In reply to my post Glen wrote
> Movements of what though? Language? Do you see language in the
> archaeology? No, you don't. What you see is either population
> movement...This says absolutely nothing about language. In fact
> it's quite deceptive the way you present that fact.
Glen, when people move they tend to take their language with them!
Surely you don't see languages "moving" whilst people don't? Come on
now Glen.
> or, even more likely given the time frame, cultural movement.
> Of course being that the Middle-East was always the cultural and
> technological innovator in prehistory means that we will tend to see
> a _cultural_ movement northwards. I know of and accept this cultural
> movement but that's all it is. This doesn't speak of small hunter-
> gather populations whose movements are practically unregisterable in
> archaeological records, nor of their languages which are COMPLETELY
> absent from archaeological records.
Glen this is not strictly true. Belbasi and Beldibi mesolithic
cultures of the Antalya caves are clearly derived from a demic
movement of people from Syria. Similarly the Franchthi cave
mesolithic culture was clearly the result of a population movement
across the Aegean from Anatolia. In these cases because the people
were moving undoubtably their language shifted in all probability too.
> In fact, how could we possibly notice 20 people in a band slowly
> moving westward over time at all? Genetics? Nope.
You are right, but it is based upon identical cultural assemblages.
If we find people making and using the same tools, in the same ways,
and having the same art, eating the same foods, and living in
identically constructed settlements - then it is a fair assumption to
say they are the same people Glen.
> >Glen's Central Asian hypothesis is based upon nothing except Glen's
> >unsupported hypothesis.
>
> Actually, little beknownst to John, it's also the view of Bomhard, a
> leading Nostraticist, as he presented it in "Indo-European and the
> Nostratic Hypothesis" published in 1996. So, at the very least it is
> "based upon nothing except Glen's AND BOMHARD'S unsupported
> hypotheses".
Glen, check out Bomhards map of "The Nostratic Homeland" p.125 in his
Chapter on "The Nostratic Homeland and the Dispersal of the Nostratic
Languages". It shows it EXACTLY in the area and the time of the
Zarzian mesolithic culture, I have been speaking of. Or are you
working from something later than Bomhard's "Indo-European and the
Nostratic Hypothesis" Studia Nostratica No 1. I'll upload it to the
files section for you to see yourself.
As a result I wrote
> >This split the previous proto-Eurasian between Uralic (north),
> > Glen's Indo-Tyrrhenian (west) and Altaic (east).
Glen wrote
> Yet if they came out of Anatolia, Indo-Tyrrhenian didn't come close
> to going as far west into Europe as Uralic and Altaic went to the
> east. Gee, must be that neolithic glacier that Steve proposes :)
Glen the reason why is shown clearly by the fact that there were
mesolithic bow using cultures already in most of Western Europe -
derived from the Ibero Maurasian cultures who had crossed from North
Africa at about the same time as bow using Kebarans were entering the
Middle East (and for approximately the same reason). By comparison,
north eastern Eurasia was almost if not totally depopulated at the
time.
Glen wote
> Yes, and there's a succinct reason why I repeat it over and over.
> It's true that language **can** be a part of culture but it is not
> necessarily so as with the example of English in North America
> versus English in India. Same language, different cultures.
Glen show me a human culture that has no language and I will agree
that it is not necessarily so. Language is ALWAYS a part of
culture. Regarding your example of English in India and America, it
was Englishmen, from England, all having the same 17th and 18th
century culture that carried their language to both places!
Bomhard also states Kerns with approval "I believe that the
Mesolithic culture, with its Nostratic tongue, had its beginning in
the fertile crescent just south of the Caucasas [exactly the area of
the Zarzian culture - Glen], with a slightly later northward
expansion into Southern Russia in intimate association with eoods and
fresh water in lakes and rivers. From this position it had ready
access to the lower Danube and the Balkans (Indo-European) [which
were the Tyrrhenian lands JC], to the Caucasas (Kartvellian), south
of the Caucasas into Mesopotamia, Palestine, Egypt and North Africa
(Sumerian and Afroasiatic), eastward into Cemtral Siberia (Elamo
Dravidian) and northward and hence eastward along the circumpolar
fringe (Uralic-ukaghir, Altaic, Chukchi- Kamchatkan, Gilyak, and
Eskimo Aleut). In the process of its expansion, it undoubtably
effected a linguistic conversion of many tribes of Dne Caucasian or
other origin; this accounts for the fact that non-Nostratic languages
in Eurasia in historic times have been found mostly as relics in
mountainous regions. Exceptions are Chinese and the now moribund
Ket, which, together with Hattic and Hurrian, probably represent post
Nostratic re-emergence of Dene Caucasian speakers from their relict
areas." p.117
It would seem that Bomhard would agree with me!
Regards
John