Re: Renfrew and Knysh

I wrote:
<<...just to assure yourself that you aren't again citing out-of-date
information.

george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:
<< *****GK: Your concern is touching. I told this forum exactly why I
was unimpressed with Marsha Levine's treatment of Dereivka.>>

No, WHAT you did not mention was the well-publicized redating and
consequent irrelevancy of the Dereivka horse head, the only direct
evidence of tooth wear/bit use in the area from that period. And you
expressly wrote that Marsha Levine made omissions. Yet, you made a
major omission of your own. If you are not concerned making those
kinds of omissions, the forum might still want to be aware that you
are doing so.

george knysh <gknysh@...> also wrote:
<<You don't suppose that the fact he was published by the Renfrew
people has anything to do with it?>>

I suspect you don't know what Renfrew and "Renfrew's people" have
contributed to scientific archaeology. I suspect that you are not
aware that Renfrew was a key figure in not only introducing
radiocarbon as a standard method of dating, but also among the first
to introduce calibration to the European archaeology community, in
such seminal work as "Wessex without Mycenae," which did nothing less
than completely overhaul the traditional dating of European
prehistory. I suspect you are not aware of Renfrew's pioneer work in
using scientific methodology to establish provenance, including the
first ever use of trace-element analysis to track trade movement in
prehistoric raw materials (obsidian in the Mediterranean). As far as
"Renfrew's people", they may be credited with continuing to correct
the chronology of western and southern European prehistory, including
such inconvenient findings as Spain as the first occurence of "bell
beaker"-form ceramics. One may see the recent dating (and re-dating)
of Telegin's and other "Ukrainaian" finds at Oxford labs as simply a
continuation of Renfrew's influence and legacy.

So, for those who are aware (if not necessarily for all linguists),
having "Renfrew's people" involved might a good thing. A very good
thing. Your attempt to imply that it somehow undermines the validity
of the work reflects on your credibility - at least in my opinion.

<<GL: Do you know what a flatus vocis is, Steve?>>
Why? Should I look it up for you? Has anyone called you that? -
Regards, S. Long