Odp: Just Joined, got lots of questions -help?

From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 371
Date: 1999-11-30

 
----- Original Message -----
From: Brent Lords
To: cybalist@egroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 1999 7:08 PM
Subject: [cybalist] Just Joined, got lots of questions -help?

Hi my name is Brent Lords, and I just joined your group.
I was trying to find a language tree on ancient languages and ran across 
Cyril’s site.  I had some questions and Cyril suggested I directed them to 
the discussion group.  So if anyone knows:

1. When did the Tocharians split off?

2.  When did the Italic, Celtic, Venetic, and Illyians split into different 
language groups?

3. When did the Luvian and Hittites separate?

4. Do you know when the Cimmerians were established and what is known about 
their lineage?

5. The Sea Peoples are one of the mysteries in archaeology.  I have seen 
various opinions offered onto their origins.  Some say they are Doric or 
Archaic Greeks driven from East Mediterranean Islands, or occupants of the 
Anatolia region driven from their home by one of the above, or the original 
peoples from Crete, or later archaic Greek invaders of Crete and associated 
islands who were subsequently driven from their homes by one of the later 
Greek groups.
What light can linguistics shine on their origins? The best known 
settlements of later Sea Peoples (second wave) to become established were 
the Philistines, of biblical fame.  They may have also been the least 
influenced by adjacent culture.  For they were initially the enemies of both 
Egypt and Israel. (Of course, they may have been heavily influenced later, 
once they became established, by both Egyptians and Phoenician or other 
Semitic cultures in the region.  Also, part of the “Invasion” was by land, 
along the Anatolia and Levant – so they may have absorbed populations and 
cultures from there as well. )

Anyway, what can linguistics say about the Philistine’s origins?

Hi, Brent, welcome to this group.
 
You ask good questions. I wish I had equally good answers.
  1. Tocharian doesn't fit into any neat classificatory scheme, which probably means that it split off very early. On the other hand it's possible that linguistic traits reflecting the original affinities of Tocharian were obscured beyond recognition in the long course of its independent development and contacts with non-Indo-European languages. There are a number of innovations Tocharian shares with all the the non-Anatolian branches of Indo-European, so its separation must be dated after that of Anatolian. By the way, when discussing linguistic splits one should refer to the Tocharian language (or rather languages), not to 'the Tocharians'. The history of ethnic groups must not be confused with the history of their languages.
  2. What I take to be the majority opinion is that Venetic is a close relative of Italic or even a member of the same branch as Latin, Oscan, Umbrian etc. The genetic unity of Italo-Celtic is taken for granted by linguists who are 'lumpers' at heart and rejected by 'splitters'. While the arguments of the lumpers are not strong enough to render oposition impossible, the closeness of italic and Celtic is at least a reasonable working hypothesis. As for Illyrian dialects, all that survives is a handful of proper names cited by non-native writers. It is very likely (but hard to prove) that Messapic, a fragmentarily attested ancient language of Calabria, was a member of the Illyrian branch. Attempts have been made to connect it with Italo-Celtic, Greek, or various extinct languages of the Balkan area. Arguments that boil down to 'Thracian is a mystery and Illyrian is a mystery, so maybe they're the same mystery' have no value whatsoever. I tend to believe that Illyrian is closer to Italic or Italo-Celtic than to its Balkan neighbours, but I remain sceptical about my own belief. At any rate if Messapic is indeed Illyrian, then the widespread belief (cherished, in the first place, by the modern Albanians) that Albanian is a descendant of Illyrian must be wrong.
  3. Certainly not later than about 2000 BC, but just how early -- hm, that's anybody's guess.
  4. The Cimmerians occupied the lands north of the Black Sea before the Scythians, who overran that area in the 8th century BC. Driven out of their homes, the Cimmerians made inroads into Asia Minor, sacking Sardis and Magnesia, and destroying Gordion, the capital city of the Phrygians. At some time in the 7th century BC they disappeared from history, defeated by the Lydians. Nothing is known of their language, though some of their aristocracy seem to have had Iranian-sounding names. Opinions vary as to whether they were linguistically Iranian, Thracian, non-Indo-European (North Caucasian?) or heterogeneous.
  5. Some people say that the Philistines were Indo-European like some (most? all?) other groups involved in the Sea movement. Some of the ethnonyms quoted by Egyptian sources bear a strong resemblance to such familiar names as Achaean, Tyrrhenian (= Etruscan), Lycian, Sardinian, Sicilian, etc. -- and of course Philistine (Palusti~Purasati). Whether the Philistines' participation in that motley alliance of piratical peoples proves anything about their linguistic identity may be doubted. The are a mystery not only in archaeology but in linguistics as well.
Piotr