--- Piotr Gasiorowski <
piotr.gasiorowski@...>
wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, x99lynx@... wrote:
>> > I'm not sure why so many linguists dislike the
> idea that
> Indo-European languages spread when humans first
> began producing food,
> instead of gathering it. Renfrew is of course
> guilty of confusing the
> whole thing with genetics and wave theories and
> such. And of not
> being careful in his use of terms.
>
>
> But the idea is clearly a powerful one in explaining
the early
spread of a language group well beyond any single
ethnic, genetic or
cultural boundary. ... Renfrew has said many things.
But if nothing
else he helped breakthrough a long load of ethnic
mythology and
provided a good, sound, basic human economic and
social reason for why
the IE languages spread. There's nothing in Mallory
or the old
conventional theories that even comes close.
(Piotr)I agree again. As you may have noticed, I side
with Renfrew far more
than I do with Mallory, and I accept the idea that the
IEisation of
Central and Northern Europe had everything to do with
the initial
spread of Neolithic cultures there. I simply don't go
with him all the
way back to Anatolia, since I don't find enough
linguistic evidence to
speculate about the location of pre-PIE.
******GK: I�m afraid that this is a simple petitio
principii. There is no necessary correlation between
the advent of a new technology and comprehensive
language spread. If there were then the advance of
Neolithic cultures from their various centers of
emergence would have always been accompanied with the
advance of the language of that center. And we know
this was not the case. Piotr, for instance,does not
agree that IE crossed over from Anatolia along with
Neolithic technologies.We have multiple examples
throughout the world of populations shifting the
fundamental bases of their economies without changing
their languages. Most Uralians kept their languages
when they changed over from a hunting-gathering way of
life to agriculturalism or pastoralism. Why should we
make an exceptions for the populations of Old
Europe?The reasons for language shifts are numerous.
In some cases a new economy MIGHT do it. But so might
a new religion, sheer numbers, power relationships, or
other factors. The reasons for language retention are
equally complex. There are no conclusive arguments (to
say the least)in favour of the idea that Europe was
Indo-Europeanized by Anatolian, Balkan, or Danubian
farmers. As mentioned before (see the cybalist
archives), this idea hits a brick wall in northern
Poland and Ukraine (and beyond). The Pontic-Caspian
homeland idea, on the other hand, now that the missing
link with the Corded Ware cultures of Central and
Northern Europe has been found, appears increasingly
persuasive in terms of traditional dating patterns
{i.e. ca. the VIth millenium BCE as the latest likely
time for the establishment of PIE}, and outspread
scenarios. And as to Renfrew vs. Mallory, while the
former may indeed have contributed much more than the
latter in the total field,as Steve contends, there can
be no doubt that Mallory has focused much more
productively on the specific issue of Indo-European
origins, his own preference aside.******
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com