There is an interesting argument about
linguistic areas in Bob Dixon's "Rise and Fall of Languages" (1997 [2nd edition
1999], Cambridge University Press). Supposing, for the sake of the
argument, that Australia was peopled just once, ca. 50,000 BP, by a small
linguistically uniform group of people (say, a few boatloads) and that any
subsequent immigrations (before the arrival of the Europeans) were not
substantial enough to upset its linguistic structure -- how would
Proto-Australian have developed into the known Australian
languages?
The first phase would have
been the steady growth of the initial population and its geographic
expansion, groups moving off into new territory. After a couple of millennia the
continent would have been fully peopled and the relationships between its
languages could have been best captured through a family-tree model. In a word,
we would have had a single Australian family. Then a state of equilibrium would
have begun and continued for the remainder of the fifty millennia. Languages
would have died occasionally, and there would have been small-scale splits from
time to time, accounting for the observable low-level subgroupings, due mainly
to climatic changes and the concomitant contractions and expansions of local
populations. But the total population would have been relatively stable and
linguistic diffusion (as well as other types of cultural diffusion) would
have led to the emergence of an areal prototype (not to be confused with
Proto-Australian):
-- no fricatives or
affricates;
-- a rich set of place-of-articulation
contrasts;
-- a single row of oral stops;
-- a nasal corresponding to every
stop;
-- a rich set of liquids (up to four
laterals, two rhotics);
-- a three-term number system in
pronouns;
-- nominative-absolutive inflection for
pronouns, absolutive-ergative for nouns;
-- special avoidance styles in the presence
of taboo relatives;
-- etc. (plus a number of features shared
regionally within smaller overlapping diffusion zones).
Lexemes are freely borrowed throughout
Australia. Two adjacent languages (no matter what their genetic relationship)
typically share about 50% vocabulary. This figure represents an equilibrium
value, which means that if two contiguous tribal languages that have split
recently share, say, 70% lexemes, processes such as the replacement of
tabooed words will gradualy bring the figure down to ca. 50%. Dixon
analyses those stabilising forces in his famous grammar of Dyirbal
(1972).
The pattern produced by millennia of
convergence in a situation of equilibrium assumes the form of a common
typological profile. There are a number of small genetic groupings for which
family trees are reconstructable, but there is no evidence to
justify higher-level filiation (even Pama-Nyungan is a typological, not a
genetic grouping). If a common Australian family tree ever existed,
diffusion led to the complete erosion of its structure long ago. Therefore, the
derivation of the Australian languages from a single proto-language, while not
impossible, cannot be proved using linguistic data. If Australia had been
peopled by speakers of several languages belonging to different families, they
would have merged their typological profiles during the period of equilibrium,
producing exactly the same kind of pattern.
The reason why I'm describing the case
of Australia in so much detail is that it provides a prototypical scenario
of processes that have also occurred in other parts of the world. Your
mesolithic Balkan-Pontic "phylum" might be something like Pama-Nyungan, and the
more encompassing convergence area including virtually all the languages (and
cultures) of the ancient Middle East would be analogous to the Pan-Australian
grouping. In equilibrium areas traits demonstrating common descent "diffuse
away" over millennia and are replaced by typological affinities resulting
from areal contact and convergence. If the term "Nostratic" corresponds to
anything real, it is probably the latter type of reality.
Piotr
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2000 11:40 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: IE & linguistic complexity
John wrote:
I don't go back to the movement of PIE out
of Anatolia as does
Renfrew. I am convinced there is no evidence of an
IE or a PIE
horizon in Anatolia prior to the arrival of the Anatolian
languages
(Hittite, Luwian, et al), which seems to have occurred 23-2200
BCE.
There is, however, the evidence of the proto-Tyrrhenian language,
which I believe did come out of Anatolia (despite what Glen says).
This is, I believe, the origin of Tyrrhenian, Pelasgian, Lemnian,
Etruscan and may be the substrate to Luwian, Lydian and Carian.
Certainly there was a single cultural provnce stretching between
western
Anatolia into Gimbutas's Old Europe. These I believe were
the
Neolithic farmers, from Sesklo to Starcevo, and ence to Vinca and
the
others.
In the mesolithic Danubian Gorge culture which preceeded Danubian
LBK, there is clear evidence of a process of neolithicisation along
its
North West frontier. I believe LBK came from the indgenous
Danubian
Gorge people adopting a farming technology from their
neighbours and
applying it to the lighter loess soils to the north
and west. There is
much evidence for this hypothesis. If this is so
then Danubian LBK is
not "Out of Anatolia" and Renfrew is wrong.
By the way, a similar series
of events seems to have occrred on the
Pontic steppe a la Bug-Dneister and
Don-Donetz mesolithic cultures
both undergoing neolithicisation from Old
Europe in the same way.
The position of Tripolye at this stage I feel
is questionable.
The Renfrew OoA hypothesis as applied to the neolithic
period
therefore is not possible on the cultral evidence. But a
version of
it does apply to the Mesolithic.
For instance there is
clear evidence that pre-Neolithic Palestinian
Kebaran and later Natufian
were the substrata for the development of
Anatolian mesolithic cultures
(Beldabi and Belbasi). There is also
clear evidence that the meslithic
of Greece at Franchthi cave came
across from Western Anatolia.
Furthermore, the Danubian Gorge
mesolithic at Lepinski Vir and elsewhere
shows clear Aegean
afinities. Finally Murzak Koba (the predecessor of
Grebeniki and
hence Bug-Dneistr and Don-Donetz) also shows affiliation to
the the
Danubian Gorge mesolithic culture. Here we have a clear line
of
derived cultures stretching from the Pontic steppe all the way back
to Africa. This I believe is the archaeological evidence for
Nostratic. It also explains the archaic features linking PIE with
Proto-Tyrrhenian that Glen claims to have found. This movement is
very old, extending from 18,000 through to 7,000 BCE (i.e. pre-Black
Sea
event), and does show a movement north from Palestine into
Anatolia, and
thence out of Antolia into the Balkans and points north.
If this is so,
then all the mesolithic cultures of the Balkans and
the Pontic Steppe were
part of a single language phylum. Kuban and
LBK could have been
cognate languages. Which one was the PIE
ancestor, I don't know.
There is a difficlty getting LBK languages
out as far as Andronova and
Yamanaya cultures (seen as Proto-
Tocharian and Proto-Indo-Iranian), but hey!
it may be possible!
I'd be interested in others
comments.