Re: [tied] Will East and West ever meet?

--- Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <mcv@...> wrote:

>
> >GK: Just as the spread of agriculture (and
> >cultural forms associated with it) from Anatolia
> >cannot be equated with the expansion of IE speech.
>
>MCV: Sure it can.

****GK: I mean the Renfrew hypothesis*****

>
> >*****GK: The area of Ukraine and Moldavia into
> which
> >TRIP spread had been empty of LBK for centuries.
>
>MCV: Who were there then in the meantime?

****GK: The last phase of the Bog-Dnister culture,
which was absorbed by the early TRIP. LBK coexisted
with the middle phase of the Bog-Dnister culture, "and
then they were gone". There is no evidence in Ukraine
of the cultures which immediately succeeded LBK in for
instance Poland.*******

>
> >*****GK: Whatever the situation in the proto-Baltic
> >and proto-Ugrofinnic areas of Eastern Europe, it
> >remains that if any language had what it takes to
> >become a "prestige language" in the area later
> >associated with IE groups such as the proto-Greeks,
> >proto-Armenians and proto-Indo-Aryans/Iranians/
> >Nuristanis it would have been not LBK but that of
> the
> >Trypilians (preceded by the Bog/Dnister culture
> which
> >was also of "Danubian"
>
> MCV:Danubian = LBK. Surely you mean Balkanic.

****GK: I was following the terminology of Ukrainian
archaeologists. Balkanic by all means.******

>
> >>MCV: Telegin previously held that D-D originated
> in
> >> the northern forest
> >> area, as you claimed yourself one or two messages
> >> ago ("Serednyj Stih
> >> for its part develops to a large degree from the
> >> Dnipro-Donetz culture
> >> whose own antecedents are in the mesolithic
> cultures
> >> of Eastern Europe
> >> (and partly of the area close to the Baltic
> coast")
> >
> >*****GK: I got this last point ("and partly from
> >etc..") not from Telegin but from a post on this
> >forum. When Telegin talked about "the mesolithic
> >cultures of Eastern Europe" he even then had in
> mind
> >primarily those which occupied more southern areas.
>
>
> MCV:I haven't read Telegin, but Mallory (In Search

of..

> p. 256) states:
> "Here we can return to Dmitry Telegin's proposal
> that the
> Dniepr-Donets culture can be included among a broad
> group of
> Vistula-Dniepr sub-Neolithic cultures. These would
> include the Narva,
> Valdai and Comp-pricked Ware cultures of Poland".
> P. 191: "The
> physical type, the extended supine burial positioon,
> the continuity
> with the preceding macro-microlithic industry, and
> similarities in
> ceramic decoration with the Sub-Neolithic cultures
> of the northern
> Forest Zone have all suggested a northerly origin
> within the Ukraine,

****GK: NB The area of "northern Ukraine" falls within
that of "southern Eastern Europe"*****

> and the formeost authority on the culture, the
> Ukrainian archaeologist
> Dmitry Telegin, assigns them to a broad cultural
> region that spanned
> the Vistula in Poland southeast to the Dniepr".

*****GK: But when talking about the origins of D-D
Telegin still had in mind principally the southern
elements of this "broad band" of related
cultures.*****

>
>
> MCV:The main point of the "LBK hypothesis" is that

PIE

> was spoken in the
> Balkans by the early agriculturalists there, and
> that the LBK
> expansion from Hungary represents the split between
> non-Anatolian and
> Anatolian Indo-European.

****GK: How would this differ from the Renfrew
hypothesis? He holds that IE spread from Anatolia and
then on and on. LBK holds (I mistakenly(?) thought
that what moved from Anatolia was not IE speech along
with the farmers) that IE first developed when
Europeans began to farm under the influence and
example of the non-IE Anatolians. But in any case it
does not really matter to my point. If the LBK
hypothesis is NOT Renfrew, then it holds that language
does not necessarily accompany the spread of new
technologies. And that is all that is required to
jettison the view that there is a necessary spread of
whatever language was spoken by the LBK group as they
advanced into other areas. Elementary as one might
say. What holds for the start of the hypothesis (if it
is not Renfrew which is plainly wrong) holds for
subsequent phases.*******

This means that at least a

> part of the
> Balkan complex (and this includes Tripolje and
> Bug-Dniestr) spoke PIE.

*****GK: No it doesn't unless you just assume this
without proof.*****

> Whether there was a linguistic break between
> Anatolia and the Balkans
> is a different matter. Personally, based on the
> close linguistic ties
> between PIE and Etruscan, I'd say there was no
> break. But I strongly
> disagree with Renfrew in calling the language of
> these Anatolian
> farmers that crossed over to Europe
> "Proto-Indo-European". It's way
> too early for that. A better term for now would be
> "Proto-Indo-Tyrrhenian".
>
> >== And note the
> >corollary that in the case of Eastern Europe it's
> not
> >even a case of turning to agriculture but just
> >borrowing some elements of an agricultural way of
> life
> >(ceramics for instance). So the incentive would be
> >even less present. AS a matter of fact I am more
> >inclined to think that if any LBK's or similar
> >individuals entered the world of the northeast it
> is
> >they who assimilated and not the reverse.The IE of
> the
> >East cannot be demonstrated to derive from LBK.
> There
> >is not even a probable argument for this.
>
> MCV:I disagree. The argument is there, and it's
> credible.

*****GK: The logic of this escapes me I'm afraid. If
there was no break between Anatolia and the Balkans,
and then a break (because you need to introduce IE
somewhere) then the evidence for this is derived from
the need rather than the reverse. And this is long
before you get to Moldavia and Ukraine. This is not
credible. One might argue in the same vein that the
"break" only occurred with TRIP, and that LBK spoke
some other language. (The corollary being that it is
TRIP which turned into CW and marched westward and
northward rather than Yamna). But this is completely
arbitrary and has in fact been held by no one, even
though it might explain what happened to the very
numerous Trypilians. And there are at least three or
four similar hypotheses which are as "credible" as LBK
(=i.e. not credible as stated).*****

I would not

> consider it proven (and perhaps it never will be),
> but it requires a
> lot less assumptions than the argument that derives
> the IE of the West
> from Serednyj Stih and other steppe cultures.

*****GK: And here I sympathize with you fully. I too
am not convinced that the Gimbutas model is correct as
stated. But I have no alternative at the moment. But
something that was mentioned in another context (viz.,
the unusual 30% or so component in Germanic)gives me
an idea (or the faint stirring of one). Could IE have
been the result of a very complicated co-operative
process whereby distinct populations made distinct
contributions? Clearly all populations have and use a
language. "Agriculturalists" would have a developed
agricultural lexicon, "hunters" also etc etc as this
relates to how they live. Perhaps it is numerous
contacts and exchanges of this kind that we should be
attempting to imagine as slowly very slowly leading to
the emergence of IE rather than "totalist" theories
starting from some center. But I confess that at the
moment I have no specifics. If this scenario sounds
naive that is because there is as yet no content to it
beyond the bare notion. Perhaps it's too Aristotelian,
but I have no better starting point at this
time.******

>
>
>
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com