Re: =?UNKNOWN?Q?=5Btied=5D=5FDoes=5FKoenraad=5FElst=5FMeet=5FHock=B4

From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 17099
Date: 2002-12-10

----- Original Message -----
From: "george knysh" <gknysh@...>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 8:38 PM
Subject: Re: [tied]_Does_Koenraad_Elst_Meet_HockĀ“s_Challenge?

> *****GK: I have serious problems in associating either
> LBK or TRB with the eastward spread of IE. LBK, as
> mentioned, left no "successor culture" in Ukraine (it
> did in the west), while TRB's expansion was even more
> limited here than LBK's. More below.*****

True, but the question is how much coevolution can be assumed between language and culture. My intuitive assessment is that a close correlation tends to occur during "punctuation" events, when a speech community grows rapidly at the expense of its neighbours and the ranges of its language and material culture expand simultaneously. This means that the chances of finding the archaeological traces of founder communities are best in the case of well-defined, large linguistic taxa, such as Celtic, Slavic, Germanic, Indo-Iranian, etc., possibly also Satem, and of course PIE itself (LBK in the Balkan scenario). During periods of relative stasis languages penetrate new areas almost imperceptibly as small groups move and merge with other communities without changing the cultural landscape. Small linguistic lineages arise under such conditions and either go extict quickly or continue their existence as tiny branches or isolates, and their speakers do not differ culturally from their neighbours. I assume, then, that after the fast initial "inflation" of IE the further progress eastwards consisted in infiltration rather than massive colonisation. The linguistic fossils of that stage are the small non-Satem groups "lost" in the east.

> *****GK: The issue of the non-Satem groups in the east
> (far to the east!) is indeed a fascinating problem.
> But I still think that a revamped Mallory/Gimbutas
> scenario works better than a Balkan homeland theory.
> One weakness in Mallory was his incapacity to find
> evidence for the immediate genetic relationship
> between the IE steppe cultures of Serednyj
> Stih-Khvalinsk and the Corded Ware horizons of Europe.
> But there IS a missing link here. We now know that the
> spread of the earliest Corded Ware groups to the west
> began in the final phase of "classical" Trypilia [ca.
> 3750-3600]. Cemetaries were discovered which proved
> the existence of exogamic relationships between Late
> Trypilians and Early Corded Ware peoples, and the
> great influence of Corded Ware on Late Trypilia [ca.
> 3600-2800 BC] was already known. It appears that many
> groups of Corded Ware pastoralists moved westward [and
> northward, if the Baltic dates are correct], and lived
> in close proximity to both Trypilians, Funnel Beaker,
> and other groups. The best known such Early CW
> communities were those of Podolia, Upper Dnister, West
> Volynia, and Lubachow (the latter in contemporary
> Poland). What is interesting is that there is no
> evidence of "conquest", just infiltration and
> co-existence. Apparently the economy of the CW groups
> (primarily pastoral) was more "progressive" in the
> climatic context of the times, than the type of
> agriculture practised by their contact groups (esp.
> the Trypilians). In phase 1 of Early CW, there was, as
> mentioned, coexistence between it and TRYP + FB. In a
> middle phase, both TRYP and FB disappear, replaced by
> GA which moves eastward, into "agricultural" area
> unused by the CW pastoralists, and coexists with them.
> GA probably assimilated some remaining groups of TRYP
> west of the Dnipro, but it now looks as though most
> TRYP [Sofiivka c. excluded] simply became CW. As Early
> CW moved west, the Yamna and successor horizons
> emerged further eastward. One interesting thing about
> these early CW groups is the heterogeneity of their
> funeral practices, which suggests that their "way of
> life" was adopted by many groups of TRYP and FB. In
> phase 3 of Early CW they assimilated the easternmost
> GA, and then we have the big expansion of CW into
> Central Europe, as well as some movement back east,
> and the emergence of the Middle Dnipro (and later the
> Fatyanovo) cultures. No wonder that there is much
> difference (and similarity) between Middle Dnipro and
> Yamna. Both cultures had similar roots but hundreds of
> years of separate development and the absorption of
> different substrates were telling.== I think it would
> be worthwhile to examine the possibility that the
> Satem shift occurred in connection with developments
> further east rather than with GA. The "residuals"
> would then be what remained of groups in the east not
> affected by the shift.

Yes, I keep my eye on something like that as an alternative to my favourite scenario. If the Balkan hypothesis fails, the Pontic region will be by far the most serious homeland candidate. (BTW, have you got any up-to-date references as regards the dating of the earliest CW sites?) The fact is that each model has its advantages and weak points. One additional advantage of the Balkan hypothesis is the time depth it offers. Fitting the IE family tree into a real-world chronology is easier if the root of the tree is dated to 5000 BC or more, especially if we assume gradual splits and larger-than-branch taxa, and I feel that we'll eventually have to give up the "flat" division into a dozen or so branches. Finally, linguistic palaeontology, tricky as it is, suggests a mixed palaeoeconomy strongly dependent on farming rather than a primarily pastoral culture.