Re[2]: [tied] GLEN AND ANATOLIA IN 7500BC

"Brian M. Scott" writes:
<<'Absolutely nothing about language' is perhaps a little strong, but Glen is
basically correct. I gather, for instance, that there is nothing in the
archaeological record
that can be associated with the arrival of Celtic in Britain.>>

Actually, there is clearly demarked evidence in Britain of the significant
arrivals of different cultural elements from the continent from the
mesolithic through the iron age and right through the middle ages. There is
pretty good evidence for in-coming influence that mark the neolithic, bronze
ages and iron ages and other outside influences. The problem is that this
evidence does not easily fit none-too-clear linguistic theories about when
the Celtic language "should" have come to Britain.

It should be noted that at one time the linguistic theories did fit the
archaeology, but the archaeological dates and evidence have radically changed
since then. The difficulty may be due to the possibility that IE languages
arrived early in Britain and that closely related Celtic languages displaced
these only in the Roman period.

When we have historical records and evidence of language, of course, the
archaeology matches up quite well. Romans, Saxons, Vikings, Normans and Danes
are quite visible and differentiated in the archaeology -- except perhaps in
the sub-roman period when the distinction between Roman and Celtic speakers
creates difficulties.

"Brian M. Scott" also writes:
<<But you're ignoring the point that Glen obviously intended to make: there
is no necessary tie between language and material culture. And of course he's
right.>>

This half-true. There's no absolutely necessary tie, but there are often
statistically high probabilities when we do have written language to confirm
the material evidence. E.g., Roman material culture is highly identifiable
in most regions and correlates extremely well with written history AND with
written evidence actually found at those sites.

There is both direct evidence of Roman material culture and the language spok
en by the people of that culture. So, in the case of Roman material culture
there is a scientifically significant correlation with language. To say that
the tie is not "necessary" -- that it's not 100 out of 100 -- is not
scientifically relevant in these instances, because the correlation is
something like 95 out of 100 and way beyond the levels of serious statistical
doubt. And this only means that the rare exceptions prove the rule.

On the other hand, there are other cases where correlating material culture
and language causes serious problems, even in historical contexts. For
example, John Collis points to clearly historical Etruscan settlements
yielding preponderently LaTene material evidence.

So the real issue is whether we can recognize when language correlates with
archaeology and when it does not. The farther back we go, obviously the more
difficult the discernment becomes.

It should also be noted that if there is no correlation between archaeology
and language, the whole Pontic-PIE theory loses all foundation.
Paleolinguistics is entirely linked to archaeology. You have no dates or
locations for horses, wheels, graves, beeches, beavers, etc., without
archaeology.

Regards,
Steve Long