Re: [tied] The IE homeland

----- Original Message -----

From: george knysh

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 9:39 PM

Subject: Re: [tied] The IE homeland

*****GK: Because in the east->west option you have at least plenty of archaeological evidence to support it (even if some of this has provoked heated debate verging upon denial or annihilating ideological reinterpretation), whereas in the west->east option
you have nothing at all, at that particular moment in time. Which is why I spoke of "invisible" factors. BTW I can just imagine what would be the reaction in "Westernizing" circles if some of us "Easterners" were to come up with "invisible" factors to explain our preferred east->west movement.(:=)))******

 

The archaeological evidence of what? In what way is the supposed east-to-west progress of Indo-Europeanisation (I mean the spread of a _language_, not of a cultural package or the like) less speculative and more "visible"? How did is produce the observed distribution and differentiation of the ten or so branches that don't happen to be located in the steppes? An answer to that should be provided independently of all archaeological evidence. Note that I have accepted the Danubian model because it fares way better than the competition on linguistic grounds; among other things, it offers a sufficient time-depth for a plausible scenario of the initial growth and _gradual fragmentation_ of the IE family (rather than a relatively recent IE "big bang"). The Danube is hardly closer to my heart than the Dnieper and -- needless to say, I hope -- I have no ideological reasons for preferring either direction.

*****GK: I was just getting ready to post a few reflections (as promised earlier) concerning the integration into our discussions of archaeological material which seemed to me to strengthen the admittedly limping 1989 east->west "Mallory scenario", when lo and behold I received a copy of V. Kul'baka's latest opus, entitled "Ancient Indo-Europeans of Ukraine in the light of recent archaeological research" (in Ukr.), Mariupol' Institute of Humanistics/Mariupol' Archaeological Expedition: Mariuopol' 2002. 145 pp. I'd like to take a few days to review this for possibly pertinent information. In any case I'll get back to the issue shortly.******

 

OK, I'm looking forward to it.

 

Piotr