rename this group...
Xina
I have another suggestion that might resolve *some* of the problem.
Since I have seen the frustration of Egyptian posters on this NG
(alt.culture.egyptian) that all
we seem to do is talk about *ancient* Egypt, maybe there should be an
alt.archaeology.egypt or alt.egyptology? Just an idea that Im throwing
out there.
Suggestions? Comments?
Xina
Ahmed Mohammed Wagih
I strongly agree.
Ahmed
Xina (xi...@netins.net) wrote:
: I have another suggestion that might resolve *some* of the problem.
g...@ica.net
wa...@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Ahmed Mohammed Wagih) wrote:
>I strongly agree.
I second. Let's call it alt.egyptology.
Anyone going to take the initiative to start the process?
>Ahmed
George
The Hab
g...@ica.net wrote:
>wa...@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Ahmed Mohammed Wagih) wrote:
>
>>I strongly agree.
>
>I second. Let's call it alt.egyptology.
>Anyone going to take the initiative to start the process?
I disagree. This newsgroup should talk about ancient Egypt. I would be
more willing to accept a alt.afrocentric newsgroup, though.
The Hab
Robbie Langton
Xina <xi...@netins.net> wrote:
>I have another suggestion that might resolve *some* of the problem.
>Since I have seen the frustration of Egyptian posters on this NG
>(alt.culture.egyptian) that all
>we seem to do is talk about *ancient* Egypt, maybe there should be an
>alt.archaeology.egypt or alt.egyptology? Just an idea that Im throwing
>out there.
>
>Suggestions? Comments?
>
>Xina
Sounds a good idea to me, Xina. When I first got net access I looked
in vain for a group with just such a title. I looked in
soc.culture.egyptian and assumed from what I saw there it wasn't what
I was seeking. (Wrongly, perhaps, in view of the cross-posts I have
now seen from here to there.) There's clearly a lot of interest in
ancient Egypt on the net - look at all the websites. Such a NG title
might be a lure for the pyramidologists etc. though. Perhaps it could
have a FAQ with some agreed method of transcription - perhaps Gardner
list numbers plus an agreed phonetic convention?
----
Robbie Langton Hey, this web thing's immense -
rob...@roblang.demon.co.uk must be one HELL of a spider!
Troy Sagrillo
Robbie Langton wrote:
[snip]
> Perhaps it could
> have a FAQ with some agreed method of transcription - perhaps Gardner
> list numbers plus an agreed phonetic convention?
FYI-- there is a convention already, though only professionals seem to
know about it. See the chart at:
http://131.211.68.206/names/rules.html
Regards,
Troy Sagrillo
Katherine Griffis
OK: here's my two cents' worth....
I think we do this soc.culture.egyptian and alt.culture.egyptian newsgroup
a disservice when we talk about *nothing* but Egyptian civilization of
ancient times, and take up a rather large amount of bandwidth doing so.
So, I propose this: creation of either sci.egyptology/alt.egyptology --
leave soc.culture/alt.culture to modern Egyptian discussions. I am *aware*
fo the FAQ for these two newsgroups, Ihab, but let's face it -- we second
only sci.arch in the *number of posts per single day*...and much is about
what the *other side* doesn't want to hear about.
Let's keep it clear for soc.culture and alt.culture groups...and let the
*Egyptology buffs* "have at it" in another forum.
I am presently reserving judgement on the alt.afrocentrism newsgroup for
now....
Katherine Griffis (Greenberg)
Member of the American Research Center in Egypt
ay...@tip.nl
wa...@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Ahmed Mohammed Wagih) wrote:
>I strongly agree.
>Ahmed
>Xina (xi...@netins.net) wrote:
>: I have another suggestion that might resolve *some* of the problem.
>: Since I have seen the frustration of Egyptian posters on this NG
>: (alt.culture.egyptian) that all
>: we seem to do is talk about *ancient* Egypt, maybe there should be an
>: alt.archaeology.egypt or alt.egyptology? Just an idea that Im throwing
>: out there.
>: Suggestions? Comments?
>: Xina
Very good idea!! It's total understandable that those on this list who
are interested in modern Egypt only are fed up with us ancient history
lovers... No doubt, the soc.culture.usa etc doesn' t have their
problem. There two very spererate Egypt: Ancient pagan and Arbic
muslim, two totally different cultures - let seperate them to stop
annoyment with both parties.
Aayko
The Hab
And this is what I was afraid of...we should never think of Egyptian
history in chunks...it is a continuity!
The Hab
Mark Anthony Iommi
you are in the wrong group as very little eminently
sensible comes from this group. If you are looking for
someone to second your proposal I will gladly do that.
Mark
P.S. I find it difficult to tell the difference
sci.archaeology and alt.archaeology as most people
cross post. If your proposal is adopted would we need
both a sci.egyptology and a alt.egyptology?
Barbara Arnold
In article <4...@montego.win-uk.net>, mio...@montego.win-uk.net (Mark
Anthony Iommi) wrote:
On the other hand, all topics are plainly identified. You are not
*required* to read those that don't interest you!
BA
--
bar...@olympus.net
Arnold's Map Making & Quibbling
EX CHAOTIMUS PULCHRITUDINUM
haq...@logica.com
bar...@olympus.net (Barbara Arnold) wrote:
>On the other hand, all topics are plainly identified. You are not
>*required* to read those that don't interest you!
That's not the point though, otherwise there would have been no need for
some 20,000 newsgroups - we can all be in the same group and read
selectively. The off-topic posts set an unfavorable mode and distract
(almost prevent) many away from discussing what they'd have normally liked
to discuss.
>BA
George
Katherine Griffis
On May 23, 1996 17:00:19 in article <Re: rename this group...>,
'bru...@bullhead.think.com (Eric Brunner)' wrote:
>Until then, it is sort of silly, and risks "joining at the hip" a
soc.culture >news group containing non-vitally challenged people(s) as
subject matter and >as news group participants, with a sci news group
rather distinctly focused >on the significantly-vitally challenged...
Since this was a discussion of possibly creating a ****sci.***** group
(ie., sci.egyptology), both Mark Anthony Iommi and myself felt it
appropropriate to seek comments from the sci.arch group as to *their*
viewpoint on such a creation.
Obviously, your opinion of the soc.culture.egyptian and alt.culture
egyptian NG posters is low, although you will not enlighten us as to why,
except to call them *non-vitally challenged people(s)*. This is, of
course, insulting to the whole group, and particularly to some of the
posters who include a fair number of posters from sci.arch, and include
professionals in the field of Egyptology, historians, archaeologists and
the like...who made you the arbiter of *who* is worthy to post to sci.arch,
Eric?
Your antipathy to either the idea or the field of Egyptology is noted, but
the *last I checked*, this **was** an open newsgroup for discussion of
scientific and science-related matters, Eric, and Egyptology *does* fit
the bill....
Eric Brunner
I see you missed the entire "Lead Coffins and Goo" period in arch-l. Else
the "vitally challenged" bit would have ... had a less ... hurtful reading.
Katherine Griffis (gri...@usa.pipeline.com) wrote:
: On May 23, 1996 17:00:19 in article <Re: rename this group...>,
: 'bru...@bullhead.think.com (Eric Brunner)' wrote:
:
: >Until then, it is sort of silly, and risks "joining at the hip" a
: soc.culture >news group containing non-vitally challenged people(s) as
: subject matter and >as news group participants, with a sci news group
: rather distinctly focused >on the significantly-vitally challenged...
:
: Since this was a discussion of possibly creating a ****sci.***** group
: (ie., sci.egyptology), both Mark Anthony Iommi and myself felt it
: appropropriate to seek comments from the sci.arch group as to *their*
: viewpoint on such a creation.
Thanks for the kindness. We just got through a balloting. Try rolling your
hoop somewhere else, or at least checking with the UVV as they may rule
that egyptology is archaeology, in which case, you've a few more months to
wait till our clock ticks out.
: Obviously, your opinion of the soc.culture.egyptian and alt.culture
: egyptian NG posters is low, although you will not enlighten us as to why,
: except to call them *non-vitally challenged people(s)*. This is, of
Dolt. It means "not dead". See the Journal of Polymorphous Perversity, the
article on the ADA and the Vitally Challenged, rather famous, 1995.
: course, insulting to the whole group, and particularly to some of the
Nah. Only the dead ones.
: posters who include a fair number of posters from sci.arch, and include
: professionals in the field of Egyptology, historians, archaeologists and
: the like...who made you the arbiter of *who* is worthy to post to sci.arch,
: Eric?
I swear, Ms. G, you are setting a new record for low-altitude loopiness.
All this from suggesting that you not cross-post prior to posting an RFD,
and then having the wit goD gave JDs and doGs and following process???
When you get out to news.groups, and have to work with the UVV, you can
expect some minor surprises.
: Your antipathy to either the idea or the field of Egyptology is noted, but
Rather broad minded in reaching that conclusion... Perhaps I went to a better
law school than the one that stamped your chit. Mine was a night school, so
there is an alternative possibility also at hand.
: the *last I checked*, this **was** an open newsgroup for discussion of
: scientific and science-related matters, Eric, and Egyptology *does* fit
: the bill....
:
: Katherine Griffis (Greenberg)
: Member of the American Research Center in Egypt
When in fact Ms. Griffis, did you examine the charter of sci.archaeology?
--
Kitakitamatsinohpowaw,
Eric Brunner
Doug Weller
In article <4o5sa5$6...@bone.think.com>
bru...@bullhead.think.com (Eric Brunner) wrote:
[SNIP]
[This is a reply to Katherine Griffis]
> Thanks for the kindness. We just got through a balloting. Try rolling your
> hoop somewhere else, or at least checking with the UVV as they may rule
> that egyptology is archaeology, in which case, you've a few more months to
> wait till our clock ticks out.
The 'clock' refers to failed proposals -- the moderated newsgroup passed
by 481:44, so hardly a failed proposal. Nothing there to stop an
entirely new proposal.
[SNIP]
>
> : the *last I checked*, this **was** an open newsgroup for discussion of
> : scientific and science-related matters, Eric, and Egyptology *does* fit
> : the bill....
> :
> : Katherine Griffis (Greenberg)
> : Member of the American Research Center in Egypt
>
> When in fact Ms. Griffis, did you examine the charter of sci.archaeology?
In this case the *facts* are as in the sci.archaeology charter, which
in fact *specifically includes* Egyptology as a subject for which
sci.archaeology was created. Here's the original charter for those
interested in what it actually says:
Purpose:
1 ) To exchange information on various corcerns in
ARCHAEOLOGY, including method and theory, pot
hunting, egyptology, typology, dating, and
other related topics.
2 ) To facilitate ongoing debates and comments on
ideas or research that may not necessarily be
in a publishable form.
3 ) To query other interested earth scientists about
resources which could be made generally available.
( e.g. programs, images, data, references)
4 ) To keep each other informed on upcoming events of interest
to social science researchers and computing in the field
of archaeology.
--
Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
Joseph Davidovits
In article (Dans l'article) <2bceb...@ramtops.demon.co.uk>, Doug Weller
<dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk> wrote (écrivait) :
> : the *last I checked*, this **was** an open newsgroup for discussion of
> : scientific and science-related matters, Eric, and Egyptology *does* fit
> : the bill....
> :
> : Katherine Griffis (Greenberg)
> : Member of the American Research Center in Egypt
>
> When in fact Ms. Griffis, did you examine the charter of sci.archaeology?
We are convinced that this is a great idea. The Geopolymer Institute can
put its Internet server at this new Egyptology newsgroup disposal. To
facilitate global discussion of interesting topics, we European, feel that
newsgroups should not be monolingual.
Therefore, we would like to **TEST** a new moderated Egyptology newsgroup
in a WEB Page where the English language would not be mandatory. We plan
to accept contributions written in French, German, Italian, and later on
in Spanish, besides English. We would release periodically, for example
every week, an English summary of the major contributions.
If you are interested in animating this newsgroup and help in
administrating it, please contact us by E-mail (jd...@calvacom.fr).
I would appreciate any comments on this topic.
You can already access the dedicated Web page at this location:
http://www.insset.u-picardie.fr/geopolymer/wwwboard/wwwboard.html
--
Prof. Joseph Davidovits
jd...@calvacom.fr
http://www.insset.u-picardie.fr/geopolymer/
Amr Hassan
bar...@olympus.net (Barbara Arnold) wrote:
>In article <4...@montego.win-uk.net>, mio...@montego.win-uk.net (Mark
>Anthony Iommi) wrote:
>
>>
>> In article <4ng0g1$b...@news2.h1.usa.pipeline.com>, Katherine Griffis
>(gri...@usa.pipeline.com) writes:
>> >OK: here's my two cents' worth....
>> >
>> >I think we do this soc.culture.egyptian and alt.culture.egyptian newsgroup
>> >a disservice when we talk about *nothing* but Egyptian civilization of
>> >ancient times, and take up a rather large amount of bandwidth doing so.
>> >
>> >So, I propose this: creation of either sci.egyptology/alt.egyptology --
>> >leave soc.culture/alt.culture to modern Egyptian discussions. I am *aware*
>> >fo the FAQ for these two newsgroups, Ihab, but let's face it -- we second
>> >only sci.arch in the *number of posts per single day*...and much is about
>> >what the *other side* doesn't want to hear about.
>> >
>> >Let's keep it clear for soc.culture and alt.culture groups...and let the
>> >*Egyptology buffs* "have at it" in another forum.
>> >
>> >I am presently reserving judgement on the alt.afrocentrism newsgroup for
>> >now....
>> >
>> >Member of the American Research Center in Egypt
>> >
>> >
>> you are in the wrong group as very little eminently
>> sensible comes from this group. If you are looking for
>> someone to second your proposal I will gladly do that.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> P.S. I find it difficult to tell the difference
>> sci.archaeology and alt.archaeology as most people
>> cross post. If your proposal is adopted would we need
>> both a sci.egyptology and a alt.egyptology?
>
>
>*required* to read those that don't interest you!
>
Yes, but there are too many egyptiology postings, so they
should really form a group for themselves, and leave
this one didicated to what its name says: "culture".
Mark Wilson
jd...@calvacom.fr (Joseph Davidovits) wrote:
>Therefore, we would like to **TEST** a new moderated Egyptology newsgroup
>in a WEB Page where the English language would not be mandatory.
Ich hab's gar nicht gewuesst, das man andere Sprachen nicht benutzen darf!
Mark Wilson
yorgo
ma...@rostau.demon.co.uk (Mark Wilson) wrote:
>Ich hab's gar nicht gewuesst, das man andere Sprachen nicht benutzen darf!
umm... exactly.
>Mark Wilson
George
The Hab
Amr Hassan <a...@orecom.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Yes, but there are too many egyptiology postings, so they
>should really form a group for themselves, and leave
>this one didicated to what its name says: "culture".
Yes, and it is about EGYPTIAN culture, ANCIENT as well as modern!
The Hab
Barbara Arnold
>
> >
> >On the other hand, all topics are plainly identified. You are not
> >*required* to read those that don't interest you!
> >
> >BA
> >
> >--
> >bar...@olympus.net
> >Arnold's Map Making & Quibbling
> >EX CHAOTIMUS PULCHRITUDINUM
Amr Hassan wrote:
>
> Yes, but there are too many egyptiology postings, so they
> should really form a group for themselves, and leave
> this one didicated to what its name says: "culture".
Yes, BUT Egyptology is the study of ancient Egyptian CULTURE, and where do
you think you'd be without it? Aren't you proud to have come from such a
distinguished and admired CULTURE with its unparalled artistic heritage?
But if you insist, the groups could be divided thus: (1) Prehistoric, (2)
Ancient, (3) Really, really old, (4) Quite old, (5) Antique, (6) Elderly,
(7) Seems like only yesterday, (8) Last week, and (9) This is how I feel
about it right now. Is that better?
Seriously, how would you propose to make sure everyone kept to the
specified topic? Thwack? What would happen if, as in this group, one
thought led to another (uh-oh) and pretty soon a whole new topic developed
with the wrong subject line??? Horrors! Would those people be banished? Or
are you volunteering your services as moderator?
Barbara
The Hab
Hehehehehehe....Barbara's the best!
The Hab
The Hab
bru...@bullhead.think.com (Eric Brunner) wrote:
[insulting garbage directed at Katherine deleted]
>--
>Kitakitamatsinohpowaw,
>Eric Brunner
Who is this dude? This is the first time I say this post even though it
was posted a few days ago. What's wrong with you buddy? You got something
up your ass?
The Hab
Ahmed Zayan
In article <83314916...@orecom.demon.co.uk> Amr Hassan <a...@orecom.demon.co.uk> writes:
>bar...@olympus.net (Barbara Arnold) wrote:
>>In article <4...@montego.win-uk.net>, mio...@montego.win-uk.net (Mark
>>Anthony Iommi) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> In article <4ng0g1$b...@news2.h1.usa.pipeline.com>, Katherine Griffis
>>(gri...@usa.pipeline.com) writes:
>>> >OK: here's my two cents' worth....
>
>
>Yes, but there are too many egyptiology postings, so they
>should really form a group for themselves, and leave
>this one didicated to what its name says: "culture".
>
>
There are many hot.phily postings, does this fit your definition
of culture? just skip to part of the culture you need.
Ahmed Zayan
Lloyd Bogart
Doug Weller wrote:
[SNIP]
> Here's the original charter for those interested ....
> Purpose:
>
> 1 ) To exchange information on various corcerns in
> ARCHAEOLOGY, including method and theory, pot
> hunting, egyptology, typology, dating, and
> other related topics.
>
> 2 ) To facilitate ongoing debates and comments on
> ideas or research that may not necessarily be
> in a publishable form.
>
> 3 ) To query other interested earth scientists about
> resources which could be made generally available.
> ( e.g. programs, images, data, references)
>
> 4 ) To keep each other informed on upcoming events of interest
> to social science researchers and computing in the field
> of archaeology.
[SNIP]
But WAIT! There's *nothing* here about endless sour-grapes nit picking.
*Nothing* about using *this* newsgroup for a tedious analysis of *another*
newsgroup. *Nothing* about the knee-jerk personal attacks (check them
over-long threads) against new posters and old posters. *Nothing* about the
facilitation of pseudo-intellectual put-downs or convoluted internally
self-contradictory arguement-for-the-sake-of-arguement. Surely it's time to amend the charter to *include* those who understand the evolving *true*
function of this newsgroup...but then, who will supply the definitive wording?
ennui ._J
Lloyd "convinced that self-control exists *somewhere*" Bogart
Stella Nemeth
bog...@uwlax.edu (Lloyd Bogart) wrote:
>But WAIT! There's *nothing* here about endless sour-grapes nit picking.
>*Nothing* about using *this* newsgroup for a tedious analysis of *another*
>newsgroup. *Nothing* about the knee-jerk personal attacks (check them
>over-long threads) against new posters and old posters. *Nothing* about the
>facilitation of pseudo-intellectual put-downs or convoluted internally
>self-contradictory arguement-for-the-sake-of-arguement. Surely it's time to amend
>the charter to *include* those who understand the evolving *true*
>function of this newsgroup...but then, who will supply the definitive wording?
I think you just did. <g>
Stella Nemeth
s.ne...@ix.netcom.com
Nayel S. Shafei
Discussions on ancient Egypt, tourism, religions, sports, middle east,
cooking are facets of the same culture. Therefore, I am for
their continuation, with a bit of organization.
Similar to soc.culture.india and soc.culture.pakistan, subgrouping can
be a solution. For example we may have:
soc.culture.egyptian.ancient
soc.culture.egyptian.politics
s.c.e.sports
sc.e.religion
etc.
Salam.
-nayel Shafei
PS:
There is a definite need for soc.culture.egyptian.ancient as opposed to
newsgroup on egyptology/archaeology/history since many of the current
discussions on s.c.e show a wide popular interest by amateurs in a
(folksy) way for interpretting ancient Egyptian history. Modern
Egyptians should encourage such interest.
Stella Nemeth
"Nayel S. Shafei" <sha...@planet.net> wrote:
>Discussions on ancient Egypt, tourism, religions, sports, middle east,
>cooking are facets of the same culture. Therefore, I am for
>their continuation, with a bit of organization.
>Similar to soc.culture.india and soc.culture.pakistan, subgrouping can
>be a solution. For example we may have:
> soc.culture.egyptian.ancient
> soc.culture.egyptian.politics
> s.c.e.sports
> sc.e.religion
> etc.
>There is a definite need for soc.culture.egyptian.ancient as opposed to
>newsgroup on egyptology/archaeology/history since many of the current
>discussions on s.c.e show a wide popular interest by amateurs in a
>(folksy) way for interpretting ancient Egyptian history. Modern
>Egyptians should encourage such interest.
The soc.culture.egyptian.ancient group is the one I would like to see
formed. At this point, I have no preference for a name for the group
or a place for it in Usenet's namespace. Therefore, I would support
this group's formation, along with any other groups necessary to make
the split happen.
Stella Nemeth
s.ne...@ix.netcom.com
Nayel S. Shafei
Stella Nemeth wrote:
> The soc.culture.egyptian.ancient group is the one I would like to see
> formed. At this point, I have no preference for a name for the group
> or a place for it in Usenet's namespace. Therefore, I would support
> this group's formation, along with any other groups necessary to make
> the split happen.
Two questions:
What's needed to create it?
Does its creation necessitate the creation of at least another
subgroup, say s.c.e.non-ancient for the remainder of postings, or they
still can go to s.c.e?
-nayel shafei
The Hab
SCE is to SCEA as SCI.ARCHAEOLOGY is to SCI.ARCHAEOLOGY.ANCIENT
The Hab
Barbara Arnold
> Stella Nemeth wrote:
> > The soc.culture.egyptian.ancient group is the one I would like to see
> > formed. At this point, I have no preference for a name for the group
> > or a place for it in Usenet's namespace. Therefore, I would support
> > this group's formation, along with any other groups necessary to make
> > the split happen.
>
> Two questions:
>
> What's needed to create it?
> Does its creation necessitate the creation of at least another
> subgroup, say s.c.e.non-ancient for the remainder of postings, or they
> still can go to s.c.e?
>
> -nayel shafei
I'm curious as to what specific topics would be discussed in soc. culture,
egyptian.ancient, as it seems to me that all definitive information on
that subject would be archaeological.
Barbara
Stella Nemeth
bar...@olympus.net (Barbara Arnold) wrote:
>I'm curious as to what specific topics would be discussed in soc. culture,
>egyptian.ancient, as it seems to me that all definitive information on
>that subject would be archaeological.
There are people on s.a who object to any discussion of written
material on the newsgroup. It is impossible to discuss the history of
Egypt without discussing written material since the culture was a
literate one.
Also, not all of Egypt's written material has come to light as a
result of archaeological work. Some inscriptions have been visible
out in the open all along.
And last, there is some objection to discussing what various modern
historians have said about the cultures they have studied in s.a. We
have also been taken to task for trying to discuss art, architecture
and/or art history, as art, architecture and/or art history in s.a, on
the basis that this is an ARCHAEOLOGY newsgroup and the discussion of
Egyptian (for example) art, or American (for example) architecture is
off topic for an archaeology newsgroup.
If you can't discuss artistic style here (sci.archaeology, is "here"
in my case), how do you discuss Armarna period art? If you can't
discuss Armarna period art, you can't discuss Armarna period politics
either. You can't figure out the politics unless you understand the
art. (Rather like Jefferson's America, when you think about it.)
Stella Nemeth
s.ne...@ix.netcom.com
Greg Reeder
bar...@olympus.net (Barbara Arnold) wrote:
>I'm curious as to what specific topics would be discussed in soc. culture,
>egyptian.ancient, as it seems to me that all definitive information on
>that subject would be archaeological.
>
>Barbara
Well Barbara there are some in sci.archaeology who believe as this post:
Subject:Re: Doyle's wrongful rejection from SAM claim
Date: 30 May 1996 00:47:08 GMT
from: mbwi...@ix.netcom.com(Mary Beth Williams)
"...I'd say that a good 50% of
the posts here do not even belong in an _archaeological_ forum, as they
are based purely in written, not material, culture...."
So that any subject that was not specifically based on "artifact" is not
"correctly" posted to sci.archaeology. That may include history,
literature, religion,etc...
--
Greg Reeder
on the WWW at
Reeder's Egypt Page
---------------->http://www.sirius.com/~reeder/egypt.html
ree...@sirius.com
Joe Bernstein
>Stella Nemeth wrote:
>> The soc.culture.egyptian.ancient group is the one I would like to see
>> formed. At this point, I have no preference for a name for the group
>> or a place for it in Usenet's namespace. Therefore, I would support
>> this group's formation, along with any other groups necessary to make
>> the split happen.
>
>Two questions:
>
>What's needed to create it?
>Does its creation necessitate the creation of at least another
>subgroup, say s.c.e.non-ancient for the remainder of postings, or they
>still can go to s.c.e?
>
> -nayel shafei
What's needed to create it is an RFD and a CFV. Maybe you're familiar
with these. All I can say is, good luck...
Its creation does not *require* the creation of another sub-group but you
will probably be encouraged to rename s.c.e to s.c.e.misc or something
like that (s.c.e.non-ancient ? Hmmm...) There's an ongoing relentless
argument on news.groups over whether "miscification" is necessary.
Current policy is to *strongly* encourage it wherever a hierarchy and a
group are being created by the same name and at the same time -- in other
words, you couldn't do a proposal to create s.c.e.ancient and
s.c.e.ancient.language at the same time, because s.c.e.ancient (the
newsgroup) and s.c.e.ancient.* (the hierarchy) have the same name.
It is said that without renaming a group when it becomes a hierarchy, many
sites won't pick up the new subgroups, so propagation will be poor. It is
said in reply that *with* renaming, the "misc" group becomes a ghost
town. I won't pretend to know. People who know much about
sci.archaeology.mesoamerican (the first group in the sci.archaeology.*
hierarchy) might have something to offer here.
Joe Bernstein
--
Joe Bernstein, free-lance writer, bank consultant and bookstore worker
speaking for myself and nobody else j...@sfbooks.com
Doug Weller
In article <joe-040696...@stars.pr.mcs.net>
j...@sfbooks.com (Joe Bernstein) wrote:
[SNIP]
> It is said that without renaming a group when it becomes a hierarchy, many
> sites won't pick up the new subgroups, so propagation will be poor. It is
> said in reply that *with* renaming, the "misc" group becomes a ghost
> town. I won't pretend to know. People who know much about
> sci.archaeology.mesoamerican (the first group in the sci.archaeology.*
> hierarchy) might have something to offer here.
I can't go into details, but the reasons for that creation were
not reasons which would normally be acceptable, or so I'm informed
by David Lawrence who is the authority on such matters.
Has everyone noticed the RFD for humanities.classics to replace
sci.classics?
Eric Brunner
Mr. Reeder,
You may find it less satisfying emotionally, but more interesting
intellectually, to inquire _why_ an archaeologist would be making
the point MB Williams made in the post you've excerpted from.
If you are not careful, your passion for the written text, sans
material culture or archaeological interpretation(s) (see Len
Piotrowski's series on artifacts), will cause you to eventually
end up discussing comparative myth (all textually derived), to
the end of time, and never again see artifacts or material culture
in archaeological contexts.
There are already such news groups to which the text-only are
already free to repair to:
alt.mythology
alt.religion.*
soc.relition.*
talk.religion.*
sci.classics
etc.
etc.
etc.
Greg Reeder (ree...@sirius.com) wrote:
: bar...@olympus.net (Barbara Arnold) wrote:
: >I'm curious as to what specific topics would be discussed in soc. culture,
: >egyptian.ancient, as it seems to me that all definitive information on
: >that subject would be archaeological.
: >
: >Barbara
: Well Barbara there are some in sci.archaeology who believe as this post:
: Subject:Re: Doyle's wrongful rejection from SAM claim
: Date: 30 May 1996 00:47:08 GMT
: from: mbwi...@ix.netcom.com(Mary Beth Williams)
: "...I'd say that a good 50% of
: the posts here do not even belong in an _archaeological_ forum, as they
: are based purely in written, not material, culture...."
: So that any subject that was not specifically based on "artifact" is not
: "correctly" posted to sci.archaeology. That may include history,
: literature, religion,etc...
This is also basically wrong, as we've a long history of discussing the
history and theoretical frameworks of several archaeologies. Please do
make an effort to differ honestly, as you do know better than this.
: --
: Greg Reeder
: on the WWW at
: Reeder's Egypt Page
: ---------------->http://www.sirius.com/~reeder/egypt.html
: ree...@sirius.com
For those of you in s.c.e, your newsgroup proposal only, not preliminary
discussion, is appropriate in sci.arch -- we didn't "favor" you with our
little SAM fiasco (on the order of 1k posts), so please do us the kindness
of not cross-posting your preliminary clarifications and so forth. Do try
not to be moral idiots and take offense at being asked not to cross post,
the few who have have already made their points effectively.
--
Kitakitamatsinohpowaw,
Eric Brunner
David Maclennan
Maybe what we need is a newsgroup called sci.egyptology, but I fear that
this too would be hijacked by the Bauvalites et al.
David Maclennan
Christopher B. Stone
The name of the group should be something like
sci.archaeology.egyptology. We already have the precedent of
sci.archaeology.mesoamerican, which argues that "dead" cultures don't get
put into soc.culture.*, but rather into sci.archaeology.*. Consistency
is one of the most important criteria for naming newsgroups.
I also recommend the new group be moderated to keep out kooks whose
knowledge of ancient Egypt is limited to "Stargate."
--
Chris Stone
cbs...@phoenix.princeton.edu * http://www.princeton.edu/~cbstone
"Isolationism must become a thing of the past." -- Harry S. Truman
Stella Nemeth
cbs...@flagstaff.princeton.edu (Christopher B. Stone) wrote:
>The name of the group should be something like
>sci.archaeology.egyptology. We already have the precedent of
>sci.archaeology.mesoamerican, which argues that "dead" cultures don't get
>put into soc.culture.*, but rather into sci.archaeology.*. Consistency
>is one of the most important criteria for naming newsgroups.
Unfortunately your suggestion doesn't deal with objections to
discussing the art, crafts, architecture, and literature and other
written material in an archaeology group. It also doesn't deal with
objections to discussing these subjects in a non-archaeological
context. As we have been told over and over again, any discussion of
these subjects is off topic in an archaeology group.
>I also recommend the new group be moderated to keep out kooks whose
>knowledge of ancient Egypt is limited to "Stargate."
Moderation is a whole other question. It might be appropriate, and it
might not.
Stella Nemeth
s.ne...@ix.netcom.com
Doug Shakel
In article <4p46er$2...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>,
If such a new sci.arch*.egy* group were formed AND
moderated, then the moderator and the FAQ writers/keepers
could allow or disallow those previously contested issues
such as artifacts, inscriptions, etc.
Ancient egyptian archaeology has potential finds and
discoverys that aren't available in many other
archaeological settings. Does the "snobbery" that leads to
objections about considering writings mean that a sudden
discovery of Hohokham or Incan texts would be ignored or
supressed?
Moderate it (mildly), and set (y)our own standards!
Then of course there's the matter of finding a moderator...!
--DWS
Robbie Langton
bru...@mandrake.think.com (Eric Brunner) wrote:
[snip]
>There are already such news groups to which the text-only are
>already free to repair to:
>alt.mythology
>alt.religion.*
>soc.relition.*
>talk.religion.*
>sci.classics
>etc.
>etc.
>etc.
Someone coming to the Net and wishing to find discussion on matters
such as Ancient Egyptian literature is going to do a search on "Egypt"
or "Egyptian", and though it is *just* possible that he might try
alt.mythology (it didn't occur to me) he is unlikely to look at the
others named. Should anything be sent on Egyptian religion to the
religious newsgroups, it is likely to disappear within the substantial
mass of postings by fundamentalist Christians and their detractors; it
is likely to attract postings by said fundies of a nature which would
preclude sensible discussion and annoy those attempting it; it might
be looked on as an intrusion by readers of those groups because it is
not about "real" religion and looks off topic.
To be honest, I can't really see the need to distinguish so much
between the contents or significance of an artifact and the artifact
itself. Papyri are artifacts in their own right.
It does seem to me to be sensible that a properly named and easily
identifiable newsgroup be created to contain all matters concerning
Ancient Egypt.
----
Robbie Langton Hey, this web thing's immense -
rob...@roblang.demon.co.uk must be one HELL of a spider!
Deborah Burnham
Perhaps what we need is two archaeology files... one for sci.archaeology
for those who did not get their degrees from Edgar Cayce College, or
majored in Van Danaken school of pseudo-science. The second could be
called just that pse-archaeology. (pretty silly enquieries.)
Stella Nemeth
dsh...@azstarnet.com (Doug Shakel) wrote:
>In article <4p46er$2...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>,
> S.NE...@IX.NETCOM.COM (Stella Nemeth) wrote:
>>Unfortunately your suggestion doesn't deal with objections to
>>discussing the art, crafts, architecture, and literature and other
>>written material in an archaeology group. It also doesn't deal with
>>objections to discussing these subjects in a non-archaeological
>>context. As we have been told over and over again, any discussion of
>>these subjects is off topic in an archaeology group.
>If such a new sci.arch*.egy* group were formed AND
>moderated, then the moderator and the FAQ writers/keepers
>could allow or disallow those previously contested issues
>such as artifacts, inscriptions, etc.
This of course is true. A charter can be written any way the
proponents want it to be written.
>Ancient egyptian archaeology has potential finds and
>discoverys that aren't available in many other
>archaeological settings. Does the "snobbery" that leads to
>objections about considering writings mean that a sudden
>discovery of Hohokham or Incan texts would be ignored or
>supressed?
I like your examples. <g> Outside of a very limited North American
context (obviously not including Mexico), there isn't any real
question about whether or not texts and/or artifacts that survived
without being burried ought to be included in the studies of those
cultures. I think that the people (many of them professionals) who
dropped into the recent discussions of artifacts, textiles and the
like, and made it clear that, of course, all of the artifacts that
belong to a group, no matter how collected, are included when that
type of artifact is being studied.
However, one person did provide a short post on how archaeologists use
style. (I wish he would provide more information on this subject,
since I found it very interesting.) There is no question after
reading his message that archaeologists see style and use style
differently from historians or artists. I don't think that the
culture and history of the Ancient Near East belongs in an archaeology
newsgroup because putting it there limits the discussion.
>Moderate it (mildly), and set (y)our own standards!
>Then of course there's the matter of finding a moderator...!
Moderators (in the plural) would make more sense. I agree that this
is one area where moderating for cites would not make a lot of sense.
Moderation for flames would probably be useful since there are people
who would try to take the group over for their own purposes. I,
personally, would like to see the moderation be very light, or not
exist at all.
Stella Nemeth
s.ne...@ix.netcom.com
Christopher B. Stone
In article <4p46er$2...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>,
Stella Nemeth <S.NE...@IX.NETCOM.COM> wrote:
>Unfortunately your suggestion doesn't deal with objections to
>discussing the art, crafts, architecture, and literature and other
>written material in an archaeology group. It also doesn't deal with
>objections to discussing these subjects in a non-archaeological
>context. As we have been told over and over again, any discussion of
>these subjects is off topic in an archaeology group.
I don't understand why archaeologists believe discussion of architecture
and the like is off-topic in an archaeology group; surely architecture
forms a subset of archaeology.
That said, I do not read sci.archaeology and I am not well versed as to
what archaeologists consider within the scope of their field. Sci.* is
meant as a professional hierarchy, and if legitimate professional reasons
exist to exclude architecture from archaeology groups, then we should
respect those reasons.
I am, however, well versed in what the soc.culture.* hierarchy is meant
for: the discussion of present-day cultures, not historical ones. I am a
regular reader of news.groups and a member of group-mentors; I've
mentored many of the new soc.culture.* groups that have been created over
the past year and a half, including soc.culture.russian.moderated,
soc.culture.kuwait.moderated, soc.culture.belarus, soc.culture.ethiopia,
soc.culture.cameroon, and many others.
In short, I'm extremely well-versed in the newsgroup creation process. I
will vote against, and campaign heavily against, any move to introduce
extinct cultures into the soc.culture.* hierarchy.
The whole reason we go through such a complex process when creating
newsgroups is twofold: consistency and logical classification. We
already have the precedent of sci.archaeology.mesoamerican, and by the
criteria of consistency and logical classification, an Egyptology
newsgroup should follow that precedent. A soc.history.* group might also
be acceptable. Soc.culture.* is not.
Stella Nemeth
cbs...@tucson.princeton.edu (Christopher B. Stone) wrote:
>In article <4p46er$2...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>,
>Stella Nemeth <S.NE...@IX.NETCOM.COM> wrote:
>>Unfortunately your suggestion doesn't deal with objections to
>>discussing the art, crafts, architecture, and literature and other
>>written material in an archaeology group. It also doesn't deal with
>>objections to discussing these subjects in a non-archaeological
>>context. As we have been told over and over again, any discussion of
>>these subjects is off topic in an archaeology group.
>I don't understand why archaeologists believe discussion of architecture
>and the like is off-topic in an archaeology group; surely architecture
>forms a subset of archaeology.
Yes and no. I gather from what I've been reading here, and it
surprises me too, that archaeologists look at things like art and
architecture quite differently from the way art historians and
architects look at them.
>That said, I do not read sci.archaeology and I am not well versed as to
>what archaeologists consider within the scope of their field. Sci.* is
>meant as a professional hierarchy, and if legitimate professional reasons
>exist to exclude architecture from archaeology groups, then we should
>respect those reasons.
Which is why I would like help in deciding what a group that would
discuss the history and culture of the Egypt of the past ought to be
called.
>I am, however, well versed in what the soc.culture.* hierarchy is meant
>for: the discussion of present-day cultures, not historical ones. I am a
>regular reader of news.groups and a member of group-mentors; I've
>mentored many of the new soc.culture.* groups that have been created over
>the past year and a half, including soc.culture.russian.moderated,
>soc.culture.kuwait.moderated, soc.culture.belarus, soc.culture.ethiopia,
>soc.culture.cameroon, and many others.
Great! A mentor. Can we pick your brains about namespace?
>In short, I'm extremely well-versed in the newsgroup creation process. I
>will vote against, and campaign heavily against, any move to introduce
>extinct cultures into the soc.culture.* hierarchy.
>The whole reason we go through such a complex process when creating
>newsgroups is twofold: consistency and logical classification. We
>already have the precedent of sci.archaeology.mesoamerican, and by the
>criteria of consistency and logical classification, an Egyptology
>newsgroup should follow that precedent. A soc.history.* group might also
>be acceptable. Soc.culture.* is not.
Hum... Somehow, I though so. There was also a question about a group
about the ancient world as a whole that was being discussed a few
months ago. That would have gone into the soc.history.* area.
DISCLAIMER: I support the belief that anything dug up today ought to
be dug up with proper data collection. I am discussing material that
was collected a hundred years ago, not material that is being
collected today. (ok, now that we have that out of the way, I'm going
to try to continue my thought.)
Personally, I am tired of arguments about what an artifact is or
isn't, and whether it is ok to study it or not based on where and if
it was dug up and if the collection data is intact and of modern
quality, or whether someone who doesn't know anything about the
subject considers it the equivalent of a used toothbrush.
I would prefer that this group NOT be in the archaeology heirarchy.
Stella Nemeth
s.ne...@ix.netcom.com
Pépito Sallent
In article (Dans l'article)
<Pine.BSD/.3.91.9606060810...@ami.atnet.net>, Deborah Burnham
<djbu...@atnet.net> wrote (écrivait) :
> > ravi, je ne comprends rien mais c'est super old pep ;-)
Joe Bernstein
I was *very* strongly tempted to extend the newsgroups line to include
both news.groups and sci.classics. Because I don't want resistance
stifling the pre-RFD discussion, I refrained for now, but I really hope
the suggestions that follow are worth attention in both those groups.
Time will tell.
In article <4parqm$d...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>, S.NE...@IX.NETCOM.COM
(Stella Nemeth) wrote:
>cbs...@tucson.princeton.edu (Christopher B. Stone) wrote:
>
>>In article <4p46er$2...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>,
>>Stella Nemeth <S.NE...@IX.NETCOM.COM> wrote:
>
>>>Unfortunately your suggestion doesn't deal with objections to
>>>discussing the art, crafts, architecture, and literature and other
>>>written material in an archaeology group. It also doesn't deal with
>>>objections to discussing these subjects in a non-archaeological
>>>context. As we have been told over and over again, any discussion of
>>>these subjects is off topic in an archaeology group.
>
>>I don't understand why archaeologists believe discussion of architecture
>>and the like is off-topic in an archaeology group; surely architecture
>>forms a subset of archaeology.
>
>Yes and no. I gather from what I've been reading here, and it
>surprises me too, that archaeologists look at things like art and
>architecture quite differently from the way art historians and
>architects look at them.
Not snipped, because it's relevant to a suggestion below.
>>In short, I'm extremely well-versed in the newsgroup creation process. I
>>will vote against, and campaign heavily against, any move to introduce
>>extinct cultures into the soc.culture.* hierarchy.
>
>>The whole reason we go through such a complex process when creating
>>newsgroups is twofold: consistency and logical classification. We
>>already have the precedent of sci.archaeology.mesoamerican, and by the
>>criteria of consistency and logical classification, an Egyptology
>>newsgroup should follow that precedent. A soc.history.* group might also
>>be acceptable. Soc.culture.* is not.
Mr. Stone, with all due respect for your superior expertise, I *don't*
think Egyptology is closely analogous to Mesoamerican studies.
Mesoamerican studies do include the codices and the Maya inscriptions, but
remain primarily archaeological in focus. Moreover, the group welcomes
posts about the rest of the Western Hemisphere, which left no textual
remains. sci.archaeology.mesoamerican is thus an entirely proper
placement for that newsgroup.
Egyptology is *not* analogous. Egyptology includes *immense* amounts of
textual remains, which are moreover to a considerable extent the focus of
much current controversy (and, aha, Usenet discussion!). Egyptologists
are expected to learn Egyptian, while I'm pretty sure students of Mexican
archaeology are *not* required to learn Mayan (corrections welcome).
There's an excellent case for seeing an ancient Egypt newsgroup outside
sci.archaeology.
My own opinion, for what it's worth: humanities.egyptology. This is
precisely analogous to the current proposal for humanities.classics,
another newsgroup dedicated to the study of a historic culture in all its
manifestations. (It's also analogous, though much less precisely, to
humanities.indology, a newsgroup I hope to be a co-proponent of, if it
ever gets proposed, we'll see...)
In theory, I suppose this could someday lead to a proliferation, e.g.
humanities.assyriology and so forth. It might be worth it to be thinking
*now* about a hierarchy to group all these, something like
humanities.area-studies.classics and so forth? (I can just see the
resistance to that one...) On the other hand, I'm not really persuaded
that there's anything counter-intuitive about the big names like Classics,
Egyptology, Sinology and what have you; the real odd one out is the Arabic
Muslim world, which has no similarly accepted English name (as witness
Marshall Hodgson's agonies in <The Venture of Islam>).
Anyway, precisely because very much of Egyptology consists of textual
work, which even at its most technical remains a core discipline of the
*humanities*, and much of it consists of art history and the like, I
really don't think it needs to be in sci.* or soc.* at all. This is the
sort of topic humanities.* is there for; let's use it.
(Personally, with my own interest in social archaeology, I've found the
general neglect of that topic by Egyptologists quite frustrating. For all
my fondness for a few Egyptian literary works, I wouldn't expect to read
the newsgroup, let alone be a proponent. But the news.groups junkie in me
just can't resist joining in on a namespace debate...)
>Hum... Somehow, I though so. There was also a question about a group
>about the ancient world as a whole that was being discussed a few
>months ago. That would have gone into the soc.history.* area.
I believe an RFD for soc.history.ancient is coming soon.
Joe Bernstein
--
Joe Bernstein, free-lance writer and bookstore worker
Katherine Griffis
On Jun 14, 1996 03:58:08 in article <Re: soc.culture.egyptian.ancient -
What's needed to create it?>, 'j...@sfbooks.com (Joe Bernstein)' wrote:
>In theory, I suppose this could someday lead to a proliferation,
e.g.>humanities.assyriology and so forth. It might be worth it to be
thinking >*now* about a hierarchy to group all these, something like
>humanities.area-studies.classics and so forth? (I can just see the
>resistance to that one...) On the other hand, I'm not really persuaded
>that there's anything counter-intuitive about the big names like
Classics,>Egyptology, Sinology and what have you;
*classification* system of groups like Egyptology and Assyriology. There
is a soc.culture.assyrian right now. Since we don't have many Assyrians
running around (like we used to), it doesn't get much activity. But
honestly: would *you* have looked there on "soc.culture" for Assyrian
culture and archaeology? Nah, me either.
Stella Nemeth
gri...@usa.pipeline.com(Katherine Griffis) wrote:
>One of my great pet peeves with the Usenet system has been the
>*classification* system of groups like Egyptology and Assyriology. There
>is a soc.culture.assyrian right now. Since we don't have many Assyrians
>running around (like we used to), it doesn't get much activity. But
>honestly: would *you* have looked there on "soc.culture" for Assyrian
>culture and archaeology? Nah, me either.
Well, I just went and looked at both soc.culture.assyrian where the
oddest flamewar I've ever seen is in progress. And
soc.culture.egyptian where there was only one posting in the 50+ I
downloaded about Egytpian history.
Stella Nemeth
s.ne...@ix.netcom.com