On "Steppe"

Glen has done a lot of work showing that between the language families
he recognises as "Tyrhennian", "Indo-European", "Uralo-Yukaghir",
"Altaic", "Chukchi-Kamchatkan" and "Eskimo-Aleut" lies a phantom
linguistic group which he calls "Steppe"

Looking at this grouping it would appear that the relations between
members are not equal. For instance, it would appear that the closest
relation of Eskimo-Aleut and Chukcki-Kamchatkan is with Yukaghir, not
with other members of the family. Similarly, Altaic" also seems more
closely related to Uralic, for instance, than it does to "Tyrhennian".
Glen suggests (quite convincingly to my view) that Tyrhennian
possesses a number of characteristics similar to Proto-Indo-European,
and so the family Proto-Indo-Tyrhennian is proposed. But there is a
problem with Glen's reconstruction. On his own terms,
Proto-Indo-European has a closer relationship to Uralo-Yukaghur than
Tyrhenian has to Uralo-Yukaghir.

What we have for the "Steppe" language family is a forked linguistic
chain rather than a simple linguistic family

Running from West to East this chain goes as follows

Tyrrhenian<-->PIE<-->Uralo-Yuk.<-->Chu-Kam<-->Esk-Al
^
|
V
Altaic

Although glen calls this chain "Steppe", apart from the fact that
Altaic, and possibly PIE, none of the languages were in historical
times found anywhere near the Steppes.

Glen proposes that this language group evolved in Central Asia,
spreading east and west from this source. There is evidence that
Eskimo languages did spread from the west to the east. It seems
that Yukaghir may have also moved east from the Uralo-group in the
west. But there is nothing linguistically anywhere else which
suggests any movement in any direction.

Historically, we find Tyrrhenian in the area stretching from Etruria
in the West to the Aegean (and possibly NW Anatolia) in the East.
Uralic languages straddle the Ural mountains, whilst Altaic are east
of the Mountain range from which they take their name. PIE it is
suggested began in the region stretching from the Danube mouth (Piotr)
to the Pontic Steppe (Mallory and others). It is interesting that the
geographic linguistic connections between these languages is identical
to their recent historical distribution, for example

Old Europe<-->Pontic<-->Urals/Siberia<-->Arctic Circle
Europe Steppe ^
|
V
"High Asia"
Central Asia

The question is, do we here have evidence of a "family" with a
common origin, or rather a chain of languages existing from the West
to the East. What are the similarities between Tyrrhenian and
Eskimo-Aleut that would justify putting them in a single language
family? This is important as it bears upon the question of the
Urheimat of the language family that Glen proposes.

Archaeologically, the issue is a lot simpler. With the spread of
Mesolithic cultures, we see that they appear first in the area of the
Aegean and the Balkans (Old Europe), and spread from there to the
Pontic Steppe, the Urals and Siberia and from there to both "High
Asia" and the Arctic Circle.

The question Glen suggests is that the languages began in Central Asia
and moved west. But on what evidence? Why couldn't the spread of
"Steppe" langauges have taken the same path as the spread of
mesolithic cultures. Bomhard and a number of other Nostraticists
suggest that Nostratic is a mesolithic phenomenon. I would see the
Nostratic languages of the "Steppe" spreading with the spread of
mesolithic technologies. Why does Glen persist with proposing that
the "Steppe" languages moved in the opposite direction to the spread
of technology?

Just to stop Glen suggesting that langauge can move against the flow
of technology (which I know already), I can accept this view, but what
evidence is there? Rather than have languages moving hither and yon
such as Glen suggests, with his movement of Tyrrhenian from the Pontic
to Anatolia and Rhaetia (any evidence Glen?), I propose we allow for
the languages to evolve as their current or recent historical
locations suggest.

Thus the oldest and the first would be Tyrrhenian - evolving in
Gambutas's Old Europe. The second split would be PIE and
Uralo-Yukaghir, occurring on the Pontic Steppe. The Third would be
the Uralic-Altaic and the Fourth, the languages of the Arctic Circle
splitting from each other. This scenario has the advantage that it
accounts for both the linguistic and the archaeological evidence. I
cannot understand why Glen cannot accept it.

I am uploading an annimated Powerpoint presentation showing the basis
of the Archaeological and Linguistic data I am suggesting.

Interested in everyone's comments.

Regards

John