[John]:
> 3. Secondly we need to look at motive forces. If Indo-European was
> just one microlithic culture in a sea of related other microlithic
> cultures, then there is nothing that would produce the rapid increase
> in populations that would cause IE to fragment into chains of related
> dialects, eventually becoming sister languages, until that is
>
John, to continue a productive discussion, I think, we should first clear up a
principal point. How do you think the establishment of new language groups
happened in the Mesolithic-Neolithic?
Suppose, the tribe of the Nostratic speakers occupies a certain area of an
average size. Actually we have a dialectal continuum on this territory, as
usual. Which of 2 following scenarios do you accept?
Scenario "A":
The occupied territory remains the same, but in course of time linguistic
differences in distal parts of the area are accumulating more and more until
crystallizing new languages which can differ from each other as strongly as
Proto-IE, Proto-Uralic, Proto-Dravidian etc. Then, people speaking newly
established languages may migrate (if there a proper motive force appear) or may
stay at the same place developing as different folks (with mutual linguistic
borrowings, of course). It is very important that in this scenario the motive
force for a possible migration is not a reason of new linguistic groups
establishment.
Scenario "B":
As long as the occupied territory remains the same the difference between
dialectal variants remains approximately the same (if a new obstacle for
interdialectal contacts doesn't appear), the dialects exist but constantly
intermingle, their borders are not stable. No crystallizing of new languages.
Only when due to appearance of a motive force the territory of the speakers
extends in all admissible directions, connections between dialects strongly
decrease and new proto-languages start to crystallize. In the beginning of this
process they differ very slightly but later develop in different manners partly
due to initial dialectal basis and partly due to interaction with different
substratum languages. It's principally that the motive force for migrations is
here the ultimate reason of the wide spreading of different but related
languages.
...
>
> I think it is probably Agriculture. I think it is
> also Agriculture in the Niger Kordofanian too. For the Nilo-Saharan
> the situation is different. There is evidence of an exceedingly early
> domestication of cattle in this part of the world, based upon genetic
> distance from wild ancestors of the cattle species itself.
Very interesting. Could you give the reference or report the main facts, please
? Are there investigations (genetic or morphological)of Egyptian cattle - came
it from Sahara or from Asia Minor?
...
>
> 1. Horticulture began within the Indo-Pacific languages 25,000 years
> ago (from the Solomon Islands evidence, and the findings at Kuk in
> Papua New Guinea). As a result Indo-Pacific languages spread from
> Island Melanesia to Halmahera and Timor.
>
What are "Indo-Pacific languages"?
I have never met 25,000 years as estimation of the age of the New Guinea
Neolithic (usually about 8,000 BP is reported). Please give any details.
> 2. Horticulture began secondarily within the Austroasiatics 14,000
> years ago (Spirit Cave Thailand). As a result they spread from India
> to Malasia throughout Mainland South East Asia.
>
> 3. Horticulture appeared amongst the Niger Kordofamian about 4-5,000
> years ago (or thereabouts). As a result the Congo-Cameroun Bantu
> family spread from the Camerouns to the Fish River in South Africa.
>
Don't you think that they (like Nilo-Saharans) are descendants of the Early
Saharan Neolithic (millet + cattle since 8,000 BP)?
> 4. Horticulture appeared amongst the Sino Tibetans about 8-9,000 years
> ago. They have spread from Southern Manchuria to Indian Ladakh, and
> down the Malay Peninsula - a fair distance.
When saying "horticulture" do you mean only vegetables cultivating, without
cereals? If so I'd disagree with the points #3 and #4 (they cultivated different
species of millet).
Alexander