Re We know the origin of the Etruscans

Re: We know the origin of the Etruscans Re: We know the origin of the Etruscans Source: http://sci.tech−archive.net/Archive/sci.archaeology/2009−07/msg00428.html • From: crunch • Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 20:18:19 −0700 (PDT) On Jul 29, 9:21 pm, Eric Stevens wrote: On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 15:11:39 −0700 (PDT), crunch wrote: On Jul 29, 5:54 pm, Eric Stevens wrote: On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:22:37 −0700 (PDT), crunch wrote: Let's bring in some really good archaeology in support for a full−blooded sci.arch discussion. This is a classic example of what you do. You have nominated the subject (origin of the Etruscans) but having nothing at all to say about it yourself you have asked others to talk about it. Bogus and you should have checked the sci.arch Archives on the subject but you did not. This is not typical of you; usually you are careful You are a bloody idiot! I am talking about the current thread. Re: We know the origin of the Etruscans 1 Re: We know the origin of the Etruscans Restrain your emotions; you are out of line. Rethink. Do you really expect _other_ people to go back and check the archives to discover if there is anything you could have said on this occasion, but didn't? My standards are way higher than most; it comes from my late father, a psychiatrist. So, I conclude nobody is really good with usenet search facility. Others would make the excuse that they are not interested in the first place and that's the explanation instead. Further, I really dislike reinventing the wheel and really dislike repeating myself. You treat this news group as a child does a TV set. You want to turn it on and _have_others_ contribute to your entertainment. It doesn't work that day and all you are doing is pissing people off. You have lost your marbles and that is not my attitude. That is exactly what you do. This time you have turned on the 'origin of the Etruscans' program to see what it says. Not one contribution to this thread from you. Why should I? The social context on sci.arch has been for Peter Alaca to bully me without a peep from anybody else. Tom McDonald calls it strong language; he is wrong. It is unacceptable language. Do you understand, Eric? If you don't have anything worthwhile to say, please go away and find out something for yourself. Maybe then you may be able to start a worthwhile discussion. Right now, you are an irritating waste of time. Re: We know the origin of the Etruscans 2 Re: We know the origin of the Etruscans Eric Stevens Don't waste yourself. Yet, you still have my respect unlike certain others. That doesn't matter a damn, at all, to me. Eric Stevens− Hide quoted text − − Show quoted text − Your reaction, response, and emotions are completely your responsibility. by Mel Copeland http://www.maravot.com/frame197618.html Etruscan language − Speculation on phylogenetic relation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_language#Speculation_on_phyloge http://www.epigraphy.org/volume_20_1.htm Table of Contents, Volume 20/1, 1991 Barry Fell and the Anatolians (32 pp) Michael Skupin 20/1−p 278 "The author again demonstrates his considerable erudition with an excellent and thorough introductory examination of the question of Anatolian roots for a number of ancient inscriptions (Etruscan, the Lemnos Stele, etc.). There is a particularly good elucidation of Fells decipherment of the three Pyrgi inscriptions on gold leaf (LP I Phoenician; LP II & III Etruscan)." −−− Page 280 − "One of the oddest non−events since the founding of ESOP is the lack of establishment outcry at Barry Fell's decipherments of the Re: We know the origin of the Etruscans 3 Re: We know the origin of the Etruscans Phaistos Disc, Linear A and Etruscan. There has been nary a howl, despite the fact that for many years repeating that these were untranslated was a staple of academic small talk, a sign of good breeding." Page 285 − [Davis' "The Decipherment of the Minoan Linear A and Pictographic Scripts"] "This brings us back to our topic, Barry Fell's use of Anatolian elements in similar decipherments. The preliminaries are not the place to go into the similarities and differences between Davis' and Fell's conclusions, but it is important to note two things: first, that the two men, though working independently, made similar deductions at about the same time; and second, that Davis' work, even though published in the relative isolation of South Africa, was included forthwith in the debate, while Fell's, at Harvard, was ignored." Page 291 − "On the one hand Etruscan had been compared with every language under the sun; on the other, and probably in reaction to the lack of success with the comparative method, later research became hyper−introverted, approaching the language as if it were related to nothing else on land or sea, concentrating on internal evidence." David Christainsen . Re: We know the origin of the Etruscans 4