Re: [tied] Re: Renfrew vs Mallory (Was "New Member)

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

From: x99lynx@...

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 10:03 PM

Subject: [tied] Re: Renfrew vs Mallory (Was "New Member)

"Gerry <waluk@......>" <waluk@......> (Tue Feb 11, 2003  4:16 am) replied:
<<Your comparison of the Mallory/Renfrew "origins of language" is most
enlightening. You claim that Renfrew sees language spreading based on the
development of agriculture. You also state that Mallory bases his "spread of
IE" on the monopoly of the horse.
What we actually are dealing with is the same time period with BOTH farm
populations vs. nomadic tribes.>>

Stop right there. We're not agreeing on terms or times.

GR:  Sorry but I needed to remain vague in order to set up the argument.

Agriculture as it emerges in Europe and Western Asia (put aside India for the
moment) is BOTH dirt-farming AND pastoral.  The domestication of plants and
animals arrived together.  Evidence of pastoral specialization and
transhumance is already present in Europe before domesticated cattle even
begin appearing north of the Black Sea.  Pastorialism, as a form of
food-production, is agriculture.

 

GR:  Don't know if I can agree about the domestication of plants -- granted that the seed covering for domestic wheat differs from the wild varieties, but this difference could also be attributed to different strains.  By nomadic I'm referring to Scythians and Sarmatians who did ride on domestic horses, created artistic horse trappings, and exhibited a stratified society.  As I mentioned to George, one must select one side or the other in this chess (or checker) game.  In reality, both pastoralism and agriculture merge.  So I don't think you and I are taking different positions; I think we do agree only you have more words that you need to analyze.

 

Best wishes,

 

Gerry

Now, if by nomadic you mean roaming around with domesticated animals, then
the neolithic revolution has already happened to those nomads.  They are
already not "mesolithic" in the sense that they are food producers, not food
gatherers. 

(The horse is just another domesticate.  It arrives roughly the same time as
the others, in a very narrow window, after a million+ years of no
domesticates at all, except for the dog.  It's simply neolithic technology
applied to one of a number of animals.)

So, neolithic "agriculture" has already spread to your nomads -- unless they
are on foot and are hunter-gatherers. 

The radical difference we see at this time is NOT between pastoralists and
dirt-farmers (who by the way can also be nomadic).  The radical difference we
see is between food-gathering (traditionally called "mesolithic" in this part
of the world) and food-producing cultures ("neolithic"). 

It's one of the biggest changes in human history and a radical change in
lifestyle.  In Europe and western Asia, it involved not only learning the new
technology of plant and animal domestication, it also ushered in husbandry,
crop maintenance, food preservation and processing, pottery, metallurgy,
textiles, surplus economies, the new idea of marketplaces and greatly
enhanced long distance trade capabilities (which is where some of your
mesolithic steppe nomads may have turned into trade specialists --
wagoneers!). And it seems that all this happened very quickly with the
introduction of agriculture.

And that's where I would give language a critical role.  All that information
had to be transferred.  And that demanded a common language that already
carried the words for the new ideas.  And so IE spread. From folks who raised
goats, to folks who would raise wheat, to folks who would raise cows, to
folks who would raise horses -- in a wide variety of climes and locales.  And
of course eventually accompanied by a huge increase in population - i.e.,
more new IE speakers.)

(But obviously other common languages than IE would also help spread
agriculture in other parts of the world. See that Guns, Germs and whatever
book about South East Asia.)

"Gerry <waluk@...>" <waluk@...> (Tue Feb 11, 2003  4:16 am) also wrote:
<<Both were instrumental in the development and acquisition of linguistic
elements. Both heralded a rich culture and exciting folk lore. Did one group
or the other produce a richer "culture"? My guess is that the nomadic tribes,
because of their constant exposure to different cultural elements,
artistically as well as technologically far surpassed the sedentary farmers.>>

Well, as I said, I see them as one and the same, just applying the same new
ideas in different environments.

But let's just consider what you are saying. In modern times, do nomads
technologically far surpass societies based on food coming from sedentary
farmers?  Did the Libyan "nomads" (the first so named I believe with the
original Greek word) far surpass the civilization on the Nile?  How many
nomads are credited with inventing writing or

I would give a nastiness advantage not to nomads per se, but to those groups
(sometimes multi-ethnic and multi-lingual) who controlled and protected the
long-distance trade routes, especially for metals, finished products and
grain.  They made their living basically with military and freighting
services and that made them mobile and well-armed and in contact with a
variety of cultures.  Remember "the Parthenon was built with Scythian wheat"
(to feed the workers).  That meant that somebody in Scythia was making a
pretty nice dollar because the Greeks needed what they had.  But it also
meant the Scythians had to be able to produce it, protect it and deliver it. 
Sort of fosters a cowboy culture.  But it never takes many generations for
cowboys to become dandies -- once they see Paree.

Regards,
Steve Long

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.