Linguists have long opposed Renfrew's
hypothesis as originally formulated, either sticking to some version of the
Kurgan hypothesis or experimenting with alternative homeland scenarios. I wonder
what Renfrew himself would regard as the key components of his hypothesis -- the
mechanism of language spread? PIE in the the Fertile Crescent ca. 10000 BC? The
former, as laid out in _Archaeology and Language_, is simplistic; the latter,
out of the question, period. But Renfrew has already conceded a point or two to
his critics, which is of course what anyone had better do if the critics are
right:
"The language/farming dispersal hypothesis
does not necessarily imply that the spread of farming was brought about by a
large number of people, through some process of demic diffusion, although that
has certainly been argued. Smaller numbers of migrant farmers might, through
their prestige of their new economy, have been responsible for processes of
contact-induced language change (Zvelebil 1995). Certainly recent molecular
genetic evidence for Europe does show indications of human dispersals
accompanying the Neolithic, but only on a relatively small scale (Richards _et
al._ 1998)" [from Renfrew's introduction to _Nostratic: Examining a Linguistic
Macrofamily_].
If enough little adjustments accumulate,
Renfrew's hypothesis will no longer be its old good self of fourteen years ago.
So what? It's healthy to let one's views evolve, and it's a fatal error if one
tries to defend the indefensible for fear of losing face. I, for one, am
grateful to Renfrew and other authors who made me rethink the linguistic
prehistory of Europe (as a result of which my faith in the Pontic homeland
evaporated and I began to look round for alternatives), although I couldn't
accept Renfrew's linguistic speculation -- he definitely overstepped
his competence there.
Piotr
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2001 7:41 PM
Subject: [tied] Renfrew hypothesis"meets resistance"
Shouse balances his report by concluding that Renfrew "thinks
his hypothesis will survive these growing pains." GK: The only question is: how
much of the original hypothesis
will have to be recast, and at what point
will "quantity turn into quality" (:=))?