Re: Fw: [cybalist] Re: Tyrrhenus (was Easter)

Glen you wrote to my post

> John:
> >There seems to be an archaeological connection that fits in well
> >just before this date. The Zarzian culture of the Zagros [...]
>extended
> >northwards into Armenia and Georgia. The Kobystan
> >Zarzian site on the eastern end of the Caucasas shows connections
> >cultures to the north, [...]
> >If Mallory is correct he seems to be confirming the
> >Zarzian-Kobystan connection that I mentioned above.
>
> That's all correct, but the cultural connections here have nothing

to do

> with IE. They can't. They would be a group of people and cultures

with

> non-IE languages that had an ancient link to the southeast. The

likeliest

> possibility is that they spoke ancient NWC- and NEC-related tongues.

There is that possibility, but I don't know why you say they cannot
have anything to do with IE. If the evidence is correct, it would
seem that this culture was in all probability associated with a
Nostratic tongue, either IE, or Proto-Uralo-Altaic.

> There seems to be support _against_ the notion that these

particular

> cultures had spoken IE. If this is what you're using to claim a

northward IE

> route through the Caucasus, John, you must satisfactorily explain

the change

> in direction of cultural influence that you mention above. The

cultural

> influence was first running from south->north as you describe but

then

> started running north->south (a direction AGAINST your IE spread)

after 7000

> BCE.

I don't see why you see a north-> south movement 7000 BCE. This does
not appear in the archaeology at all. 7000BCE was still at the
height
of the post glacial warming trend, and movements were still running
south->north, particularly into the Boreal and Arctic regions.

(Glen)

> I would argue that the IE (coming from the north to the Black Sea)

were the

> source of this upheaval, trading with cultures to the west and

breaking the

> original links. Since the IE were benefiting from the west, the

eastern

> cultures would have began trading with and being influenced by

these
new IE

> speakers. This explanation seems to work but I can't see how one

can
explain

> this if IE comes through the Caucasus from the south.

Glen I don't see how IE could have moved from the north to the Black
Sea shore, when this does not show in the archaeology. The PIE
people
seem to have developed an agraian culture in situ from the
pre-existing mesolithic cultures that had been in the region for some
time. The Mesolithic cultures of this area came from one of two
directions.

1. Over the Caucasas (The Zarzian-Kobystan connection already
mentioned)
2. The alternative route through the Balkans (9,800-5,794
Franchi Cave (Aegean) 8,500 - 7000 Murzak-Koba culture developing
into
6,000-5,500 the mesolithic Grebenki.) These people seem to have
moved
north into the Taiga forests and are probably proto-Uralic peoples

> >>I love these questions but I don't think the rising of the Black
> >>affected IE's development or the breakup of "IndoUralic" at all

(which

> >>would be circa 9000 BCE if Bomhard is correct).

This would put the break up of Proto-Uralic just prior to the
Murzak-Koba peoples which would make sense.

> >Such an early date definitely places the breakup in the mesolithic
> >period.
>
> Yes, mesolithic. "IndoUralic", "UralAltaic", Bomhard's special use

of the

> Greenbergian term "Eurasiatic" and my own term "Steppe" are

synonymous and

> very much mesolithic. The sad part is that words like those for

"cow" as we

> find in IE may be borrowed (gulp!) since agriculture was certainly

not

> something done in the steppes at that time. And it looks like such

a
pretty

> word too, tsk, tsk.

The Bos primogenus (Eurasian Auroch) was found right across the area.
It was hunted by Upper Paleolithic (Dene Caucasian) specialist
big-game hunters from Cantabrian Spain to Lake Baikal, and would have
been in the area *if PIE did not come from the north moving south,
but
in fact came from the south moving north*.

> >Glen, here we must agree to disagree. There is no evidence that

the

> >neolithic cultures of Gambutas's Old Europe (the cultures to the
> >west) were Semitic. The nearest Semitic speakers would have been

in

> >Northern Syria. We have crossed paths on this before....
> >[...]
> >The Semitic languages would not have been expanding from Anatolia,
>
> You seem to mention archaeology involving the Balkans, Middle East,

Anatolia

> and the Caucasus but you mention nothing about the area north of

the
Black

> and Caspian Seas. Why is that? How can you deny what you don't

know?
Or do

> you?

No I include the late paleolithic and mesolithic archaeology from the
north of the Black Sea and into the forest region too.
Nostratic derived-mesolithic cultures in this area were created out
of
a fusion of elements from the south (eg. use of the bow, hunting with
dogs, specialising in a "broad spectrum" of food sources) with
features found in late upper Paleolithic adaptions (eg
Azilian-Tardenosian) with a concentration of fishing etc. This
enabled increases in population which moved into the spreading post
ice age forests to the north and east.

> How can you keep boasting the assertion that Semitic was never in

the area

> but then in self-contradiction, claim a similar expansion for

Uralic
through

> the Balkans with all the same unanswered arguements you present to

me and

> then some?!

The Uralic movement was pre-9,000 BCE. At that date Afro-Asiatic
languages were wholly confined to Africa. The arrival of Semetic
languages in Southern Palestine seems to have occurred
post-Pre-Pottery B Neolithic (After the end of the Natufian period),
approx 5,700 BCE. There were *no Semites* in the Middle East before
that date. The Ghassulian efflorescence in the Middle East, in Syria
and northern Palestine, associated with the development of the
Semitic
cultures was in the period about 5,500 - 5,300 BCE, and they were
south of Anatolia. This is too late for your proposed Semitic
influence on PIE.

The only explanation, I feel, is that as the Semitic Afro-Asiatics
coming north from Africa in the drying phase 5,700 BCE managed to
enter into Palestine because of the collapse of farming in that area
and a reversion to hunter gathering, and experiments with pastoralism.
The arriving Semites learned agriculture from the people who were
already in the area. This substratum were speaking languages similar
to those that taught the Kartvellian, IT and PIE peoples the secrets
of agriculture too. This I feel it is not a Semitic substratum to
PIE
that you see, but the fact that all these languages shared a common
sub-stratum - the first neolithic peoples.

> It doesn't take much to find a book on Uralic to learn about its

actual

> spread and connection with Yukaghir. I don't know how to be more

blunt -

> Please read books, lots of them, concerning linguistics. I can

accept

> opposing theories but this one makes no sense at all because it

defies all

> the linguistics AND archaeology. Uralic-Yukaghir is in the Urals at

5000

> BCE.

In which case they would have been a late Grebenki culture, which is
what I have said above.

(Glen)

> You ignore Semitic loans and the languages that were influenced
> by Semitic, examining all the interconnections
> You ignore the fact that language areas and cultural areas don't
> match one-for-one.
> You ignore Uralic-Yukaghir.
> You ignore Chuckchi-Kamchatkan.
> You ignore Eskimo-Aleut.
> You ignore Gilyak.
> You ignore the complete absence of any trace of IE or
> even IT languages spoken (or words loaned) in Anatolia before
> the IE Anatolian lgs arrived. This is common knowledge and
> one reason why the ideas of IE homeland of Ivanosomethin' and
> Gamrelidzewhatchamacallit aren't widely embraced.

No I don't ignore the Semitic loans... I see them as loans by Semitic
from a substratum neolithic group - which makes far better sense
archaeologically.

No I don't ignore Uralic-Yukaghir. Nor Chichki-Camchatkan, nor
Eskimo
Aleut. Gilyak I don't take into account.... true - but all evidence
I
have seen suggests that Gilyak is an isolate, unrelated to any
neighbouring linguistic group. They may be a Dene Caucasian Upper
Paleolithic survival as far as I know. I haven't seen any tree that
incorporaes them in any place.

> You ignore the pattern of spread of agriculture
> which cannot serve to explain the eventual position of
> Uralic (way to the east??).

Agreed. Agriculture cannot explain Uralic spread *BUT THE MESOLITHIC
ARCHAEOLOGY I HAVE DESCRIBED CAN!* And I haven't ignored it (look at
what I say about Murzak-Koba and Grebenki cultures moving north into
the Urals and then into the Siberian taiga.

> You ignore the reversal of cultural influence of the Caucasus link.
> You even ignore Dravidian in all of this since it would have
> had to have travelled with Altaic despite Al;thaving nothing

more
in

> common between Altaic and Dravidian as opposed to the rest of

Steppe

> and Dravidian.

Not at all. Elamo-Dravidian developed from the mesolithic southern
and south eastern Zarzian, prior to the development of Northern
Zarzian into proto-Eurasian.

> In the end, you ignore anything involving the better formed

Nostratic

> hypotheses for something far more bizarre and dysfunctional that is
> unsupported by any group of people at all.
>
> >You know my explanation here.... Why would a language retreat,

except

> >as a result of a demic demographic expanse of a technically more
> >technologically developed culture, who would have carried their
> >language with them.
>
> Not necessarily. Not everything is about population movement. If

the

> Tyrrhenian and IE languages were where I said they were, they would

serve as

> a kind of plug. They would prevent or hinder Semitic from spreading

further

> (as a language at least).

Yes, but you then have them moving into the area of the neolithic
Balkans over the top of the supposed Semites living there - a
movement
that archaologically did not occur until the IE kuban waves carried
horse mounted warriors into the region. There is no Archaeological
evidence of any pontic-balkan movements prior to that!

> In Anatolia, there are many languages

besides

> Semitic. It may not be that the language literally "retreated" so

much as it

> "died out" in that area being replaced by other existant languages

because

> of changes in cultural/political/economic links. Semitic loans

exist
in many

> of these ancient languages and its clear that it held a large

influence on

> this part of the world. The Semitic language would continue to the

south,

> away from the linguistic melting-pot of Anatolia.

Replace Semitic with the neolithic substratum who taught the Semites
to the south all that they knew about argiculture (and much else
besides) and it could make sense. But they were not Semites (Semites
are Afro-Asiatic for example).

> >(possibly a relative of Hattic-Hurrian, possibly a language group

that >had

> >an amalgam of Hattic-Hurrian and I-T character associated with the
>
> John, there is no Hattic-Hurrian language family. You either mean

Hattic or

> HurroUrartian. I suspect you mean HurroUrartian if you're talking

about Lake

> Van.
>
> >[Lake Van to Catal Huyuk] is a region too far to the north to have
> >had Semitic speakers.
>
> Really? Well, if even Lake Van was too far north, how far south was
> Kartvelian?? How do Semitic words end up in this reconstructed

language?

Kartvellian learned Agriculture too from the Neolithic peoples who
from the Taurus to the Zargros mountains first developed grain
agriculture.

> You're assuming that the state of affairs during 3000 BCE is what

we
had

> from early on. It's doubtful the case and you ignore the linguistic

links

> time after time. At least get the names straight next time. Can you

explain

> the Kartvelian loans for me?

See above

> >Certainly the flooding of Azov I see as having a cultural impact

upon

> >PIE. It may have had memories in the later Greek Deucalion mythos,
> >and in Indo-Aryan Manu and the flood stories.
>
> Hmm... I wish I knew more about IE mythology. Manu had a twin.

That's all I

> know. How do the twins relate to a flood?
>
> >I have a powerpoint presentation that traces these movements from

the

> >Upper Paleolithic onwards, [...] These three could be stored on

the

>Files
> >section of cybalist if people want. What do the cybalist people
>think?
>
> This is an excellent idea. Anything that helps to visualize the

discussion

> would be very helpful. It's sometimes hard to get a picture of the

geography

> from one's head and it would also help to consolidate a general and

informed

> consensus on the topic. I created some linguistic maps of my own

but
I'm so

> lazy to put things up :(

Glen it is attached as a file to cybalist@... Have a look

Regards
John