---
x99lynx@... wrote:
GEORGE KNYSH WROTE:
<<There is no necessary correlation between the advent
of a new technology
and comprehensive language spread.>>
But food production is not just any new technology.
The neolithic revoultion
changed human living quite drastically.
*****GK: As did the Industrial Revolution. And as the
current Technotronic R. or whatever you want to call
is doing. Neither involved(es) automatic or universal
language shifts.*****
And, on the contrary, there would seems to be a strong
correlation between
the spread of major language groups and the coming of
food production - the
spread of agriculture (both pastoral herding and dirt
farming) -- when it
replaced food gathering in many parts of the world.
******GK: There is a difference between strong
correlation and necessary correlation. A major shift
in the economic system MAY be accompanied by language
change, but this is not automatic and certainly not
universal. What you have failed to show is that this
theoretical POSSIBILITY is what actually occurred in
Old Europe.******
When one does the economics of food production
(agriculture) versus
hunting/gathering, it's clear that except in
exceptional cases, wealth and
surplus food and materials very quickly attach to
food-producing communities
and tend to depopulate hunting/gathering communities.
*****GK: That is not the issue. The issue is whether
hunter/gatherers can switch to a reproductive economy
on the basis of their old language (perhaps adopting a
few new terms or inventing them). After all,
"original" agriculturalists either maintained (and
improved) their old language or created a new one
(less likely) with no example to emulate. And what was
possible in this case is possible everywhere.*****
GEORGE KNYSH ALSO WROTE:
<<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.>>
Centers - like cities - often arise after the
technology diffuses, not
before. Obviously food production did not spread with
only one language. But
dumb luck may have positioned some languages to become
the carriers of
neolithicization. Some (like Sherratt) think these
languages would have been
a neutral tongue that allowed speakers of different
languages to communicate
the new way of living. (Learning how to produce food
rather than gather it,
along with the making of pottery, specialized tools,
animal breeding and
husbandry, requires communication and social
restructuring.) The price of
admission into a neolithic society or trade network
may have been learning
this 'lingua franca', at first as a second language.
*****GK: This is a possible scenario, but it obviously
did not operate at the moment of the "first
neolithicization" wherever that occurred, and
therefore it cannot be assumed to have necessarily
operated anywhere else unless one has some additional
reasons to assume that it did. I see no such reasons
in the case of Old Europe. The persistence of the
Basque language is all the evidence one requires
here.****
GEORGE KNYSH ALSO WROTE:
<<We have multiple examples throughout the world of
populations shifting the
fundamental bases of their economies without changing
their languages.>>
As I indicated above, it seems that the spread of the
major languages of the
eastern hemisphere can be attributed to the advent of
food production.
*****GK: The point is that it is not necessary to
assume that this is what happened in Old Europe.*****
(I don't find your comments on Uralic languages
particularly enlightening but will leave this to other
specialists to comment on if they wish)
GEORGE KNYSH ALSO WROTE:
<<Why should we make an exceptions for the populations
of Old Europe?>>
I don't know what "Old Europe" is
******GK: The Europe of the 7th millennium BC
--->*****
-- but the transition from mesolithic
food-gathering to neolithic food-production certainly
would seem consistent
with the spread of IE in Europe and perhaps elsewhere.
******GK: Spread from where? Anatolia? Well some
excellent linguists don't see this as likely. But how
would IE have emerged there? After all it would not
have been THE Neolithic language would it? And if we
assume a "start" there, or in the Balkans, we assume a
capability among the populations of this area which we
then unaccountably deny to other populations further
north and northeast. No, this won't do. We must look
for factors other than food production here.*****
GEORGE KNYSH ALSO WROTE:
<<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.>>
Well, we might expect a change in religion to come
with neolithicization. We
certainly might expect a steep increase in population
(eventually cities) and
certainly a change in "power relationships", expressed
by the sudden
appearance of surplus food stocks and therefore
accumulateable wealth and
economic control.
******GK: We don't have to assume anything when we
have good archaeology. And in the case of Old Europe,
it's pretty obvious that the neolithic
agriculturalists did not manage to extend their
"power" into northern Poland or eastern Ukraine. It is
exactly the opposite that the evidence we have
suggests.****
GEORGE KNYSH ALSO WROTE:
<<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.>>
It is not conclusive and probably never will be --
since we are dealing with
unrecorded languages. But the connection between the
two events is strong
and apparently follows a pattern world-wide.
*****GK: Not if you look at the specifics.*****
GEORGE KNYSH ALSO WROTE:
<<As mentioned before (see the cybalist archives),
this idea hits a brick
wall in northern Poland and Ukraine (and beyond).>>
I don't know what you are referring to. I've seen
nothing in the archive that
is a brick wall.
*****GK: I believe we had a discussion about northern
Poland on the basis of an article in "Antiquity". And
I've argued about the relationship between Trypilia
and Serednyj Stih many times. This can't be refuted by
reference to general theories.******
GEORGE KNYSH ALSO WROTE:
<<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.>>
What "missing link" are you talking about?
******GK: The spread of Early Corded ware communities
towards the west and north long before the advent of
Yamna.*****
From all I've read, the cattle
and other livestock in Corded Ware settlements all
appear to be descended
from Balkan, Danubian and German breeds. The grain
appears to be from forms
in the same areas. As far as I can tell, all the
elements of Corded Ware
culture were inherited in one way or the other from
the west or south.
******GK: This is totally incorrect. I don't know
where you could have gotten such notions from.*****
You've claimed the pottery is from some eastern
source, but I've seen nothing
that really supports it. Quite clearly most of steppes
culture is derived
from the west and south.
******GK: I can't help it if you can't read the works
of Ukrainian and Russian archaeologists.******
Corded Ware culture looks like a later pastoral
variant of the mainstream
European neolithic.
******GK: Corded Ware descends from Serednyj Stih and
Lower Mykhajlivka (itself with strong ties to the
North Caucasus). If by "mainstream European Neolithic"
you mean LBK etc, you are totally off base.*******
And it does not even extend into western Europe. So
why
should Corded Ware deserve any special status as a
candidate for PIE?
******GK: Corded Ware is NOT PIE. It is an extension
of IE towards the West and North (according to the
Pontic/Caspian "IE origins" hypothesis).******
The answer is not in archeaology, of course. Corded
Ware's only claim is
based on paleolinguistics. And a heck of a lot of
that is, in my opinion,
highly questionable.
*****GK: We have to pick what is less questionable
over what is more questionable. Your theory of
neolithic food production as the vehicle of
Indo-Europeanization is not convincing theoretically,
and totally fails in the contexts of areal analyses.
But you would need to do a lot more reading to see
this, since you obviously don't trust my reports. Do
you know any language other than English? There is
much good literature in Slavic languages.******
<<there can be no doubt that Mallory has focused much
more productively on
the specific issue of Indo-European origins>>
As you say, Mallory's status as an archaeologist is
not really relevant. Any
more than the famous PIE horse head he mentions so
enthusiastically, that
turned out to come from an iron-age scrap heap when it
was C-14ed.
******GK You have also misinterpreted this. In fact
that horse's head is pretty old. The problem with the
various datings was due to some portions of the
evidence having been contaminated by careless
handling. So we get dates of ca. 3500 BC, 700 BC and
100 BC (from memory) depending on the sample. But the
site itself (Dereivka) has been very convincingly
dated, and the horse bits can't be wished away.
Sorry.****
That has
generally been the scientific quality of his
archaeology and a good measure
of his scientific lack of bias.
******GK: Your horns are showing. But I don't think
you've done much damage to Mallory's authority
(:=)))****
S. Long
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com