Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

google books Re: [ANE-2] Re: Relative Popularity of Egyptology and Assyriology since 1800

Expand Messages
  • Peter T. Daniels
    Here are some strategies: In the left-hand menu, choose Full view only. This will block everything less than 100 years old (except for a few items that may
    Message 1 of 12 , Dec 19, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Here are some strategies:

      In the left-hand menu, choose "Full view only." This will block everything less
      than 100 years old (except for a few items that may have special dispensation;
      some American Philosophical Society items still show up).

      If you're looking for a journal issue, find any occurrence of that journal and
      click "other editions." For a while, that brought up complete runs of journals
      in reverse chronological order. But that no longer happens; they now appear in
      indeterminate order.

      Sometimes -- I cannot tell when -- if you search a name, it offers you the
      options "books by" and "books mentioning" (or something like that).

      I have the impression that when a commercial publisher reprints an old item,
      they may pressure google to take it off google books, because some things
      formerly available appear no longer to be available.

      If something refuses to appear in books.google.com, then try things like
      books.google.de and books.google.fr. They seem to access the same copies of
      things as the American one, but they also seem to be able to get at things the
      American one can't.--
      Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...




      ________________________________
      From: Joan Griffith <despinne@...>
      To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Sun, December 19, 2010 2:48:14 AM
      Subject: Re: [ANE-2] Re: Relative Popularity of Egyptology and Assyriology since
      1800

       
      In searching for various items in Google Books, it does not seem that they
      show everything they claim is there. Some time ago, I was looking for
      something fairly old, so I thought it would show up at the end of the
      search, which appeared to be latest to oldest. However, the search ran out
      before the books did. I think Google goes on for 30 pages, at least that one
      did. But there appeared to be more since the page showed thousands of
      related books.

      i was wondering what else I could do to tease out well-hidden items.
      Usually I can find most things I look for, but this reminds me of the first
      time I was on Lexus-Nexus and decided to start with "murder" which called up
      a shocking bazillion search results. Does anyone have particular search
      strategies?

      I will most gratefully check out the Google Lab.

      Joan Griffith
      Independent

      On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 10:56 PM, Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@...>wrote:

      >
      >
      > Click on "Messages in this topic" near the end of the message and it takes
      > you
      > to the group's page; then click on "Files" at the left, and Marc's table is
      > the
      > last item. (The first one added since 2006.)
      >
      > --
      > Peter T. Daniels grammatim@... <grammatim%40verizon.net>
      >
      > ________________________________
      > From: "gtosiris@... <gtosiris%40mpx.com.au>"
      ><gtosiris@...<gtosiris%40mpx.com.au>>
      >
      >
      > To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com <ANE-2%40yahoogroups.com>
      > Sent: Sat, December 18, 2010 8:43:23 PM
      > Subject: Re: [ANE-2] Re: Relative Popularity of Egyptology and Assyriology
      > since
      > 1800
      >
      >
      > On 18 Dec 2010 at 18:51, Marc Cooper wrote:
      >
      > > My attempt to insert a file into a Yahoo post failed, so I uploaded
      > > a .pdf of the table to our "Files" directory. You can access it
      > > here:
      > >
      > >
      > > http://tinyurl.com/2d36td5
      > [snip]
      >
      > Hi Marc,
      >
      > I find the tinyurl link does not work.
      >
      > Regards,
      > Gary Thompson
      > Australia
      > (No academic affiliation.)
      >
      > Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
      > Messages in this topic (6)
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Trudy Kawami
      Of course we all say that WW I and WW II damaged scholarship, but this is an interesting angle with hard data. Could we take it a step further & say that
      Message 2 of 12 , Dec 20, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Of course we all say that WW I and WW II damaged scholarship, but this
        is an interesting angle with "hard" data. Could we take it a step
        further & say that Assyriology & Egyptology were seen as "modern" in the
        19th century, but now have a retro glow? What I have in mind is the
        success of the Indiana Jones series which relied on much earlier themes
        & imagery. Even the invasion of Iraq and the looting of the museum has
        not produced any updating of the themes.

        Since I lagged badly in keeping up with post this weekend, I'd better
        read all the rest before tripping over my own feet (or tongue).

        Trudy



        ________________________________

        From: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
        MarcC
        Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 1:41 PM
        To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [ANE-2] Relative Popularity of Egyptology and Assyriology since
        1800






        Instead of grading papers this morning, I did some data mining in Google
        Books. Since Google has reduced several million vlumes into searchable
        electronic form, I wondered if it is possble to determine the relative
        popularity of Assyriology and Egyptology over the last 200 years. So I
        ran searches for sets of words that are specific to these fields in
        English, "egyptian hieroglyphic", "babylonian cuneiform", and akkadian.
        Google's date limited search engine turns out to be imperfect. For
        instance, a journal run beginning in 1824 will occasionally produce
        Google references from later periods in earlier period, so the numbers
        below cannot be taken as the true number of instances in any given
        period, but the relative numbers are, I think, meaningful. Here are my
        quickie findings:

        Egyptian Hieroglyphic Babylonian Cuneiform Akkadian 1800-1820 5780 91 0
        1820-1840 21900 744 7 1840-1860 32500 6700 58 1860-1880 27400 15500
        991 1880-1900 32900 35000 14500 1900-1920 21200 33100 5190 1920-1940
        14300 13700 6670 1940-1960 11300 12900 11900 1960-1980 43100 25200
        66600 1980-2000 45100 33900 89400

        The actual date constraints are more precise than suggested above. I
        used January 1, 1800 to December 31, 1819 for the first period and
        similar date constraints for those which follow. Also note that the
        earliest references to Akkadian are all spurious.

        My first reaction to the table is that the era prior to WW I was a
        golden age for Ancient Near Eastern Studies. The wars nearly destroyed
        the field, but it has returned to prominence since 1960.

        Marc Cooper

        Missouri State

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Raz Kletter
        What this data reflects depends on varid factors, eg, if the querry retrieves the keywords from titles, or from any content of the books; if the keywords
        Message 3 of 12 , Dec 20, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          What this data reflects depends on varid factors, eg, if the querry
          retrieves the keywords from titles, or from any content of the books; if the
          keywords appeared several times in the same book, does it counts as 1 or
          n-times, etc. The keywords were linguistic, "Egyptian Hierogliphic" might
          not fish out "Egyptology" in general. One needs to check other fields, and
          best to compare to some field, whose popularity can be estimated by other
          means.
          I am not sure about a pre WW1 Golden age. Except for WW1-2 as noticed by
          Trudy, the trend in general is of constant growth. It may reflect mainly
          growth in academic production of books, not necessarily a "retro glow", or
          popularity in the sense of a general public.
          Raz Kletter

          2010/12/20 Trudy Kawami <tkawami@...>

          >
          >
          > Of course we all say that WW I and WW II damaged scholarship, but this
          > is an interesting angle with "hard" data. Could we take it a step
          > further & say that Assyriology & Egyptology were seen as "modern" in the
          > 19th century, but now have a retro glow? What I have in mind is the
          > success of the Indiana Jones series which relied on much earlier themes
          > & imagery. Even the invasion of Iraq and the looting of the museum has
          > not produced any updating of the themes.
          >
          > Since I lagged badly in keeping up with post this weekend, I'd better
          > read all the rest before tripping over my own feet (or tongue).
          >
          > Trudy
          >
          > ________________________________
          >
          > From: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com <ANE-2%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:
          > ANE-2@yahoogroups.com <ANE-2%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of
          > MarcC
          > Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 1:41 PM
          > To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com <ANE-2%40yahoogroups.com>
          > Subject: [ANE-2] Relative Popularity of Egyptology and Assyriology since
          > 1800
          >
          > Instead of grading papers this morning, I did some data mining in Google
          > Books. Since Google has reduced several million vlumes into searchable
          > electronic form, I wondered if it is possble to determine the relative
          > popularity of Assyriology and Egyptology over the last 200 years. So I
          > ran searches for sets of words that are specific to these fields in
          > English, "egyptian hieroglyphic", "babylonian cuneiform", and akkadian.
          > Google's date limited search engine turns out to be imperfect. For
          > instance, a journal run beginning in 1824 will occasionally produce
          > Google references from later periods in earlier period, so the numbers
          > below cannot be taken as the true number of instances in any given
          > period, but the relative numbers are, I think, meaningful. Here are my
          > quickie findings:
          >
          > Egyptian Hieroglyphic Babylonian Cuneiform Akkadian 1800-1820 5780 91 0
          > 1820-1840 21900 744 7 1840-1860 32500 6700 58 1860-1880 27400 15500
          > 991 1880-1900 32900 35000 14500 1900-1920 21200 33100 5190 1920-1940
          > 14300 13700 6670 1940-1960 11300 12900 11900 1960-1980 43100 25200
          > 66600 1980-2000 45100 33900 89400
          >
          > The actual date constraints are more precise than suggested above. I
          > used January 1, 1800 to December 31, 1819 for the first period and
          > similar date constraints for those which follow. Also note that the
          > earliest references to Akkadian are all spurious.
          >
          > My first reaction to the table is that the era prior to WW I was a
          > golden age for Ancient Near Eastern Studies. The wars nearly destroyed
          > the field, but it has returned to prominence since 1960.
          >
          > Marc Cooper
          >
          > Missouri State
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
          >
          >


          --
          Raz Kletter
          Varsaallika 6a Tallinn 12013 Estonia


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.