Re: Affects of immigrant communities in language change

From: Joseph S Crary
Message: 8352
Date: 2001-08-06

Here is an idea

Marija Gimbutas' Kurganish culture-language would be a very primitive
proto-IE type. Although dominant in specific districts, it's use
associated material assemblage would be spotty. In the end it would
be so weak an expression that it was more-or-less absorbed by the
much larger non IE speaking population.

This would provide large and viable non IE or nearly non IE language
core areas available to impact the development of the Middle Bronze
Age westward IE expansion (eg. Beaker Complex, which is the initial
expression of the Tumulus Construct). If so, several conditions must
be verified for the following reconstruction.

1) Westward expansion of the Kurganish culture-language complex
represented a relatively small and scattered population that somehow
appeared to maintain a certain degree of cohesion, possibly through
some form of regional mobility. Over time, this complex was contained
and assimilated by non-IE speaking populations. Ultimately, the
impacts of this complex, particularly in western Europe, on non-IE
language were minimal.
2) Westward expansion of the MB Beakerish culture-language
complex represented a large scale or folk movement that was
concentrated on specific regions. Although maintaining a high degree
of cohesion, it also resulted in a major East-West differentiation,
or the formation of proto-Celt and post-Anatolic. Over time the
western expression was significantly altered by non-IE languages
while it completely replaced some non-IE language cores, but not all.
This process would have a long lasting influence on both IE and non-
IE language in western Europe.
3) The next major event would be the peripheral expansion and
subsequent differentiation of the Eastern or post-Anatolic group.
This is embodied in the emergence and expansion of the LB Urnfield
Culture. This represents major north and southward demographic and
culturally dynamic expansions by elements of primarily Eastern (post-
Anatolic) speaking groups, followed by the mass assimilation of non-
IE and marginal Western IE groups in these regions.
4) Finally, the major peripheral expressions fall back on the
Western and post-Anatolic cores, as well as non IE remnants. With
rare exception assimilation or extinction follows.

Although I'm leaving off the Armenian and Thracian aspect, how
the above reconstruction?

JS Crary