Hi folks - this is a long post I am afraid.
Glen wrote in reply to my post that the Zarzian culture was the
probable people who spoke the "proto-Eurasiatic" language before it
split up into its various elements
> That's a completely unverifiable assumption. As Mark has pointed
out
as well
> as Mallory and many other educated authors, an Anatolian origin for
IE is
> looneytoons because of linguistic problems and others. I mean, if
it
were
> so, we should expect early loanwords between IE and Anatolian
languages, but
> we don't. Just Semitic. You can continue to ignore Uralic-Yukaghir
if you
> like but it's your loss. If you accept the connection, there's
simply no way
> in hell that Uralic could come directly from Anatolia through the
Balkans,
> nor the Caucasus.
Glen, how then do you get mesolithic cultures, which appeared in
Africa circa 30,000 years ago with the Aterian microlithic, and which
you agreed many posts ago were the probable origin of Nostratic - to
the Bering straits? Surely they would have had to travel through the
middle east at some stage? And if in the Middle East, there are only
three ways out
1. West - through Anatolia and the Balkans
2. North - through the Caucasas
3. East - over the Oxus and Jaxartes
Remember, what you have is people who used mesolithic microlithic
technologies, they are people who shifted from the Big Game Hunting
specialists of the Ice Age Steppes and Tundras, to the
"broad-spectrum
hunter-gatherers and fisher-folk", which spread from the middle east
and out onto the Eurasian landmass from about 9,000 BCE to about
4,000
BCE, moving from the south west to the north east. This movement
appeared in southern Palestine from about 15,000 years BCE, and only
arrived in Greenland 800 BCE.
What I am arguing is that *all* language movements from at least
20,000 BCE until the neolithic agricultural revolution have to take
account of this cultural trend, as it is associated with the end of
the Ice Age, and the general warming of Holocene climatic conditions.
For instance you write
> Think through this. If Uralic is connected to Yukaghir (way in the
east)
> then the center of the two is still further east than Uralic is
said
to have
> been. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that it's pretty
impossible for
> Uralic to have come from the west and almost certain that it came
from the
> east.
Glen, this just doesn't add up. For instance, look at Austronesian
languages. They are found from Easter Island to Madagascar, and from
Formosa to New Zealand. On your "central origin" theory, for Uralic
they should have started in Papua New Guiea and spread out from
there!
But we know that they probably started from Formosa if not southern
China. Look at Bantu Languages - they stretch from the Camerouns to
South Africa. On your "central origin" theory, they should have
started in Katanga and spread from there. But we know that they
probably started in the Camerouns and spread south and east from
there.
On *all* the archaeological evidence for the Uralic language
speakers,
proto-Uralic-Yukaghir probably developed from the mesolithic cultures
in the forest belt straddling the Ural mountains, from the Murzak
Koba
and Grebenki cultures which pioneered mesolithic lifestyles in this
region in the period from 9,100 BCE to 5,500 BCE. These people
developed the technologies that enabled cultures of
hunter-fisherfolk,
exploiting Taiga and Tundra food sources, to survive. They invented
ski's and kayaks. They spread into the Siberian area, moving north
along the great rivers, into the Arctic circle, and along the
Northern
Eurasian coastline. And as they spread they carried their
proto-Yukaghir language with them.
Later, further groups moved out of this region. They pionneered the
Samoyed cultures, and, probably copying horse-riding techniques from
early IE peoples of the steppes, they domesticated the reindeer, and
as the Khanty and Mansi cultures, spread north along the great rivers
and travelled west, into Northern Russia and Finland, introducing
reindeer domestication amongst the Saami peoples by about 1,000 CE.
The final part of the archaeology of Uralic peoples comes after the
spread of IE. It seems that Battle-Axe cultures, derived from the IE
people of the Pontic steppe, for a time ruled as an elite over a
large
swathe of Uralic Speakers, to create the Fatyanova culture. This
amalgamated IE-Uralic culture, eventually had its Uralic substrate
predominate over its IE superstrate. These people spread north and
west, carrying Finno-Ungaric languages to Finland and Estonia.
Glen, I don't argue that Uralic languages were ever spoken in
Anatolia. But it is clear that the Murzak-Koba and Grabenki cultures
developed out of mesolithic hunter-gatherers-fisherfolk who travelled
north from the Balkans into the forested regions that lay north of
the
Eurasian steppe. It is quite probable on the evidence I feel that
they spoke a language that was either "late-Eurasiatic" or
"Proto-Boreal" on your schema. The place from where Boreal languages
developed, and from where later Uralic languages were centred was the
rivers and forests that straddle the Ural mountains.
I hope you follow me so far.... Well we now have to get speakers of
Nostratic from Southern Palestine from the earliest mesolithic
Kebaran
culture (18,000 - 10,500 BCE), to the Franchi Cave in the Aegean
(9,800-5,700 BCE), the earliest mesolithic culture of the Balkans.
How do you suppose they got there if they did not travel through
Anatolia sometime in the 9,000 year interval from 18,000 - 9,000 BCE?
> So if Uralic is from the east, we already know that the connection
between
> IE and Uralic is considered more likely than with any other
language
group,
> even if it is still unproven. Therefore, if Uralic-Yukaghir was
further
> east, so too should IndoEuropean (or rather, IndoTyrrhenian) have
been. We
> also know of the connection with Altaic, which again, is
historically and
> pre-historically far to the east.
The connection with Altaic that you speak of has two possible
locations.
1. In the same location as the Ural Mountains as the Boreal. or
2. From an earlier common origin in the Middle East.
Given the fact that the Altaic languages are Nostratic (i.e.
mesolithic) in origin, we now need to look at how mesolithic cultures
(perhaps speaking proto-Altaic tongues) arrived in the region
occupied
today by Altaic speakers.
I'll take this slowly so you can follow the logic and don't
misunderstand what I am saying.
1. The area of Turkmenistan currently occupied by Altaics was
probably
not originally part of the Altaic language core. In pre-historic
times it was IE - maybe Tocharian, then Indic, then Iranian (Saka).
It became Altaic only with the collapse of the northern Chinese
Hsuing-nu confederacy, and their expulsion into the Western Steppes
by
the Juan Juan (Tungus) warriors. The Turkik Empire - which was
divided early on into Western and Eastern Turks completed the process.
2. Altaic languages show a feature that suggests that the further
east
you go the more you find Nostratic like features modified and
diluted.
Thus if Japanese is an Altaic language (and not an Austronesian one),
then it is furtherest from the proto-Altaic core. If Gilyak is one
it
too shows a long separation, as does Korean. Manchu languages are
closer to the proto-Alatic stem, but Mongol and Turkik seem even
closer. Given the fact that, once again, mesolithic-microlithic
hunter gatherers moved from west to east across this part of the
woorld, it is not too difficult to suggest that Altaic began in the
northwest of its current linguistic zone, and "broad-spectrum
hunter-gatherers" moved eastwards. This is confirmed
archaeologically.
From where did this movement occur. Archaeologically it seems that
the later Altaic language cultures (eg like the neolithic or
epipaleolithic Karasuk of the Gobi region) originated from the
Yenesei
valley in the period 5,500 - 3,500 BCE. This Keltiminar culture was
probably of proto-Altaic speakers.
When we look at Keltiminar culture it seems to have been an amalgam
of
two elements.
One - arriving late (from about 4,000 BCE and reinforced thereafter)
came across the Eurasian steppe from the direction of the Black Sea.
It may have been of IE, or it may have been of early Uralic speakers.
Either way it influenced the later development of Keltiminar
culture,
opening the Mongolian Karasuk culture to eventual Tocharian and
Scythic cultural elements.
The other - occurring early (from 5,500 - 4,000 BCE) came from the
earlier Hissar culture which stretched from Transoxania to the Altai
Mountains. It was these people, who in 6,000 BCE introduced
mesoolithic cultuural elements into the late Upper Paleolithic
cultures of this region (probably proto-Burushaski-Ket speakers).
Their culture too was derived from the Jeitan culture of the Iranian
Oases (9,000 BCE to 5,000 BCE), which was in turn a successor of the
M'lefatian and Ali Tappah 10,500-9,000 BCE. The M'lefatian
culture
seems to have been a local derivative of - surprise surprise - our
Zarzian people (12,400-8,700 BCE) who pioneered the mesolithic
cultural assemblage, and introduced the bow and arrow and the
domesticated dog to the people living to the north and east (arriving
with the Eskimo's husky in Greenland circa 800 BCE!)
So accepting that proto-Altaic developed in the Mesolithic cultures
from about 5,500 BCE, by what route did the proto-Altaic languages
travel from proto-Nostratic in Africa? There are only two
possibilities
1. Via the Middle East-Iran-Turkmesistan to the Altai and regions
north and east from 18,000 to 5,500 BCE
2. Some other route (eg Caucasas or Balkans).
There is no other way.
Personally I like number 1. I am prepared to accept number 2. But
there are different consequences to these.
1. If number 1 is the real alternative - the Urheimat of
proto-Uralo-Altaic must have been Zarzian culture (12,400 - 8,700
BCE). Keltiminar could have been proto-Altaic from 5,500 BCE.
2. If number 2 is the real alternative - the Urheimat of
proto-Uralo-Altaic would have been the Grebenki culture of the Urals
(7,000 - 5,500 BCE) and Keltiminar would probably have originally
spoken a different language that was abandonned about 4,000 BCE.
So when you say
> When in connection with Eskimo-Aleut (way,
> WAY to the east) and Gilyak (east, imagine that), your hypothesis
fights
> against the known ancient positions of all these languages which
can
only
> have centred somewhere around the eastern steppe area, far far away
from
> Anatolia.
Of course.... I have never argued that these languages started in
Anatolia. It is you who acuse me of saying this Glen.... What I
have
been saying is, if these languahes are Nostratic (?) and the house is
still out on that one, then the pproto-languages from which they
developed eventually *would have had to come out of the middle east,
and would have had to travel either over the Anatolian-Balkan Bridge,
the Caucasas bridge or over the Tran-oxus bridge. Take your pick,
and
show me what eviidence you are using*
> And Mallory, of course, gives a warning about connecting
archaeology
too
> closely with linguistics. I wish you had books where you come from
so you
> could read this source.
I don't connect archaeology too closely at all. But if you tell me
that PIE began splitting up about 5,500 BCE from the area of the
Pontic steppes, then I look at the Srendny-Stog and Yamuna cultures
that were in that region at that time. I then look at evidence of
how
that culture developed and where did the people of that culture
ultimately come from. This may - perhaps - if confirmed by genetic
and linguistic confirmatory evidence - show us where people moved.
And as people move, in first instance, they tend to take their
language with them.
> John:
> >I don't see why you see a north-> south movement 7000 BCE. This
does
> >not appear in the archaeology at all.
>
> That's right, but... as you can see above, I distinctly said
"_AFTER_ 7000
> BCE".
How far after. 1,500 years (i.e. 5,500 BCE?) or 2,500 years (4,500
BCE?) When talking that late later, to say AFTER 7000 BCE is the
same
as saying BEFORE 1999 CE when talking of the cruxification of Christ!
> >No I don't ignore Uralic-Yukaghir. Nor Chichki-Camchatkan, nor
> >Eskimo Aleut.
>
> It's "Chuckchi-Kamchatkan". (...shaking head...) And you ARE aware
how
> eastern these languages are, yes?
Sorry regarding spelling - it was after midnight here and II
misqueued
my C & K. Yes I am fully aware of how far east they are. But are
you
aware that all their cultural elements came from far to the west of
their current ranges?
I wrote
> >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.
Glen replied
> Bomhard does but unfortunately doesn't include terms into his
cognate
> listings. I assume this is because of the difficulty in finding
resources on
> this language which is as elusive as Nama.
>
> The pronouns at least are evidently in common with Nostratic
languages, not
> other DeneCaucasian groups. I'm going by memory but I think it was
mentioned
> in the Enc.Britt. about Gilyak /b-val/ "my mountain" and /c-fal/
"your
> mountain" which clearly shows a Steppe pronominal pattern (*m-,
*t-)
which
> would seem to suggest particularly close connections with Altaic
(*b-, *s-).
> What's more interesting is that Altaic implies a *t > *c > *s sound
shift
> and Gilyak would appear to demonstrate the intermediary phoneme.
The
pronoun
> set is definitely in contrast to SinoDene languages (*n@/s@, *ng@).
The only
> realistic solution is that Gilyak is part of the Steppe subgroup of
> Nostratic and perhaps closely related to Altaic. I can see no other
possible
> source.
This seems to be indicative. But I still would need to see more
before seeing these as possible chance or random coincidences.
Glen wrote
> Um, how is there a direct link between the mesolithic of the Urals
and that
> of Anatolia occuring this early?? Certainly a link can be made with
the
> Northern Pontic and Anatolia at this stage of the game but the
NPontic is
> far from the Urals.
There is a link between the Uralian mesolithic and the earlier
Anatolian mesolithic via the intermediaries of the Ukrainian
Murzak-Koba, the Balkan Franchi cave and the Anatolian (13,000-10,000
BCE) Belbasi(Cilicia) and the (10,000-8,500 BCE) Beldibi cultures.
In
each case these were the first mesolithic microlithic cultures in
their respective areas.
> John:
> >Not at all. Elamo-Dravidian developed from the mesolithic southern
> >and south eastern Zarzian, prior to the development of Northern
> >Zarzian into proto-Eurasian.
>
> Yes, it came from the west but again you ignore all linguistics to
arrive at
> your conclusions... ABOUT LINGUISTICS. Why can't you see the irony
here? You
> don't know what proto-Eurasian is.
Glen, my Linguistics is weak, very weak. I know it. But my
archaeology and my genetics is equally very strong, very strong. I
am
prepared to be guided linguistically by people who know far better
than me. But I am not interested in just a linguistic history of
Indo-European and the other languages we are talking about.
Linguistic evidence is only part of the story of human origins -
genetics and culture provide other parts to the picture, and from
time
to time, may even cast light on the shaodows of proto-linguistic
analysis.
> Neolithic Balkans at 6000 BCE? Excuse me. Elaborate. Is agriculture
a neolithic thing?
The first Pottery cultures (LBK, Starcevo etc) appeared in the
Balkans
5,500 BCE. Pre-pottery Neolithic (agriculture) began in Macedonia in
Nea Nicomedia 6,000-5,500 BCE). Macedonia is Balkans I believe.
> The positions on my map of the languages aren't meant to be
> super-exact-exact. I can move the IE a little to the east if you
like but
> the overall relative positions would remain the same, regardless.
As
well, I
> recall the Bug-Dniester culture (is that the name?) that was
heavily
> influenced by the cultures to the west so it may be kind of hard to
tell
> where IE lies and where Semitic lies anyway.
>
> IE isn't moving over top of the Semitic by the way. Semitic is
encroaching
> on the area. What may have happened subsequently, I surmise, is
that
as
> Hattic was taking over the previous Semitic areas of western
Anatolia.
> Tyrrhenian may have began spreading out and overtaking Semitic
areas
in the
> Balkans (which would explain what seems to be a larger amount of
Semitic
> loans like Etruscan /s'ar/ "ten" in place of IT *t:ekem -> Etruscan
> */tachn/). There is certainly no spread of IE into the Balkans yet
at this
> time, I agree.
Glen
Regarding Semitic.
Linguistic analysis of the Semitic family breaks it up into 4 groups,
1. Northern Peripheral Group (Akkadian) which appeared in Mesopotamia
circa 3,100 BCE.
2. Northern Central Group (Canaanite) which appeared to have
developed
in the early Bronze Age 3300-3000 Early Canaanite period.
3. Southern Central Group (Arabic, Sabian etc) which is probably the
last of the four languages to develop.
4. Southern Peripheral Group (eg Ethiopic Geez etc).
Linguistic methods, which attempt to measure degrees of differences
between related languages by comparing a list of basic vocabulary
items, indicate that the first group to separate from the Common
Semitic ancestral language was Akkadian (Northern Peripheral group,
c.
3300 BC) and the second was the Southern Peripheral group (second
half
of 3rd millennium BC). The Northern Central group had contacts for
a long time with the Southern Central languages, and linguistic
division within the North Central group is dated at the beginning or
middle of the 2nd millennium BC.
Now this would mean that prior to 3,300 BCE we are talking of
Proto-Semitic languages. And we are suggesting that the Urheimat of
Semitic is somewhere netween the Northern Central and the Southern
Central Zone.
Now I suggest we look at cultures in this region. The dominant
culture in this region from 4300-3300 BCE was the Chalcolithic
Ghassulian Culture. On our linguistic evidence this culture was
proto-Semitic. It is confined to Southern Palestine. The northern
cultures that exited at this period, Halafian, Hassuna, Samara and
Ubaid (as earlier posts on this list (eg. the discussion on tholoi
etc) suggest did not speak Semitic languages, even hypothetical
proto-Semitic ones. It would seem that they spoke Hattic or
Hurro-Urartian languages.
Stephen Bourke, the most recent archaeologist to examine this culture
writes
- this very early development of an economically diverse, complex
urban society at Teleilat Ghassul may be explained by a unique
combination of landform (gently sloping plains allowing irrigation),
mineral resources (salt), and early domestic crops (especially
olives).
- He believes the evidence from Ghassul indicates that a number of
different regions were developing similar trajectories towards
civilization, but that some (e.g. the southern Levant and Nubia) had
this process cut short, probably through environmental collapse.
However, in Egypt the process continued and strengthened, eventually
flowering into the majesty of the
Old Kingdom.
- The latest evidence from the sanctuary area refutes the
long-standing hypothesis that the sanctuary was an addition to the
site towards the end of its occupational history. There is also
evidence that the sanctuary area may have remained in use after the
rest of the settlement was abandoned around 4000 B.C.
Yes, Ghassulian culture developed out of the people who came out of
Africa at the hiatus at the end of the early Neolithic (8500-4300
BCE)
"New Stone Age"--Yarmukian Culture (which saw the emergence of
herding
and agriculture in Palestine). As an Afro-Asiatic language, here we
have proto-Semitic people coming into southern Palestine circa 5,000
BCE, learning farming and herding from the non-Semitic Yarmukan
people
(who got their crops from the very Hattic or Hurro-Urartian mentioned
above), and who, by developing nomadic pastoralism in the dry spell
associated with the collapse of the Yarmukan period, managed to
establish themselves into the North Central Zone from which
proto-Semitic was to spread.
What language did the Yarmukan people speak, if it was not Semitic?
Archaeological evidence and physical anthropology show us that the
Yarmukan culture developed sequentially out of Natufian. And
Natufian
developed out of Kebaran - the culture which I have suggested was the
language that carried the non-Afro-Asiatic Nostratic languages out of
Africa and into the Middle East.
From this we can conclude.
Proto-Semites learned their agriculture about 5,000 - 4,300BCE from a
non-Semitic people (our substrate). These non-Semitics were related
to, and possibly learned their agriculture from others living in the
region of south eastern Anatolia to north western Iran. These people
were the substrate language for agricultural terms, for seasonal
calenders, concepts probably of number, counting and livestock
throughout the Middle East, and by extension, into the Balkans, Iran,
and across the Caucasas. Thus when I say
(John)
> >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.
(and you reply)
> Replace a known language with a made-up substrate language? I don't
think
> so. That's bluntly cracked. Prove the existence of this language
first
> through linguistic means and I will reconsider.
Glen, I am not strong linguistically, but when Semitic linguists tell
me that proto-Semitic fragmented only 3,300 BCE, and Semitic
separated
from Afro-Asiatic at the earliest in Africa only 4,700-5,000 BCE, to
get Semites from Northeast Africa from 5,000 BCE to influence
Proto-Indo-Europeans on the Pontic steppe by 5,500 BCE - sorry Glen,
it just does not add up. The Semites by 5,500 BCE (at the time of
your wonderful map) were confined to the Ghassulian cultures of
southern Palestine. Linguistically, culturally and physically, they
had not yet moved north into Northern Syria, let alone across the
south coast of Anatolia and into the Balkans....
But there were cultures which did move from this region. But they
moved much earlier - from 8,500 - 6,000 BCE, and they did not speak
Semitic. They spoke the language from which Semitic got many of the
terms that separated them from the other Afro-Asiatic languages that
stayed in Africa. No mythical sub-stratum at all here Glen.
Hope this clears up your misunderstanding at long last.
Regards
John