From: Brian M. Scott
Message: 20253
Date: 2003-03-24
> "Brian M. Scott" writes:It is precisely true. That in some circumstances there are
> <<'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 is both direct evidence of Roman material cultureDoes this have a point? Of course if you choose an example
> 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.
> It should also be noted that if there is no correlationAnd this is of course irrelevant, as it deals with a
> 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.