Re: [tied] IE origin in Balkans? An alternative interesting theory

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
wrote:

>
> Joao:
> >http://www.geocities.com/dienekesp2/indoeuropean/index.html
> >
> >An interesting different point of view. We don~t need to agree,

but it's

> >very healthy to take a look.
>
>
> Nifty. I guess it's cool that we don't all agree... but why do so

many

> people
> have to be so stubborn! >:)
>
> The circle of the Danubian proposal in Fig 1, in my mind, is just a

teensy

> bit
> too southern for my liking. I don't think that IE speaking peoples

had

> direct
> access to the Near East, although it is clear that a Semitic(-like)

language

> had altered IE. Rather, I think that the IndoEuropeans were in

contact with

> their linguistic sister Tyrrhenian and it is _Tyrrhenian_ that is

more in

> line with
> this circle. Coincidently, there appears to be Semitic substrate in
> Tyrrhenian too
> (eg: Etruscan /sempH/ "seven") so this idea works. Further, we

don't see

> any Hattic or Hurrian loans in Proto-IE, which is odd if IE were

truely

> there.
>
> I never heard of the proposal by Wiik before. That was interesting,

thanks!

> I agree with the general premise of it -- that is, that IE spread

into

> non-IE
> speaking territorities which added to the dialectal flavours that

we now

> observe in IE languages. However, I don't know if I can swallow

such a large

> area of IE at 5500 BCE. Take out the southern Balkans and central

Europe

> and we might have a deal. As far as I understand, IE would have

really

> started spreading only by 4500 BCE, a millenium later.
>
> Actually... I have a cool alternative proposal that could be in

line with

> Wiik
> but would still satisfy my skeptical mind. Perhaps, a) the

languages of the

> southern edge of Wiik's area were Tyrrhenian (related to IE) and b)
> those of the westernmost part of this area were "para-IE" (almost IE
> but no cigar). In that way, this entire region is infiltrated with

IE-esque

> languages, making it all the easier for later IE languages to later

fill in

> the
> area. If this is true, it would be next to impossible to find "non-

IE"

> substrate
> in later European IE languages, as all of it would be heavily

diluted by

> IE-related languages that would have already absorbed most of that
> substrate.
>

Here's an alternative theory:
If one accepts Gimbutas' theory that the Kurgan culture (associated
with corded ware and battle axes) is original PIE-speaking culture
(and notes that Marc Verhaegen's touw/tooien argument points in the
same direction), then there is a problem:

Ward H. Goodenough
Evolution of Pastoralism and Indo-European Origins
in
Cardona, Hoenigswald, Senn
Indo-European and Indo-Europeans
p. 260
"
The presence of stone battle-axes and stone-encircled graves
surmounted by barrows among the Funnel Beaker cultures as well amog
the Kurgan cultures, is fiurther witness to the extent to which these
cultures wre drawing on common traditions and common sources of
outside influence.
The Battle-Axe cultures were carried westward in the Kurgan III
stage (Gimbutas, 1965), around 2700-2600 B.C. ... and over the next
several hundred years they replaced the Funnel Beaker cultures. But
this movement does not contradict the earlier contemporanetity of
Battle-Axe and Funnel Beaker cultures on a geographic continuum
across Northern Europe, The reasons for this spread and the manner in
which it took place remains obscure.
"

Common sources of outside influence in two separate and separated
cultures on respectively the southern and the northern coast of the
European continent? How would that happen? One would have to say by
boat, but from where? Somewhere in the middle, calculated along the
sea lanes? Just outside the pillars of Hercules? Uh-oh.

Torsten