Re: [tied] Re: Gimbutas.

From: Marc Verhaegen
Message: 3055
Date: 2000-08-10

>> Piotr: As for Corded Ware, its origin is certainly more complex
>than in Childe's and Gimbutas's theories: some steppe influence, but
>also continuous development at old TRB sites. There may be a grain of
>truth in the élite-dominance scenario, but in most cases an élite
>outnumbered by the locals doesn't manage to change their language.
>> Marc: Do you think so? IMO the upper class can & does impose their
>language, at least after several generations. This is what we saw in
>Gallia (Latin replaced Celtic up to the Rhine, later the invading
>Germanic tribes replaced Latin in N & E Gallia up to line that
>connects the capitals of the bishoprics). Brussels 100 years ago was
>Dutch-speaking except for the palace & government (the bourgeoisie,
>as in all cities in N-Belgium, spoke both, but wrote in French), now
>it's mostly French-speaking, although in other N-Belgian cities the
>French-speaking upper class has disappeared. Only in England the
>Normans did not impose their language, but they were a very small
>minority. In France, French replaces all other dialects & languages.
>In Germany, Low-German is disappearing. In the Netherlands, Frysian
>has almost disappeared. In Great Brittain, Welsh is disappearing. The
>best example is perhaps that even Ireland speaks English.

>Elite dominance superimposing an adstratum is in fact quite common.
>Sumerians did it in southern Iraq over Proto-Eurphratean.
>Indo-European Greeks managed the same in the Aegean over
>Pelasgians and Eteo-Cretians. Anatolian speaking Neshites (Hittites)
>and Luwians managed it over Khattic speakers, as did the later Turks
>managed to do it over Greeks and Galicians in Anatolia again.

Yes, but it's often unknow how many the newcomers were.

>>Mark: The question is language replacement, and just how and
>>when it can occur. There are two basic patterns.
>>1. With elite dominance, the usual pattern is for the elite language
>>to be replaced by that of the common folk. Only rarely does it
>>replace the autochthonous language.

Well, we have the (IMO obvious) example of Ireland?
What is the difference between your #1 & #2? The élite are usu. invadors,
aren't they (after all they speak another language)? Question of intensity,
#2 being more "official" (central state)?

>> 2. With migrations/invasions, the original language may persist; it
>>may replace other languages, or co-exist for a very long time indeed.

Co-exist, yes, as in Wales for more than 1500 years (at first adstratum).

>>Mark: The dominance of Latin, and its replacement of Gallic is a
>>case of #2. Latin was indeed the elite language, but the Gauls
>>were a conquered people ruled by a Latin-speaking elite for close
>>to 500 years. Latin was the chancery language of an empire.
>>Something similar happened in Iberia;
>>Vasconic did survive in its mountain fastness.
>>In Ireland, English has been the elite language, the chancery
>>language for as long as English has been the elite language of
>>England. Irish has persisted, but is indeed threatened. In North
>>Wales, Welsh is flourishing, so I'm told, and seems completely
>>unthreatened, notwithstanding English dominance for a longer
>>period than Ireland has suffered it.

Unthreatened? For now perhaps. I'll ask Elaine Morgan. She must know.
Yes, the difference between Welsh & Irish is curious: mountains in Wales cf.

>> The big problem with the Gimbutas model is explaining how an
>IE-speaking Kurgan culture imposed its language throughout northern
>Europe. It's easier to see the Steppe-derived intruders losing their

In fact, yes. But Cavalli-Sforza's gene gradients (3d component) suggest (if
they're correct) these Ukrainian intruders did not lose their language. I
believe it was you (Mark Odegard) who once compared these steppe intruders
with the cowboys of the West?

> But for this to be true, you have to say IE moved from the
>west and/or north and imposed itself onto elements of the steppe --
>elements that became Indo-Iranian etc.
>Steppe derived invaders may have lost their language in the case of
>Fatyanova culture, spreading throughout the Finno-Ugric realm.
>It is partly a case of the relevant numerical numbers. In Northern
>Europe, neolithic farming was more recent and the activity was more
>marginal (hunting was still practiced).

We should not forget the importance of fishing & sea harvesting & high
population densities near the sea & large rivers. The Germanic languages
seem to have loaned (from the original megalithic population in
S-Scandinavia ca.2000 BC?) several navigation & other terms. Probably
proto-Germanic underwent a lot of influence from this original population.

> The invaded population
>densities would have been lower which with a higher number of
>incursive "steppe" elements, and their continued reinforcement
>(Kurgan Waves II and III - associated with climatic reversals) IE elements
>would eventually predominate. We don't need a "one king hit" theory
>here. Regards John

That's right.

Marc Verhaegen