> Gerry: Thanks for the list. But aren't you mixing present day
> "families" with those you call "extinct"? That's the reason I don't
> think language families can be cubby-holed. Please comment.
Alexander: Sorry, I don't understand the question well. Do you mean
that we should not
consider present day and extinct language groups together? If so I don't
agree -
we should. Or you mean another thing?
Gerry: I think that for us to consider ALL present and extinct
languages in the same group is an undaunting task; that is unless you
are fairly certain that ALL languages, both current and extinct can be
categorized. If you can assure me that this list is available and is
accurate, then I have no difficulty with categorizing both.
Alexander: First of all - when analizing spreading of families I don't
take into account
Mesolitic population (You know the reason). Of course hunter-gatherers
were
everywhere.
Gerry: Why do you eliminate Mesolithic populations? Are you implying
that they don't have "language"? And these hunter-gatherers that were
everywhere -- did they also NOT have a language? I'm sure you're not
saying that these Mesolithic and hunter-gathers are without a language,
but why aren't you including them? Because they didn't partake in
farming?
Alexander: First farmers appeared at the territory north of the Sahara
in the 6th mill.BC.
What a superfamily did they belong to? We can answer confidently - to
the
Nostratic one (or theoretically to the second hypotetical Near East
superfamily,
however I don't think so) because they had barley and wheat + sheep and
goats,
not millet + cattle.
Gerry: I don't think all linguists will agree with you that the first
farmers belonged to the Nostratic family. Piotr, can you help me out
with this? And why are you saying they are Nostratic? Because they had
barley and wheat + sheep and goats? So folks with barley and wheat +
sheep and goats speak Nostratic? Alexander, this is no different from
saying that what a person eats determines the language he speaks. And
I thought we had concluded that this statement was absurd. But perhaps
we hadn't.
Alexander: Egyptians belong to the Nostratic superfamily (Afroasiatic
family), but they
were far not the very first group there.
Gerry: So what you're saying is that the Egyptians weren't the first
people to live in Egypt? Then which group are you selecting to have
superceded the Egyptians? BTW, don't let the present day Egyptians know
what you're saying. With their strong sense of nationalism, they'll
certainly disagree (and right they should).
Alexander: I see, here Child used the term "civilization" in the sense
"state, class
society". No need to mention here farming, or mastery of fire, or
artificial
tools - the presence of such things is implied, they had appeared at
earlier
stages.
Gerry here: Not really. Farming, fire, and artificial tools aren't
simply implied. What Childe means is that folks with farming and or
fire don't possess a civilization. One needs more than those basics to
have the term "civilization" placed on their group. And the basics (10)
are the ones I listed for you.
Alexander: On the other hand I think that people passed the Neolithic
revolution are almost
as civilized as we are. The difference is not essential in comparison
with the
difference between Mesolitic and Neolithic societies. (It's my private
opinion)
Gerry: Would you possibly entertain the idea that the folks who went
through the Neolithic revolution were perhaps more civilized than we
are? Or more civilized than some of us are? Or do you think that all
of us in 1999 share the same degree of civilization? I know that
certain groups in Africa are less civilized than groups in New York City
(even though those groups in Africa would strongly disagree and the
groups in NYC wouldn't like the comparison being made). Class has
always existed and even though some countries (Russia and China for
example) have tried to eliminate it, it continues to perk up again and
again. Class rebounds and reappears; always has and always will.
Alexander: Both Childs and your criteria describe more or less the
same. Your variant from
my point of view is more up-to-date, but Childs one is more laconic.
I'll try to
analize your variant point by point.
Gerry: Thank you for acknowledging that mine are more up-to-date.
That's all I had planned to do originally.
Alexander: I think your variant is better because it directly
formulates that what in
Childs list is the sequence from (3) and (5). I would suggest a variant
"class
hierarchy" to stress that the positions of stata must be not equal.
Look,
Indo-Iranians had 3 different groups of folk, but we can't say that the
producers (vaisya) were lower than other because only they possessed the
wealth - cattle.
Gerry: I don't get it. You're saying the "vaisya" were of lower status
because they possessed the wealth? I thought that even in a religious
group, the ones who possessed the wealth were of the "upper" caste
(anyhow, it is true in the Roman Catholic Church, likely in the
Protestant sects, and I think also true in Judism. Perhaps you mean
that for a person to be a "true" believer he must reject "cattle". One
of the RC saints (I think it was St. Thomas) did this and he wore a
barrel because he had rejected all his worldly possessions. But times
were very different then. There were many ways a person could gain
sustenance from his fellow man as he wandered about in poverty. In
1999, those homeless people holding paper cups at the nearby shopping
center barely get anyone to look at them. It's a different time sad to
say. So if you think I should change "class stratification" to class
hierarchy" I'll think about it. But at present the only problem with the
term hierarchy is it's negative connotation.
Gerry wrote: > 2) economy based on redistribution or on redistribution
in conjunction
> with personal gain
Alexander: To my mind this is a sequence from the previous point. If we
have professional
(social) groups we must redistribute. I think Childs (2) is better as
saying
about the surplus.
Gerry: Yes, I agree with you on this one. My "redistribution" sounds
too socialistic in 1999. I also like what Childe has to say about the
surplus. That way, the folks with more can retain more and only give up
their surplus. Yes. That sounds correct.
Gerry wrote: > 3) an ideology (either economic or religious) with which
a state holds
> people in awe
Alexander: Any society has an ideology and any ideology makes people
fear (fear to eat each
other, for example).
Gerry: But what about an ideology that keeps students from taking guns
into the classroom and shooting their classmates. We must devise
something to keep these kids held in awe so that they don't need to be
held in jail.
Gerry wrote: > 4) force, either coercive or backed with military might
or ideological
> and backed by priestly control of the supernatural [PERHAPS THIS IS
> WHERE COMPUTERS COME IN]
Alexander: This is good. Not only traditions and moral, but also force
makes people follow
the laws (maybe unwritten yet). This is an important addition to Child.
Gerry: Do you think the computer might act as the element to control
the young folks? I think the supply of educational material might
channel information to the young students and keep them off the streets
and out of gangs. And hopefully government will stay out of the
internet so that all ideas might be presented. Certainly hope so but I
doubt it.
Gerry: > 6) trade for the purpose of acquiring necessary resources and
luxury
> goods, as well as for maintenance of peace and preservation of a
market
> for indigenously produced goods
Alexander: Trade of stones (precious and obsidian for tools) is well
known from the early
Neolithic. Maybe the appearence of diplomacy and trade politics is more
important?
Gerry: Yes, and the trade of stocks is also implied. The minute you
add diplomacy and trade politics one enters the arena of "politics" and
for the present time, until political unrest settles down, I'd like to
leave out the political.
Gerry: > 8) products of efflorescence to include writing, monumental
> architecture, metallurgy, sculpture, and other forms of arts or
> techology
Alexander; I think metallurgy must be excluded. In general I think
Childs (8) - appearance
of artists - is better.
Gerry: Why do we need to eliminate metallurgy? And add artists?
Implicit in art and technology is the idea that both go together like a
hand and glove. Art and science need to be united in some complete
way. I need to do some more thinking about this one. And I'd
appreciate any futher feedback from you.
Gerry wrote: > 10) a permanent locale usually consisting of a major
city or town,
> lesser villages, and colonies which provide necessary resources
Alexander: Some early societies demonstrate a hierarchy of settlements.
I'm afraid this
will not work. Childs (1) also will not work - remember Tripolye.
Gerry: Without a hierarchy of settlements then you must be proposing a
socialistic control that we see politically in China and Cuba. But
presently the world is working on preserving a democracy based on
general elections without the dictatorial powers of a Fidel. Now
Democracy has it's major problems but perhaps the least problem is the
electorate and it is the electorate who should, via the ballot box,
decide what type of government is best for her country. I forsee a
variety of political structures co-existing in the current global market
place. And if a China or a Cuba can work for some folks, then they
should be presented as alternatives. However, for some other folks, a
socialistic form of government in abhorrant. And these other folks
should also have the right to exist in a country that is NOT
socialistic.
Gerry wrote: > 11) the presence, over time, of a natural movement
between a beneficent
> state where individual freedoms are preserved and a coercive state
which
> is backed by force and strong centralization (this movement can also
> flow in the opposite direction i.e. from strong centralization to
> decentralization)
Alexander: Don't quite understand what you mean here. Maybe appearance
of refugies and
emigrants? I'd agree.
Gerry: And I'm not sure if I can explain it further. Every country,
like Russia for example, proceeds from one of tight centralization to
the opposite (in Russia what followed the collapse of Communism was
anarchy --the result of total lack of control) and slowly control is
setting in. The same with the internet. When the internet was first
made available, the territory was WIDE open, and for the most part still
is. But slowly the controls are beginning to appear and will continue
to tighten. The same with governmental control here in the US.
Conservatism has applied it grasp here in CA and will continue choking
the state until until no one can breathe and then folks will wake up and
make the appropriate changes in the ballot box. And this ability to do
so can only take place in a democracy. So, as I've stated before,
although democracy has its many problems, it's the best political system
available to us at this time.
Gerry