imposing than the lighter and more classical styles.
Once again MB, you are way out of your depth.
>
>Oh, and if you'd really like to discuss the dynamics of Roman and Greek
>interaction, I'd be happy to move over to sci.classics. I haven't had
>a chance to use my undergrad minor (Classics) in quite some time, and
>it might be fun. We could do it in Latin if you'd like.
I am sure you would like to run away, somewhere else, anywhere else,
but the fact is MB there is nowhere you can run and nowhere you can
hide. You can't bluster your way out of it, you plainly know nothing
about the orders of architecture and should just admit it.
>
>MB Williams
>Dept. of Anthro., UMass-Amherst
>
>
steve
Mary Beth Williams
In <4ogb79$i...@shore.shore.net> whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
writes:
>
>In article <4odi58$3...@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
mbwi...@ix.netcom.co
>says...
>>Stella, this thread was already finished before it began, as Mr.
>>Whittet had no clue that Roman architecture and the Renaissance
>>architects who revived it, was the basis for Jefferson's work.
>
>Roman architecture was not revived by the Renaissance architects.
>They invented a new order "Tuscan" which was used by Jefferson
>because it was more imposing the the much lighter "Corinthian"
>
>It is refered to as "Roman" because of Andrea Palladios reliance
>on and reference to the works of Vitruvious, but in fact if you
>don't know that the essence of the discussion is the selection
>of various elements from among the "Greek Orders", you probably
>are also unaware that the Tuscan order was never actually used
>in classical antiquity.
Steve, as I said before, all we know from Jefferson is that he accepted
Palladio's characterization as *Roman*. Jefferson may or may not have
known that the style was actually *Tuscan*, but we do not know as he
didn't refer to it in his writings. Thus, we can only assume that his
concern was with Rome, not Tuscany, particularly since his political
and social interests revolved around Roman, not Tuscan, culture. Once
again, you're attempting to place more into the actions of men than the
written or archaeological record supports.
>You will recall that I began by asking you if you knew what the
>relevance to our discussion of the Tuscan order was...and as is
>now obvious, you have no clue.
Steve, just because I don't bark at your beck and call does not make me
ignorant of the data. Only shows that I have more important things to
do than to pursue your agenda of off-topic Trivial Pursuit. Unless you
can prove that Jefferson was actually cognizant of the Tuscan Order,
and that it directly influenced his work, it is in fact NOT relevant to
our discussion of Jeffersonian Classical Revival style (as the subject
line denotes.)
> You're
>>just playing games by claiming I know nothing about Greek
>>architecture/history, as it was never the topic of discussion.
>>Jefferson choose Rome not Greece as his model for political as well
>>as aesthetic reasons, ones which were discussed earlier, but I can
>>review if you'd like.
>
>Jefferson chose the "Tuscan" order because its severity was more
>imposing than the lighter and more classical styles.
>
>Once again MB, you are way out of your depth.
This is quite humorous, actually. Go back and re-read your assertions
that Monticello was a Greek Revival structure, Steve. And while you're
at it, open a few volumes on Jefferson's political philosophy and see
if you can assertain *why* he was interested in Roman, over Tuscan or
Greek, culture. Perhaps a glance at the U.S. Constitution might help
as well.
>>Oh, and if you'd really like to discuss the dynamics of Roman and
>>Greek interaction, I'd be happy to move over to sci.classics. I
>>haven't had a chance to use my undergrad minor (Classics) in quite
>>me time, and it might be fun. We could do it in Latin if you'd like.
>
>I am sure you would like to run away, somewhere else, anywhere else,
>but the fact is MB there is nowhere you can run and nowhere you can
>hide. You can't bluster your way out of it, you plainly know nothing
>about the orders of architecture and should just admit it.
See above regarding the humor of your comments. The *orders* of
architecture are irrelevant to this discussion. The fact that you are
unfamiliar with the application of architectural style to Early
Euro-American residential structures IS however very relevant,
particularly to the original discussion of *diffusion* of style.
Besides, this is sci.archaeology, not
alt.builders.with.black.labs.with.no.understanding.of.Orders.
As far as I'm concerned, until you become more familiar with the
historic and archaeological significance of your own chosen profession,
my discussion with you is fini.
M.B. Williams
Dept. of Anthro., UMass-Amherst
Steve Whittet
In article <4ohesj$g...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, mbwi...@ix.netcom.co
says...
>
>In <4ogb79$i...@shore.shore.net> whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
>writes:
>>
>>In article <4odi58$3...@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
>mbwi...@ix.netcom.co
>>says...
>
>>>Stella, this thread was already finished before it began, as Mr.
>>>Whittet had no clue that Roman architecture and the Renaissance
>>>architects who revived it, was the basis for Jefferson's work.
>>
>>Roman architecture was not revived by the Renaissance architects.
>>They invented a new order "Tuscan" which was used by Jefferson
>>because it was more imposing the the much lighter "Corinthian"
>>
>>It is refered to as "Roman" because of Andrea Palladios reliance
>>on and reference to the works of Vitruvious, but in fact if you
>>don't know that the essence of the discussion is the selection
>>of various elements from among the "Greek Orders", you probably
>>are also unaware that the Tuscan order was never actually used
>>in classical antiquity.
>
>Steve, as I said before, all we know from Jefferson is that he accepted
>Palladio's characterization as *Roman*. Jefferson may or may not have
>known that the style was actually *Tuscan*, but we do not know as he
>didn't refer to it in his writings.
Are you seriously suggesting that an architect described as concerned
with rigorously following the tenets of Andrea Palladio would not
have known that the order he was using was Tuscan, or that Tuscan is
an order and not a style, or that he needs to refer to it in his writings
when we can look at his buildings... I can only imagine that your face
is as red as the bricks we are throwing.
Thus, we can only assume that his
>concern was with Rome, not Tuscany, particularly since his political
>and social interests revolved around Roman, not Tuscan, culture.
You are not even on the right continent. His political and social interests
centered around Virginia and Washington DC.
What he wanted was to create an imposing and monumental architecture
to give standing to a new nation in the eyes of the ambassadors
visiting from Europe.
I don't doubt he was influenced by his travels through Europe
as a young man, and impressed with the power of architecture to
communicate the stability and trustworthiness of government, but
he was at least as awestruck by the buildings of Paris and in
particular Versailles as he was by anything he saw in Italy.
> Once
>again, you're attempting to place more into the actions of men than the
>written or archaeological record supports.
>
>>You will recall that I began by asking you if you knew what the
>>relevance to our discussion of the Tuscan order was...and as is
>>now obvious, you have no clue.
>
>Steve, just because I don't bark at your beck and call does not make me
>ignorant of the data.
If you want to demonstrate your competence in a subject it helps
to be able to hold up your end of the conversation when pressed.
The questions I asked were not difficult, any first year student
of architecture would have picked up on them at once.
Only shows that I have more important things to
>do than to pursue your agenda of off-topic Trivial Pursuit.
If you consider architecture a trivial pursuit, why try so hard
to pretend you have an interest in it?
> Unless you can prove that Jefferson was actually cognizant of
>the Tuscan Order, and that it directly influenced his work, it
>is in fact NOT relevant to our discussion of Jeffersonian Classical
>Revival style (as the subject line denotes.)
As discussed, the Tuscan Order was the very essence of the Palladian
influence.
"The Tuscan Order... Its recreation as a separate order is due to
the Italian Renaissance architect writers of the fifteenth and
sixteenth centuries AD who based their individual versions upon a
description by the Roman writer Vitruvious"
[Any clue who this might be...? If Andrea Palladio followed by
Inigo Jones were an influence on Thomas Jefferson, what order
do you suppose we are going to find him using?]
"A Field Guide to American Houses", Virginia and Lee McAlester
New York, Alfred A Knopf, 1988 p 169
"Early Classical Revival
Identifying features
...Porch roof supported by four simple columns,
(Roman Doric or Tuscan types)"
"Normands Parallel of the Orders of Architecture"
R A Cordinley, Alex Trianti, London, 1959 Page 7
" In point of fact the Tuscan is nothing more than a simplified
Roman Doric and truly authentic examples of the complete order
are non existent in antiquity."
1.) Doric columns are marked by entasis
2.) Jeffersonian Classical Revival style is known for its two story
collonaded porticos using either Roman Doric or Tuscan orders.
3.) pages 174 detail 4 amd 175 detail 2 show two houses by
Thomas Jefferson.
Can you tell from the columns which order they are?
(Hint: First check out page 171, {orders of columns}
then note the extremely wide entablature of Monticello,
then look at the Semple house of Williamsburg, VA.)
nuff said?
>
>> You're
>>>just playing games by claiming I know nothing about Greek
>>>architecture/history, as it was never the topic of discussion.
uh, right...
>>>Jefferson choose Rome not Greece as his model for political as well
>>>as aesthetic reasons, ones which were discussed earlier, but I can
>>>review if you'd like.
>>
>>Jefferson chose the "Tuscan" order because its severity was more
>>imposing than the lighter and more classical styles.
>>
>>Once again MB, you are way out of your depth.
>
>This is quite humorous, actually. Go back and re-read your assertions
>that Monticello was a Greek Revival structure, Steve.
I wonder how many times we have to go back over this before you
understand the material.
>
>>>So your comments on Monticello as a the epitome of a Greek Revival
>>>design are false.
Perhaps you should take notes so you get the story straight.
I said
"Jefferson, 1743-1826 is generally credited with responsibility for
the Greek Revival in the United States. Whether he invented the style
or was simply the instrument of its diffusion to the colonies is still
a matter of some debate, but the reason the Greek revival is dated
from 1820 had something to do with his design of Monticello as I
recall..."
Obviously you didn't recall, but Monticello evolved into the
Capitol at Richmond which evolved into the University of Virginia
which was the point of transition to the Greek Revival style
in America.
The Greek Revival element in Monticello is the extremely wide
entablature. This is the single most characteristic element
in the Greek Revival forms which evolved from the Classical
Revival.
I went on to say:
"It seems odd you would describe his buildings as "pristine
Classical Revival"
As discussed, Classical Revival often amounted to the addition
of such elements as a front porch and anything but a "pristine"
form.
(1780-1830; based on Roman models) especially given
his identification with Greek Revival and then describe their detailing
as altered by "adding some Greek Revival details to a later addition".
Do you know what element that would suggest got changed?
Well do ya, ..?
And while you're
>at it, open a few volumes on Jefferson's political philosophy and see
>if you can assertain *why* he was interested in Roman, over Tuscan or
>Greek, culture. Perhaps a glance at the U.S. Constitution might help
>as well.
He had less interest in Tuscan or Greek culture than in their architecture.
The Tuscan Order appealed to him because it is imposing when used in public
buildings and helped give the Americans a home court advantage in dealing
with European ambassadors.
>
>>>Oh, and if you'd really like to discuss the dynamics of Roman and
>>>Greek interaction, I'd be happy to move over to sci.classics. I
>>>haven't had a chance to use my undergrad minor (Classics) in quite
>>>me time, and it might be fun. We could do it in Latin if you'd like.
>>
>>I am sure you would like to run away, somewhere else, anywhere else,
>>but the fact is MB there is nowhere you can run and nowhere you can
>>hide. You can't bluster your way out of it, you plainly know nothing
>>about the orders of architecture and should just admit it.
>
>See above regarding the humor of your comments. The *orders* of
>architecture are irrelevant to this discussion.
Right MB, the orders of architecture have nothing whatsoever to do
with American Architectural styles or the Jeffersonian Classical
Revival style which is defined by its emphasis on them. sheesh !
The fact that you are
>unfamiliar with the application of architectural style to Early
>Euro-American residential structures IS however very relevant,
Care to define "Early Euro-American" as a style MB? Having failed
to learn the proper terms for the elements of the discussion do
you find it necessary to create some of your own?
By the way, the nineteenth century is not generally considered
early for American architecture, at least not in New England.
>particularly to the original discussion of *diffusion* of style.
>Besides, this is sci.archaeology, not
>alt.builders.with.black.labs.with.no.understanding.of.Orders.
I see, you were just posting to the wrong group then...
>
>As far as I'm concerned, until you become more familiar with the
>historic and archaeological significance of your own chosen profession,
>my discussion with you is fini.
Thank you MB, I appreciate that you need to slink away now
and lick your wounds. As always, it has been a pleasure to
watch you in action. For someone who knows absolutely
nothing about their subject matter you always do try to
give it your best shot.<g>
In closing I will try to say something nice.
I admit I am impressed by your having worked in a Cambridge
architectural office even if it was only part time or for a
single summer.
Most of The Cambridge architectural firms I worked for hired
people with Masters degrees in Architecture from MIT to work
in the mail room. The same is true for your summer job as
guide at the Museum of Fine Arts, very impressive. It's a
shame you don't find Egyptology interesting; with all that
potential they might have put you on the day shift...
>
>M.B. Williams
>Dept. of Anthro., UMass-Amherst
steve
Stella Nemeth
mbwi...@ix.netcom.com(Mary Beth Williams) wrote:
>In <4oe0mg$3...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> S.NE...@IX.NETCOM.COM (Stella
>Nemeth) writes:
>>mbwi...@ix.netcom.com(Mary Beth Williams) wrote:
>>
>>>In <4o7jfe$d...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com> S.NE...@IX.NETCOM.COM
>>>(Stella Nemeth) writes:
>>>>
>>
>>We are still in sci.archaeology, but if you think we haven't been
>>taking about works of art, you haven't been paying attention again
>>
>>"Early Euro-American residential structures"? "archaeological
>>artifacts"? I'm not sure if you are trying to trivialize the subject
>>at hand or trying to make it important enough to discuss by bringing
>>it up to some kind of off the wall, personal standard.
>So, let me see if I understand your logic. Unprovenienced quilts _are_
>archaeological artifacts, whereas houses, in particular provenienced
>ones, are not?
In the first place, **I** never said that quilts were archaeological
artifacts. Lenny said that, and refused to be corrected. Second,
where do you get the idea that all quilts are "unprovenienced"? Some
are, but most have quite good histories attached.
As for houses, I would expect that the ones that get found in a dig
qualify as archaeological artifacts and that those that have been
lived in continuously for the last few hundred years don't qualify as
archaeological artifacts.
>You do know that there is a huge segment of the
>archaeological community, historic as well as *pre-historic*
>archaeologists, who ONLY excavate/research/interpret residential
>structures?
I would imagine that evaluating structures would be a specialty. Are
you saying that if what they find turns out to be a commercial
structure (a forge, a barn, or a store of some kind) that they refuse
to continue? Or cover it up again?
Somehow I doubt it.
>Thus, as it is already a field of some import (at least to
>a number of professionals) my discussion of such is neither a *personal
>standard* nor an attempt to trivialize (the latter would be ridiculous,
>as I still profit economically and professionally from this area of
>expertise.)
The subject at hand was art, the study of art and the styles of art.
The fact that we are having this discussion in s.a doesn't change that
fact. As I suggested the last go around, I am perfectly willing to
listen to a discussion about house styles in an archaeological
context, but this discussion isn't it.
>>By the way, I used to live there, so figuring out "MFA" wasn't all
>>that hard. One more attempt at Tag Team put-downism failed.
>Gee, I guess I thought everyone knew the anacronym for a nationally
>renowned museum, and thus it wasn't an attempt at a *put-down*
>(although its obvious that your comments were meant as just that.)
>Should I expect this level of paranoia to continue with this thread, or
>are you prepared to accept a discussion on the level of professionalism
>that I have thus far tried to maintain?
No, everyone doesn't know the anacronym for the Museum of Fine Arts in
Boston. I generally don't refer to the Museum in New York as "the
Met" since I am aware that there are at least two institutions in New
York City that carry that nickname. I'm sure the Oriental Insitute in
Chicago has a nickname too, but I don't know what it is. Why would I?
I've never lived in that city.
If you say it wasn't a put down, I'll believe you. I guess it was
just taking things for granted that probably shouldn't be taken for
granted. By the way, I don't consider sloppy standards of
communication particularly "professional." And if you think that this
conversation, either with me, or with Steve, has provided a good
example of professionalism on your part, you are sadly mistaken.
>>>Martin Wobst is probably the foremost authority on *style* as it
>>>relates to archaeology, and, since, last time I checked, we are still
>>>in sci.archaeology, that would be on-point, would it not? If you
>like,
>>>though, we could start a new thread on all of this in soc.art.history
>>>or sci.sociology (if either exist, that is...)
>>
>>Style as it relates to archaeology would be on topic for
>>sci.archaeology, but not on topic for this particular conversation.
>So you are determined to maintain that the style of an artifact, in
>this case early Euro-American residential structures, is NOT *on-topic*
>for this discussion? I just checked the subject line and it certainly
>appears to be so.
I maintain that the phrase "Euro-American residential structures" is
about the silliest construct I've ever come across. Is it is a
standard archaeological term?
>>I find it very odd that you are either unwilling, or unable to discuss
>>art, and art history, on its own merits. If only as a background to
>>understanding the artifacts found through archaeological means.
>Art history is only as important to the style of an artifact as it was
>to the producer of that artifact. Thus, if Greek art was important to
>Jefferson, then its history, as far as Jefferson understood it, becomes
>integral to a researchers understanding of that artifact. However, the
>relationship between that style and another one may be completely
>insignificant to the production of the artifact. For example, a potter
>copies the style of a pot she sees in her cousin's village. The fact
>that the copied pot was copied from one in a third village has no
>impact upon the actions of our potter, as she may in all likelyhood be
>unaware, or not care, about the history of the style. She liked what
>she saw, or she was attempting to establish a bond between herself and
>her cousin, etc., etc. The same can be said for Jefferson. He may
>have been aware of the relationship between Greek and Roman
>architecture, but the assumption that it thus effected his adoption of
>the styles is unproven. If anything, there is _negative_ evidence,
>judging from Jefferson's views on direct democracy and his promotion of
>Roman over Greek culture as more civilized* and less corrupt.
I take it this is the "side thread"? I've changed my mind about
keeping it as a side thread. It is different enough that I think it
ought to go into a new one. I'll take this paragraph and start the
new thread with it.
Stella Nemeth
s.ne...@ix.netcom.com
Stella Nemeth
mbwi...@ix.netcom.com(Mary Beth Williams) wrote:
>In <4oe0mg$3...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> S.NE...@IX.NETCOM.COM (Stella
>Nemeth) writes:
>>I find it very odd that you are either unwilling, or unable to discuss
>>art, and art history, on its own merits. If only as a background to
>>understanding the artifacts found through archaeological means.
>Art history is only as important to the style of an artifact as it was
>to the producer of that artifact.
In my experience the history of art includes the history of stylistic
changes. It isn't just the history of individual pieces of art,
although it does include individual pieces. It is possible for
someone to work in the style of their own time and place without
realizing that they are doing so, for example. In fact it is almost
impossible for people not to do so. A good example of this that is
easily accessible is almost any circa 1935 period piece movie. We
think we do this better today, but we are trying to get the clothes
and the details right. So maybe we are, and then again, maybe
something that we take for granted will trip us up, just as the
hairstyles of the 30s tripped up the movie makers of that day.
>...Thus, if Greek art was important to
>Jefferson, then its history, as far as Jefferson understood it, becomes
>integral to a researchers understanding of that artifact....
>...The same can be said for Jefferson. He may
>have been aware of the relationship between Greek and Roman
>architecture, but the assumption that it thus effected his adoption of
>the styles is unproven. If anything, there is _negative_ evidence,
>judging from Jefferson's views on direct democracy and his promotion of
>Roman over Greek culture as more civilized* and less corrupt.
I want to take Jefferson first, so I've rearranged your paragraph.
Jefferson was an educated man of his time and place. There is no
question that Jefferson knew about Greek and Roman art, and that he
also knew about the relationship between the cultures, art and
literature of these two ancient peoples. It would have been almost
impossible for him to have gotten an education without having this
information "beaten" into him. This would have been true of any of
the educated men of his day.
Jefferson's views on direct democracy could only have come out of his
knowledge of Greece, since that was the only example of direct
democracy that he would have had in the world literature that he knew.
I doubt if he would have seen Rome as more civilized or as less
corrupt than Greece, since that would have been a rather unusual idea
for his time. The general belief was, and to some extent still is,
that Rome conquered Greece politically, but Greece conquered Rome
culturally. Sometimes this is put as Rome went to school in Greece.
Jefferson would have known this.
>...Thus, if Greek art was important to
>Jefferson, then its history, as far as Jefferson understood it, becomes
>integral to a researchers understanding of that artifact.
I repeated the first sentence in this paragraph to keep your line of
thought together.
I agree that understanding what the artist believed to be true and/or
that artists basic education and culture is very important to
understanding the artifacts that the artist created. The history of
art, like the history of music and other creative endeavors is one
tool to understanding the cultures that produced the art, music, etc.
>...However, the
>relationship between that style and another one may be completely
>insignificant to the production of the artifact. For example, a potter
>copies the style of a pot she sees in her cousin's village. The fact
>that the copied pot was copied from one in a third village has no
>impact upon the actions of our potter, as she may in all likelyhood be
>unaware, or not care, about the history of the style. She liked what
>she saw, or she was attempting to establish a bond between herself and
>her cousin, etc., etc.
When an artist "likes what she saw" and therefore creates an object in
a style different from the one her home village normally uses, you
(the outsider looking into that culture from the outside) can still
see the flow of movement from one style to another. This is
especially true if the new pot was made as a result of "copying" a
style that has already moved from one village to another and is in the
process of moving to a third (fourth, fifth, etc.)
It doesn't matter if the potter knows that she is part of this flow.
The potter works inside the artistic language of her culture, or she
chooses to be the pioneer heading out into new ground and taking the
culture with her. In either case, to understand what she has
produced, you have to know what the work of the potters around her was
like. You need to know the history of the art form that is being
studied in order to understand that particular pot.
In Jefferson's case the "copying" was intentional. He lived in a time
and place that was trying to copy both Greece and Rome in many
different areas of life. Paintings about Classical subjects were the
current rage. Half of the new towns in Western New York State had
either Greek or Roman names. Women wore clothes that they thought
looked like the clothes of Greece and Rome.
We don't see the clothes, for example, as being copies of Greek and
Roman clothes, but to them the simplicity of a muslin round gown was
seen as Classical. Like the movie makers of the 1930s, the dress
makers of the early 1800s weren't getting the details right for a real
copy of the clothes. The architects had the same problems. They
ended up creating a new style, which was the style of their own time.
When an art historian looks at the clothes, or the buildings, they see
the influences upon the objects being studied. They see this in an
object made by your potter who has been influenced by a style that
looks good to her but who isn't aware of the history behind that
style, and they also see it in the works of a man like Jefferson, who
we know was aware of the history of the elements he brought together
into a new whole.
Stella Nemeth
s.ne...@ix.netcom.com
Stella Nemeth
mbwi...@ix.netcom.com(Mary Beth Williams) wrote:
>In <4oe0mk$3...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> S.NE...@IX.NETCOM.COM (Stella
>Nemeth) writes:
>>
>No, this was not meant to crush you, although I should call you on your
>assumptions, perhaps because I'm merely an ignorant Indian, that I have
>not had the benefits of a Classical education.
Actually, having a Classical education in the second half of the 20th
Century would be very unusual. Since I don't see you as an "ignorant
Indian" I would hardly use that as a reason for your lack of a
Classical education.
>...As I've given you no
>indication as to my educational background, other than I'm currently a
>grad student..
Actually, you indicate your educational background every time you
post. As do I. As does almost everyone else out there. There are
several places where my educational background is either narrow or
totally lacking. As has already been admitted earlier in this thread,
I didn't get a Classical education either. (I'm also sadly deficient
in Math and the Sciences.) I'm widely read, but I'm also aware that
the reading isn't as deep as it might be in many areas, some of which
are areas that you are quite deeply educated in.
Having said all of this, might I point out that for the most part you
aren't following either Steve's posts on architecture or my posts on
art history. It isn't that you disagree with one or both of us.
Disagreement is perfectly acceptable, and even to be expected. It is
that in your attempts to disagree you illuminate the fact that you
don't understand what either of us are trying to explain to you. It
is possible that this is a failure on my part to communicate, which is
why I keep trying to do so.
Stella Nemeth
s.ne...@ix.netcom.com
Mary Beth Williams
In <4ojboq$t...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com> S.NE...@IX.NETCOM.COM (Stella
Nemeth) writes:
>Having said all of this, might I point out that for the most part you
>aren't following either Steve's posts on architecture or my posts on
>art history. It isn't that you disagree with one or both of us.
>Disagreement is perfectly acceptable, and even to be expected. It is
>that in your attempts to disagree you illuminate the fact that you
>don't understand what either of us are trying to explain to you. It
>is possible that this is a failure on my part to communicate, which is
>why I keep trying to do so.
>
Stella, this is where I believe that both you and Steve display your
unfamiliarity with archaeological theory and method. The discussion
began as one on *diffusion* of technology and information. You brought
in *sytle* as a *diffusable* attribute, using architectural decorative
and structural elements as examples, which is about the time Steve
jumped onto the bandwagon, proclaiming, erroneously, that he, as an
architect, was omniscient as to the application of *style* to
architecture in the European New World. What both of you fail to
examine is that *style* is an archaeological construct, in fact, one of
the most important archaeological constructs, and when discussing the
archaeological record, which is what I hope we have been doing with our
discussion of *diffusion*, needs to be approached both theoretically as
well as methodologically. Both of you seem to believe that *style*
just *diffuses* on its own, without looking at the vehicles and
processes through which it is enabled or hindered. Hence, my emphasis
on factors such as Jefferson's political and economic motivations, the
tendency to *remodel* rather than rebuild in nineteenth-century
lumber-starved New England, the dearth of Jeffersonian Classical
structures in the Northeast due to dislike of Jefferson's *Embargo*,
etc. These are factors, among many, which we have direct evidence
effected the adoption, or rejection, of *style* in architecture,
whereas Steve's assertions that _of course_ Jefferson was aware of
Palladio's plagarism of the Tuscan *order*, can not be substantiated as
directly effecting whether a New England ship captain built a Federal
or a Classical Revival house. You are constantly complaining that
archaeologists reject the historic record, and yet that is exactly what
you are proposing in this discussion, opting instead for a rehash of
European art taxonomy which may or may not have even had an influence
on Jefferson.
Its seems that both you and Steve tend to cut to the chase before
understanding the foundations of the theories and methodologies which
you so adamantly defend or decry. This discussion initiated as one
attempting to clarify to readers the complicated dynamics behind the
diffusion of information/technology, and you both would like to cast
aside the concept that there _are_ such complicated dynamics
surrounding processes such as diffusion, adaptation and/or independent
invention.
Furthermore, claiming that architectural style and decoration are _not_
relevant to archaeological methods, theory and interpretation is akin
to arguing that ceramic or lithic styles are equally irrelevant.
Houses, whether standing or under 10 feet of silt are artifacts, and
unless the structures have been completely rebuilt or moved, are
well-provenienced artifacts and thus are of archaeological interest to
particular researchers. And as artifacts, they were constructed by
humans who were influenced or constrained by social, economic and
political forces. By ignoring these social constructions of behavior,
both of you have little to stand on when it comes to proposing that the
*style* of other artifacts, whether they be tools or quilts, are also
effected by anything but random preferences.
MB Williams
Dept. of Anthro., UMass-Amherst
Len Piotrowski
In article <4oj42i$e...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> S.NE...@IX.NETCOM.COM (Stella Nemeth) writes:
[snip]
>In the first place, **I** never said that quilts were archaeological
>artifacts. Lenny said that, and refused to be corrected. Second,
>where do you get the idea that all quilts are "unprovenienced"? Some
>are, but most have quite good histories attached.
[snip]
Watch your mouth, Stella, you just stepped in it.
I said quilts are _not_ archaeological artifacts, and you still need to prove
they do come from archaeological contexts if you are to sustain your "comment"
that they have some relevance to archaeology versus history. As you plainly
admit above, your Baltimore Album Quilts have "quite good histories attached,"
however, they have _no_ apparent archaeological provenience "attached."
Congratulations, you mastered, along with Steve, the Art of Shooting Your
Mouth Off with Your Foot In It, one of Steve's own "archaeological
specialties." : )
Cheers,
--Lenny__
"If you can't remember what mnemonic means, you've got a problem."
- perlstyle
Stella Nemeth
mbwi...@ix.netcom.com(Mary Beth Williams) wrote:
>In <4ojboq$t...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com> S.NE...@IX.NETCOM.COM (Stella
>Nemeth) writes:
>>Having said all of this, might I point out that for the most part you
>>aren't following either Steve's posts on architecture or my posts on
>>art history. It isn't that you disagree with one or both of us.
>>Disagreement is perfectly acceptable, and even to be expected. It is
>>that in your attempts to disagree you illuminate the fact that you
>>don't understand what either of us are trying to explain to you. It
>>is possible that this is a failure on my part to communicate, which is
>>why I keep trying to do so.
>>
>Stella, this is where I believe that both you and Steve display your
>unfamiliarity with archaeological theory and method.
I admit my unfamiliarity with archaeological theory and method.
>...The discussion
>began as one on *diffusion* of technology and information. You brought
>in *sytle* as a *diffusable* attribute, using architectural decorative
>and structural elements as examples,
Yes, it did. I used American architecture as an example of stylistic
elements being diffused from one culture (Greece and Rome) to another
(the USA) although there was no direct contact in time or space.
>..which is about the time Steve
>jumped onto the bandwagon, proclaiming, erroneously, that he, as an
>architect, was omniscient as to the application of *style* to
>architecture in the European New World.
I disagree about this. Steve has never, to my knowledge, claimed to
be omniscent. He simply claimed to be better educated than you in
this particular area of knowledge. IMHO, he is.
> What both of you fail to
>examine is that *style* is an archaeological construct, in fact, one of
>the most important archaeological constructs,
I think we have a viewpoint issue here, and also a confusion of
definitions. I was using the word "style" in its artistic meaning. I
am unaware of any special archaeological meaning of the word. If
there is, indeed, such a meaning, please let me know what it is.
> ...and when discussing the
>archaeological record, which is what I hope we have been doing with our
>discussion of *diffusion*, needs to be approached both theoretically as
>well as methodologically.
Once again, I'm not sure what you mean here. Is it "diffusion" that
needs to be approached theoreticall and methodologically, or "style",
or both of them?
I would also like to point out that I, and I believe Steve, was not
"discussing the archaeological record" but were discussing both the
history of particular buildings and the history of the styles that
they were built in.
Since I've started a thread about "Art and archaeology" we can discuss
art history there, and the archaeological theories of style here if
that is all right with you. Since there seems to be two different
meanings of the word "style" perhaps we can explore where those
meanings overlap and where they are different.
>...Both of you seem to believe that *style*
>just *diffuses* on its own, without looking at the vehicles and
>processes through which it is enabled or hindered.
I can't speak for Steve, but I don't believe that style diffuses on
its own. In the case of American architecture it was partly the
result of a "gentleman's education" and the emphasis such an education
put on the Classical world. Partly it was the result of a world view
that had begun in the rennaisance and which had just taken a new look
at the Classical world.
>...Hence, my emphasis
>on factors such as Jefferson's political and economic motivations, the
>tendency to *remodel* rather than rebuild in nineteenth-century
>lumber-starved New England, the dearth of Jeffersonian Classical
>structures in the Northeast due to dislike of Jefferson's *Embargo*,
>etc.
Does one count Rochester NY as the Northeast? (Western New York)
There was no dearth of Jeffersonian Classical structures there. And I
remember a bit of both red brick Federal style and all white
"Classical" buildings from my time in Boston. Was New England "lumber
starved" at that time? I'm aware that there are more forest acres
today than there were right after the Revolution in the Northeast,
but I wasn't aware of this particular problem. (Please note. I
didn't say you were wrong. I am asking a question about something I
don't know about.)
Of course politics and economics have a place in the discussion of how
styles evolve. But to leave out the artist in this equation seems
very odd to me.
>These are factors, among many, which we have direct evidence
>effected the adoption, or rejection, of *style* in architecture,
>whereas Steve's assertions that _of course_ Jefferson was aware of
>Palladio's plagarism of the Tuscan *order*, can not be substantiated as
>directly effecting whether a New England ship captain built a Federal
>or a Classical Revival house. You are constantly complaining that
>archaeologists reject the historic record, and yet that is exactly what
>you are proposing in this discussion, opting instead for a rehash of
>European art taxonomy which may or may not have even had an influence
>on Jefferson.
In this case you are forgetting what a "gentleman's education"
consisted of in Jefferson's day. There simply is no question that
Jefferson knew about Greek and Roman history, literature and art
because he couldn't have become an educated gentleman without learning
about those things in that time.
As for the Tuscan order, it is very unlikely that he wouldn't have
known about something with the kind of history that Steve has
presented. I've managed to avoid learning about the Tuscan order
until this week, but I'm not trying to design and build large
buildings in the early 19th Century. In this case the real question
is did Jefferson use Tuscan order columns in his buildings. If the
answer is yes, then we don't need to have Jefferson's words on the
subject since the buildings themselves are the proof of his knowledge.
I have no idea if the answer is yes or no.
>Its seems that both you and Steve tend to cut to the chase before
>understanding the foundations of the theories and methodologies which
>you so adamantly defend or decry.
You are certain that I've objected to the theories and methodologies
that you are referring to. On the contrary, I never even considered
them since IMHO the subject at hand wasn't archaeology, but art
history and the theories and methodologies of archaeology weren't in
question.
Since we have begun a new thread which is about archaeology, let us
discuss these theories and methodologies here.
>...This discussion initiated as one
>attempting to clarify to readers the complicated dynamics behind the
>diffusion of information/technology, and you both would like to cast
>aside the concept that there _are_ such complicated dynamics
>surrounding processes such as diffusion, adaptation and/or independent
>invention.
Far from it. As you pointed out, my original post was simply to offer
an example where the two cultures involved in diffusion were NOT in
contact and couldn't be in contact since they shared neither time nor
place. I'm aware that other kinds of diffusion have different
requirements.
If you wish to clarify the "complicated dynamics" that you refer to
above, please go ahead and do so.
>Furthermore, claiming that architectural style and decoration are _not_
>relevant to archaeological methods, theory and interpretation is akin
>to arguing that ceramic or lithic styles are equally irrelevant.
Wait a minute. I am NOT the person who is making the claim above.
I'm the person who is trying to figure out why archaeologists don't
care about style as it is normally defined. I've been told by someone
who claims to be a professional archaeologist that an object's place
in the art history of that kind of object is meaningless to
archaeologists.
I'm awaiting your archaeological definition so we can continue this
conversation using one meaning for the words we fling about.
I am willing to accept the idea that I've misunderstood what I've been
told here. In fact I'd like to be told that in this case there has
been miscommunication since the idea that archaeologists aren't
interested in the stylistic sequences of artifacts seems unreasonable
to me.
>Houses, whether standing or under 10 feet of silt are artifacts
Really? I am very glad to hear it. I've been trying to convince
Lenny of that idea for at least the last week. Perhaps you will try
to convince him for me?
> and
>unless the structures have been completely rebuilt or moved, are
>well-provenienced artifacts and thus are of archaeological interest to
>particular researchers. And as artifacts, they were constructed by
>humans who were influenced or constrained by social, economic and
>political forces. By ignoring these social constructions of behavior,
>both of you have little to stand on when it comes to proposing that the
>*style* of other artifacts, whether they be tools or quilts, are also
>effected by anything but random preferences.
I think that if you look at the other new thread in this set, you will
discover that I spent quite a bit of time talking about how the styles
of a particular period belong to that period in ways that are
essential to understanding the period. I didn't mention social,
economic or political forces, but those are part of what makes each
period of time unique just as the art or clothing of a period are part
of what makes that period unique.
So my response is "of course"! Who said that this wasn't true? It
certainly wasn't me.
On the other hand, you seem to have left out the artist in the
equation. Art is an area where an individual can change things
totally and where we know that history was changed because of the life
of one person. Although it is true that the greatest artistic genius
CAN'T move a culture in a direction that it isn't currently ready for,
it is also true that without the individual artist the culture
probably wouldn't have moved the way it did.
I am willing to accept that I didn't quite understand what you were
trying to say. But my observation that you aren't following my half
of the conversation still stands until proven otherwise.
Stella Nemeth
s.ne...@ix.netcom.com
Len Piotrowski
[snip]
>I admit my unfamiliarity with archaeological theory and method.
>>[snip]
>I think we have a viewpoint issue here, and also a confusion of
>definitions. I was using the word "style" in its artistic meaning. I
>am unaware of any special archaeological meaning of the word. If
>there is, indeed, such a meaning, please let me know what it is.
>>[snip]
>Once again, I'm not sure what you mean here. Is it "diffusion" that
>needs to be approached theoreticall and methodologically, or "style",
>or both of them?
>I would also like to point out that I, and I believe Steve, was not
>"discussing the archaeological record" but were discussing both the
>history of particular buildings and the history of the styles that
>they were built in.
>[snip] Since there seems to be two different
>meanings of the word "style" perhaps we can explore where those
>meanings overlap and where they are different.
>>[snip]
>You are certain that I've objected to the theories and methodologies
>that you are referring to. On the contrary, I never even considered
>them since IMHO the subject at hand wasn't archaeology, but art
>history and the theories and methodologies of archaeology weren't in
>question.
>[snip]
>Wait a minute. I am NOT the person who is making the claim above.
>I'm the person who is trying to figure out why archaeologists don't
>care about style as it is normally defined. I've been told by someone
>who claims to be a professional archaeologist that an object's place
>in the art history of that kind of object is meaningless to
>archaeologists.
>I'm awaiting your archaeological definition so we can continue this
>conversation using one meaning for the words we fling about.
>I am willing to accept the idea that I've misunderstood what I've been
>told here. In fact I'd like to be told that in this case there has
>been miscommunication since the idea that archaeologists aren't
>interested in the stylistic sequences of artifacts seems unreasonable
>to me.
>>Houses, whether standing or under 10 feet of silt are artifacts
>Really? I am very glad to hear it. I've been trying to convince
>Lenny of that idea for at least the last week. Perhaps you will try
>to convince him for me?
>> [snip]
>I am willing to accept that I didn't quite understand what you were
>trying to say. But my observation that you aren't following my half
>of the conversation still stands until proven otherwise.
From one who claims to know nothing about archaeology, who doesn't understand
what archaeologists are trying to say, who is unfamiliar with archaeological
theory and method, unaware of any special archaeological meanings, and who
isn't "discussing the archaeological record," it is simply unbelievable to
think that Stella is truly interested in a serious understanding of the
subject and practice of archaeology. Without a foundation in the basics of
what archaeology is, concept and practice, there is no basis for an
understanding. All that remains is a serious waste of time attempting to
educate Stella, who is handicapped by "a viewpoint issue here."
Tip, Stella, to make your life easier: this is sci.archaeology, the Subject
Header is "Style and archaeology...," you're talking to archaeologists, give
us all a break.
Steve Whittet
In article <4ok3hn$a...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>, mbwi...@ix.netcom.co says...
>
>In <4ojboq$t...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com> S.NE...@IX.NETCOM.COM (Stella
>Nemeth) writes:
>
>>Having said all of this, might I point out that for the most part you
>>aren't following either Steve's posts on architecture or my posts on
>>art history. It isn't that you disagree with one or both of us.
>>Disagreement is perfectly acceptable, and even to be expected. It is
>>that in your attempts to disagree you illuminate the fact that you
>>don't understand what either of us are trying to explain to you. It
>>is possible that this is a failure on my part to communicate, which is
>>why I keep trying to do so.
>>
>
>Stella, this is where I believe that both you and Steve display your
Your position then, is that Stella is wrong when she says
"Disagreement is perfectly acceptable, and even to be expected."
Were we to desire to display our familiarity with archaeological
theory and method, disagreement with you would not be expected...
...hmmm,...I think that makes your perspective clear.
>The discussion began as one on *diffusion* of technology and information.
The discussion is, and was and always will be, diffusion generally.
>You brought in *sytle* as a *diffusable* attribute,
A point with which you apparently agree.
>using architectural decorative and structural elements as examples,
works for me.
>which is about the time Steve jumped onto the bandwagon,
>proclaiming, erroneously, that he, as an architect, was
>omniscient as to the application of *style* to
>architecture in the European New World.
Clearly mearly being an architect carries little weight
in a discussion with someone who has not only worked part
time for a summer in the mailroom of a Cambridge architectural
firm but also worked as a guide at the Museum of Fine Arts...
>What both of you fail to examine is that *style* is an archaeological
construct,
From the "Oxford Companion to the English Language".
OUP, New York, 1992, Tom McArthur.
"Style, from Old French stile, stile, style, from latin stilus...
Latin Stilus derives from the Greek stilos, a pillar,...
A general term that primarily means a way of doing things,
with additional senses such as doing them appropriately,
doing them well or badly, doing them in a distinctive way,
or doing them in one of a number of ways.The term first applied
in English to a writing instrument, then to ways of using it,
then to ways of doing virtually anything."
(This must be where the archaeological part comes in)
>in fact, one of
>the most important archaeological constructs, and when discussing the
>archaeological record, which is what I hope we have been doing with our
>discussion of *diffusion*, needs to be approached both theoretically as
>well as methodologically.
MB, if you want to discuss archaeology theoretically and
methodologically why not just say so?(Noting for the record
that MB has chosen to spell "archaeological" with the
theoretically disputable "ae")
Both of you seem to believe that *style*
>just *diffuses* on its own, without looking at the vehicles and
>processes through which it is enabled or hindered.
Heck no MB. To take just one example of the discussion of the
vehicles and processes through which we have discussed how
style may be diffused please allow me to remind you of the
discussion of boats which went on in this group just a year
or so ago.
We discussed styles of boats and elements of styles of boats.
Cargos of boats, navigation of boats, destinations of boats,
crews of boats, and all of the ramifications of all of the
processes by which the knowledge of boats was diffused.
>Hence, my emphasis on factors such as Jefferson's political
>and economic motivations, the tendency to *remodel* rather
>than rebuild in nineteenth-century lumber-starved New England,
This is the same lumber starved New England whose forests were
providing the timbers for the Clipper ships, whalers, slave ships
and navies that provided the incomes to build the sea captains
mansions that lined the waterfronts of New England from Long Island
to Portland Me? New England? Lumber starved? Obviously you have
never been to the state of Maine, forget about New Hampshire
and Vermont.
>the dearth of Jeffersonian Classical structures in the Northeast
>due to dislike of Jefferson's *Embargo*,etc.
Actually they are pretty rare anywhere outside of Virginia,
despite the fact that the man had to refuse an invitiation
to run for a third term as President of the United States.
> These are factors, among many, which we have direct evidence
>effected the adoption, or rejection, of *style* in architecture,
Style in architecture has a lot to do with finding solutions to
architectural problems, as a way of doing things. It has
considerably less to do with politics.
>whereas Steve's assertions that _of course_ Jefferson was aware of
>Palladio's plagarism of the Tuscan *order*,
I am not aware of Palladios plagarism of the Tuscan order, so why would I
attribute such an awareness to Mr Jefferson?
According to Mr. Cordingley, the Tuscan order was non existent in
antiquity and was first composed by certain Renaissance writers
of the 15th and 16th centuries. Who are you proposing Mr. Palladio
plagarised the Tuscan order from MB?
> can not be substantiated as directly effecting whether a
>New England ship captain built a Federal or a Classical
>Revival house.
So your point is that if you attribute to me assertions which
I have indeed never even heard expressed by anyone but you,
(and that just now), you can then deny these assertions
substantiate another totally unrelated assertion?
Is that the style with which you wish to be identified MB?
>You are constantly complaining that archaeologists reject
>the historic record, and yet that is exactly what you are
>proposing in this discussion, opting instead for a rehash of
>European art taxonomy which may or may not have even had an
>influence on Jefferson.
"European art taxonomy" being equivalent to the Palladian
classification of the "orders" of architecture MB? In the sense
of kingdom, division, class, *order*, family, genus and species?
You don't see that such classification defines historical as
well as architectural epochs?
>
>Its seems that both you and Steve tend to cut to the chase before
>understanding the foundations of the theories and methodologies which
>you so adamantly defend or decry.
Well that's cause we are young and just learning, MB <g>
>This discussion initiated as one attempting to clarify to
>readers the >complicated dynamics behind the diffusion of
>information/technology,
It would of course help if you made some attempt to understand
your topic yourself before undertaking to clarify it for us,...
I am sure you agree.
> and you both would like to cast aside the concept that
>there _are_ such complicated dynamics surrounding processes
>such as diffusion, adaptation and/or independent invention.
Not at all, such interactive causuality is the very essence
of the self futhfilling prophecy. To put this in more familiar
terms, if diffusion is exhibited by the teacher student relation
would independent invention be equivalent to where you don't know
the answer so you just make something up and adapatation would be
learning to duck?
>
>Furthermore, claiming that architectural style and decoration are _not_
>relevant to archaeological methods, theory and interpretation is akin
>to arguing that ceramic or lithic styles are equally irrelevant.
Thank you MB, after three years you finally agree with me.
>Houses, whether standing or under 10 feet of silt are artifacts, and
>unless the structures have been completely rebuilt or moved, are
>well-provenienced artifacts and thus are of archaeological interest to
>particular researchers.
Yes, that is quite correct.
>And as artifacts, they were constructed by humans who were
>influenced or constrained by social, economic and political forces.
Yes, though of course they were not necessarily all constructed
by their designers. This raises the question of whether or not
an architect may be influenced or constrained by social, economic
and political forces in a somewhat different manner than other
people are. Isn't this to some extent true of all individuals?
>By ignoring these social constructions of behavior,
Are you a behaviorist MB? This reminds me of the old arguments
between Maslov and Skinner.
Shall we discuss the social psychology of houses?
>both of you have little to stand on when it comes to
>proposing that the *style* of other artifacts, whether
>they be tools or quilts, are also effected by anything
>but random preferences.
Style is a way of doing things. As such it tends to be
influenced by the discovery of a better way. One example
of this would be solving a problem and learning from experience.
Thats how rats learn to negotiate a maze. Random selection
does not work as well as learning from experience, thus it
is less commonly found in architecture than in theories of
archaeology.
>MB Williams
>Dept. of Anthro., UMass-Amherst
steve
Eric Brunner
Stella Nemeth (S.NE...@IX.NETCOM.COM) wrote:
At one point, that American architecture is an example of something diffused
from one culture to another (Greco-Roman to European Colonials in the US),
and that there was no direct contact in time or space between these two...
And in the same post, that European Colonial elite education contemporanious
with instances of this notion of non-contact required competancy in Greco-
Roman cultural forms.
Which is it? Contact or non-contact? It can't be both.
--
Kitakitamatsinohpowaw,
Eric Brunner
Stella Nemeth
bru...@mandrake.think.com (Eric Brunner) wrote:
Nice troll.
Since the two cultures were separated by between 1500 and 2500 years
and several thousand miles, I think the answer is obvious.
Stella Nemeth
s.ne...@ix.netcom.com