Marc wrote
> Piotr: As for Corded Ware, its origin is certainly more complex
than in Childe's and Gimbutas's theories: some steppe influence, but
also continuous development at old TRB sites. There may be a grain of
truth in the élite-dominance scenario, but in most cases an
élite
outnumbered by the locals doesn't manage to change their language.
>
> Marc: Do you think so? IMO the upper class can & does impose their
language, at least after several generations. This is what we saw in
Gallia (Latin replaced Celtic up to the Rhine, later the invading
Germanic tribes replaced Latin in N & E Gallia up to line that
connects the capitals of the bishoprics). Brussels 100 years ago was
Dutch-speaking except for the palace & government (the bourgeoisie,
as
in all cities in N-Belgium, spoke both, but wrote in French), now
it's
mostly French-speaking, although in other N-Belgian cities the
French-speaking upper class has disappeared. Only in England the
Normans did not impose their language, but they were a very small
minority. In France, French replaces all other dialects & languages.
In Germany, Low-German is disappearing. In the Netherlands, Frysian
has almost disappeared. In Great Brittain, Welsh is disappearing. The
best example is perhaps that even Ireland speaks English.
Elite dominance superimposing an adstratum is in fact quite common.
Sumerians did it in southern Iraq over Proto-Eurphratean.
Indo-European Greeks managed the same in the Aegean over Pelasgians
and Eteo-Cretians. Anatolian speaking Neshites (Hittites) and
Luwians
managed it over Khattic speakers, as did the later Turks managed to
do
it over Greeks and Galicians in Anatolia again.
> The question is language replacement, and just how and when it can
occur. There are two basic patterns.
>
> 1. With elite dominance, the usual pattern is for the elite
language
to be replaced by that of the common folk. Only rarely does it
replace
the autochthonous language.
>
> 2. With migrations/invasions, the original language may persist; it
may replace other languages, or co-exist for a very long time indeed.
>
> The dominance of Latin, and its replacement of Gallic is a case of
#2. Latin was indeed the elite language, but the Gauls were a
conquered people ruled by a Latin-speaking elite for close to 500
years. Latin was the chancery language of an empire. Something
similar
happened in Iberia; Vasconic did survive in its mountain fastness.
>
> In Ireland, English has been the elite language, the chancery
language for as long as English has been the elite language of
England. Irish has persisted, but is indeed threatened. In North
Wales, Welsh is flourishing, so I'm told, and seems completely
unthreatened, notwithstanding English dominance for a longer period
than Ireland has suffered it.
>
> The big problem with the Gimbutas model is explaining how an
IE-speaking Kurgan culture imposed its language throughout northern
Europe. It's easier to see the Steppe-derived intruders losing their
language. But for this to be true, you have to say IE moved from the
west and/or north and imposed itself onto elements of the steppe --
elements that became Indo-Iranian etc.
Steppe derived invaders may have lost their language in the case of
Fatyanova culture, spreading throughout the Finno-Ugric realm.
It is partly a case of the relevant numerical numbers. In Northern
Europe, neolithic farming was more recent and the activity was more
marginal (hunting was still practiced). The invaded population
densities would have been lower whcih with a higher number of
incursive "steppe" elements, and their continued reinforcement
(Kurgan
Waves II and III - associated with climatic reversals) IE elements
would eventually predominate. We don't need a "one king hit" theory
here.
Regards
John