Steve:
>It may be asking too much on the other hand for the very first
>first writing, in Sumerian Mesopotamia, to evidence language
>elsewhere.
Yes, Steve, I'm sorry. I _was_ asking too much of you to demonstrate
the Anatolian presence of a Steppe language in the earliest
historical times :P Too bad there wasn't any.
>Not that any of this is particularly probative of anything in
>7500BC. But if one invokes the first writing as some kind of
>better evidence,
I don't. I'm just speaking about "initially", as initially as
can be possibly attested. Writing is the only way to _directly_
show that a language is present. Archaeology on the other hand
can only hint at the linguistic state of affairs.
So, writing, being direct proof, shows that IE languages are only
documented at a late date, and only scantily at first. Then, it's
only around 1600-something BCE that the Hittite's finally decide
to build an empire. It's time to get the hint... No stage of
IndoEuropean within the last 10,000 years is to be found in
Anatolia.
>And since this is the first direct evidence of IE, one might
>question whether it is strictly appropriate to call it a
>"Steppe" language.
You're ahead of yourself. The "direct evidence" that you have
presented is insufficient.
- love gLeN
Hugs and Kisses
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.