Glen in critique of my maps has offered the following arguments
> After examining John's three linguistic maps, I've identified three
> fundamental flaws and several lesser ones. First the basic errors:
>
> 1) The maps are not confined to a _single_ year
> and temporal juxtaposition has lead to severe
> and complete inaccuracies that make the maps
> almost useless.
OK I attempted a periodisation rather than a single year. Check
any historical atlas Glen for periods before the late bronze age
and none of those ever show single year dates! Even atlases showing
major events such as the Peloponnesian War or Hannibals invasion of
Italy show a period of history not a single year!
The periodisations make good cultural and anthropological sense, and
are linked with clear changes in technology in the various places
shown. To confine it to a single year at such time depths is
difficult because of
1. Uncertainly about C14 dating with wide standard errors the further
back into the past one goes.
2. The impossibility of showing a trend or arrow line
Glen again
> 2) The maps are, in almost every respect, counter
> to the mainstream views of all the respective
> language groups present in the map.
Please give evidence. PIE has been identified on the Pontic Steppe,
It is where I have located it. Proto-Uralic have been identified as
being in the forested area immediately to the north and stretching
across to the Urals. It is where I have located it. Elamite has
been
located as stretching across from Susa to Sahr i Sokhta. That is
where I have located it. Dravidian is acknowledged as being spoken
from Surkagen Dor on the Irani-Pakastan border, it is where I have
shown it. Hurrian during the Halafian phase, and again during
the Mitanni period and yet again in the 9th century under the
expansion of Urartu was spoken in the zone from Cilicia and northern
Lebanon to the Zagros and from Lake Van in the North to Mosul if not
further south in the south. It is where I have shown it.
> 3) Some languages of importance are either
> completely unidentified...
>
> NEC
> NWC
> IE
> Kartvelian
As for the separation of NEC, NWC and Kartvelian. I have shown
Kartvellian but not labelled it. This has been a decision based on
three factors.
Firstly I had trouble with the graphics package I had with reducing
the size of labels further than I did. For linguistically complex
regions (eg the Caucasas) to put in every langauge would have
resulted
in unecessary clutter.
Secondly at the early dates of some of the maps, a linguistic name
would have been misleading. (Eg Pre-proto-proto-Karvellian?). I
could have gone with a cultural name (eg Kobystan variant of Zarzian
culture? Kuro Araxes culture people? Maikop language?) Excpet
where
it was essential to have a name I have tried to reduce such
cumbersome
extensions.
Thirdly I would refer you to the work of J.C.Catford, quoted in the
Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language second edition, which shows that
at
10,000 BCE in fact a single proto-Caucasian language split between
"South Caucasian" which split 4,000 years ago between Georgian-Zan
and
Svan languages, and a single family joining North East
(Nakho-Dagestanian) and North West Abhkazo-Adyghian. This writer
puts
the split between NW and NE Caucasian at about 5,600 years ago.
Given
the fact that archaeologically it was until that time that these
people possessed a unitary culture, with remarkably few regional
variants, I have coloured it as one language.
> ...completely made-up despite there being
> credible solutions using known languages or
> language groups...
>
> Macro-Pelasgian (aka Tyrrhenian)
We had agreement on this list that there was a Macro-Pelasgian
language family of which Tyrrhenian was just one language.
> Azilian-Tardenoisian (aka Vasconic)
Azilian-Tardenoisian is the name of the archaeologically
attested cultures extent in that region at that time. Vascon is an
alternative name for the extant Basque peoples. To call the
languages
of such a deep time frame Vasconic would have been misleading.
(Unless you want another pre-proto-vasconic language group!
> Asianic (aka Semitish)
Glen other than you I have never seen another writer who uses the
term
Semitish. There is a recognised and widespread use of the term
Asianic to refer to the preIE-Anatolian languages. Many use Asianic
as the language family into which Tyrrhenian also fits.
> TransOxus (aka residual Eurasiatic dialects)
TransOxus is the recognised geograhic name of the region. I did this
rather than call them the "languages of the Mltefatian, Ali Teppeh
and
Djaitun culture peoples". "residual Eurasiatic dialects" is almost
as
cumbersome.
>
> ...or completely absent altogether from the map!
>
> Urartean
Urartean language is only recognised linguistically after 1,200 BCE.
Before then it would have been an eastern dialect of Hurrian.
> some Tyrrhenian lgs (Etruscan, Lemnian)
I had trouble fitting them onto the map too. The island of Lemnos is
such a small speck in the Aegean I would have had trouble locating
the
label in the right place. Also these languages are first attested
historically in the 7-800 BCE period. Glen, my last map finishes
2,500 BCE. You accuse me of not having a map for a single year and
then want me to bracket languages and peoples of the IRON AGE with
Chalcolithic-Early Bronze Age languages! At that horizon it is
impossible to identify a Villanova culture (circa 1,200 BCE onwards)
let alone Etruscan in Italy. Or do you want me to call them
Remedello, Rinaldone and Gaudo language peoples?
> Please John. Humour me and the rest of the list by redoing the maps
> properly. First, identify a _single_ year such as "6000 BCE" or
"2500 BCE"
> and run with it.
OK Glen, for someone who does not understand Archaeological
periodisation here it goes.
11,000-8,500 Mesolithic
8,500-5,800 Pre-Pottery Neolithic
5,800-4,000 Late Neolithic (2ndary Products Revolution)
4,000-2,500 Early Bronze Age
How many maps do you want? Producing these four was a lot of work.
Generally the maps show the extent of recognised archaeological
cultures at the end of each period with arrows within the colour zone
showing movements within the period and those outside the colour zone
showing movements underway at the end of the period.
Glen again
> Second, despite your wonderful knowledge of archaeology
> you've already admitted to knowing didley squat about linguistics.
> In contrast, there are many sources including the Encyclopaedia
> Brittanica, right in front of your face, from which you can get
> reasonable information,
> written by people who know a little more about linguistics than
your
> didley
> squat. Don't you think it's best to accept most of the given dates
> and work
> from there until you are better acquainted with linguistics?
Glen, first of all, if you were to check EB on Asianic languages it
has a reference. There is no EB reference to Semitish! There are EB
references to Azilian. Theo Vennemann's online dictionary of
Vasconic
substrate to Germanic is a little late for the period again, except
perhaps for the period before 2,500 BCE. For instance I would refer
you to R.L. Trask's a History of the Basques Chapter 5 which shows
the
enormous contribution to the Basque lexicon from Romance/Latin is
extensively treated, a valuable counter to the mythology that Basque
has been somehow resistant to outside influences. Now that we
understand the historical phonological development of Basque we are
in
a position to recognise hundreds of loans, including examples which
have previously been compared to Caucasic etyma in the mistaken
belief
that they are native Basque forms. "Of the 300 or so Basque items
which have been adduced as "cognates" for words in North Caucasian,
Burushaski, Yeniseian, Sumarian or other "Dene-Caucasian" languages,
more than half can be dismissed out of hand: they are obvious loans
from Latin or Romance..." (Trask 1995a:77).
> The next time, please acknowledge the more appropriate space-time
> coordinates of these languages:
>
> Elamo-Dravidian (8000 BCE, according to David McAlpin)
OK. The fact that I labelled them as 8,500 BCE means I suppose I
could have labelled it Proto-Elamo-Dravidian. Certainly on the
grounds of archaeology there is a clear continuity of the mesolithic
and early neolithic cultures of this region, showing little to no new
movements of people into this region from at least 9,000 BCE until
the Early Bronze Age.
> Dravidian (5000-4000 BCE, Pakistan/NW India)
OK I could have split the Elamo-Darvidians for the period
5,800-4,000.
But culturally there was a complete chain of cultures stretching
across southern Iran at that time. Elamic was at one extreme,
Dravidian at the other, and a number of cultures no doubt 3/4 Elamic
1/4 Dravidian fading into others 3/4 Dravidian, 1/4 Elamic. The fact
that there was trade relations established between Badakstan lapis
lasuli during this period and that Sumerians reported a single
language ethnic group along the southern Iranian coast supports my
case.
> Uralic-Yukaghir (5000 BCE or earlier, Urals)
> Uralic (4000 BCE, west of the Urals)
OK but what do I call the language if the period is 5,800-4,000 BCE?
Uralic languages seemed a fair compromise.
> Finno-Ugric (3000 BCE, Volga)
Finno Ugric at 3,000 BCE on the Volga was subsumed within the
Fatyanova corded ware Battle Axe culture. Everywhere else this
culture seems to have been Indo-European (It introduced the Baltic
languages to the Baltic region, German to the first Northern Culture
(over Ertebolle Saami peoples), Slavic to the Slavic Urheimat etc.)
In the Volga region the Indo-European superstrata was absorbed by the
Finno-Ugric sub-stratum, in the same way Anglo-Saxon English absorbed
Norman French to make Middle English.
> Altaic (4000 BCE, Altai Mts)
>
> Your last map, for instance, is dated at 4000 to 2500 BCE and you
place
> Uralic on the map. Unfortunately, Uralic and the later FinnoUgric
are BOTH
> native to this time period. FinnoUgric and IndoIranian should be
next to
> each other in the latter part of this period
In fact FinnoUgric and Indo-Iranian archaeologically and culturally
at
this period are both within the purview of the IE expansion blue area
(See my comments about Fatyanova culture above).
>while we may place Tocharian
> below the lower extremes of an expanding Uralic in the earlier
stage of this
> era. We can't draw both stages at the same time and so you're going
to have
> to decide which year you wish to represent to make a sensible
picture.
The Tocharian movement is shown by the blue arrow moving out of the
Indo-European zone into the area of mesolithic cultures many of whom
would have been Uralish in language at that time. There would seem
to
be little inter-mixing between the two - the neolithic peoples that
formed the Andronova culture in Siberia and the mesolithic
hunter-gatherers they displaced.
> Ignoring the fact that the Black Sea is very incorrectly drawn in
the first
> two maps, your very first one, dated from 8000 BCE to 5800 BCE,
shows
> correctly the extent of agriculture as it was at 6000 BCE but
certainly not
> how it was at 8000 BCE.
Glen, the extent of the Black Sea fell in the period from 8,000 BCE
to
its lowest ever level 5,650 BCE. This was due to an increase in
evapouration rates and a drying of the climate. At 8,000 BCE the
Black Sea was still filled largely with melt-water from the last of
the glaciers. At 11,000 - 8,000 it had a great deal of meltwater.
If
you look at the maps I have shown the Sea of Azov filled at the
earlier period - which on the basis of Pitman's book, is accurate.
> Again, pick a year and stick with it, John.
Glen, all I can ask you to do is to study the periodisation of
archaeology a little better. Have a look at any historical atlas you
wish to pick. As I have almost every historical atlas ever produced
in English and two of the better ones produced in German, I know
what I am talking about here Glen. To show an individual year would
demand that I have information site by site on its temporal extent,
and although my archaeology is pretty good Glen I don't have all the
records for every site ever excavated in these areas.
> As for the positions of the languages, again, you're completely off
on your
> own religious tangent. Who proposes AfroAsiatic spread across the
Sahara
> save you?
See my analysis that I recently posted to Dennis on the Sahara.
Glen,
I invite you to check out any recent Saharan excavation work. It
largely confirms my thesis.
>Or that Semitic originated in Egypt?!
Proto Semitic seems to be associated with the pottery making
Hunter-Gatherer cultures which crossed from the Eastern Delta into
the
Sinai in Late Natufian times, to adopt ovicaprid nomadic pastoralism.
It shows in the most recent archaeology in the area. How else do you
propose to get the Afro-Asiatic Semitic language out of Africa?
> Sumerian so far down south
> well into historic times??
See my views above. I believe what the Sumerians themselves tell us
about their origins.
> Berber spread so far south overtaking Bantu
> country???
No way, they are in the Sahara, north of the line of lakes that
stretched out from Lake Chad across to the Tekrur region west of the
Niger Bend. This area was the zone of pottery circa 8,000 BCE,
pottery which spread from the Oranian culture in North Africa. This
culture was clearly Berber, as there is no exogenous arrivals into
the
Algerian region from then until Carthaginian times. A culture
arriving into the Sahara from an area that was Berber, and into which
no more recent peoples moved sounds like Berber to me.
> Hurrian spreading over most of the Sumerian Kingdom as
> well as Urartu???!!
See Georges Roux in his book Ancient Iraq on the presence of Hurrians
in Sumerian cities. The Ubaidian culture drew heaviest on the Halaf,
Samara and Hadji Muhammed cultures, which seem to have been Hurrian.
Halaf certainly was, the others may also have been.
>Where's NEC or NWC for god's sake?
If Catford is right (see above) they diverged only during the later
stages of the period.
> Are you aware that Egyptian
> is very, very different from Semitic grammatically and that this
fact is
> mentioned quite clearly in the EncBritt to justify some linguists'
views
> that Egyptian is a seperate branch of AA altogether?
Yes and for that reason I have them differently coloured, between
pale yellow and dark yellow. At the same time, Glen, are you aware
of
the degree of Semitic borrowing in Egyptian - even from the Old
Kingdom times onwards? Evidence that shows that there were once
Semites living pre-historically in the area of Egypt?
> I banish you. Tut, tut. Be gone now. :P
Glen, you urgently need to study a little more archaeology. You talk
about dates by which languages are supposed to have been in certain
areas, but appear almost totally ignorant of the actual cultures that
were in those areas at the time you speak of. You appear almost
wholly ignorant of the movement of cultures, technologies, lithic
traditions, and the latest research in cultural ecology and
systematics. I can suggest some good easy reading secondary sources
if you want some :-)
John