Re: Problems with Bomhard

Hello Alexander

Re

> Glen, this is not a question of a particular science, rather of
> Weltanschauung. Some people believe in existence of causality in the
> principal events of the mankind development, other people believe
> that everything happens by chance. Some people believe that
> functions can travel separately from arguments, other people don't.
> Some police commissioners believe in coincidences, other ones don't.
>
> We will never prove to each other that you/me is wrong.
> The best we can do is to keep in mind the peculiarities of views of
> the opponent and respect him.

Alexander, I am not as sanguine about this as you are. I would tend
to believe that there must exist some kind of evidence which would
allow us to discriminate between the two explanations (like my thesis
about climatic collapse effects - some of which are contradictory -
but history tends towards paradox and contradiction)

> 1. Nostratic languages pressed out all the languages of
> hunter-gatherers from Europe, North Africa and West+North+South Asia
> (excluding only areas not suitable for farming) AND Nostratic
> languages spread from the region where goats+sheep and wheat+barley
> has been domesticated (Near East)

Not so - we find Hurro-Urartian, Khattic and a number of other
languages (eg Kassi, Guti, Subartu and others in the heart of the
region where agriculture first began. To me this suggests that
Nostratic spread due to cultural advanatges prior to the development
of agriculture. I also think agriculture was initially developed by
NW Caucasians who were in close proximity to Nostratic languages
(hence explaining the presence of NWC vocab for agricultural items in
a number of Nostratics (but not all of them I understand)).

> 1a. There are Non-Nostratic languages (NEC, NWC, Basque, old
> "Mediterranean") on the same areal HOWEVER The picture of
> development of farming at Near East shows presence at least 2
> different traditions (for example PPNA and PPNB)

Agreed. Relations between these groups need not have always been
oppositional. And cultures may change without a change of personel
too which confuses matters (although I must admit archaeologists tend
to propose a PPNA to PPNB shift was a shift in ethnic group, not an
acculturational one).

> 2. Austric languages (Austroasiatic+Austronesian+Tai) pressed out
> all the languages of hunter-gatherers from SouthEast Asia (excluding
> only areas not suitable for farming)
> AND
> Austric languages spread from the region where dog (for meat)+pig
> and taro+yams and some later rice has been domesticated (Indo-Chine)

Actually here Alexander, latest archaeological evidence suggests the
taro-yams garden-hunting system was pioneered by speakers of
Indo-Pacific languages going back earlier than 25,000 years BP!
(Check the evidence on domesticated taro found amongst the first
settlers of the Solomon Islands!). Certainly at Kuk in the Papua New
Guinean highlands, at the altitudinal limit taro was being cultivated
12,000 years BP (significantly before the Austric spread and before
farming in the Middle East 10,500 BP (8,500 BCE))

> 3. Sino-Tibetan languages pressed out all the languages of
> hunter-gatherers from East Asia
> AND
> Sino-Tibetan languages spread from the region where Chinese millet
> has been domesticated (the Yellow river valley)

What would you say to the Formosa Austronesian here Alexander?

> 4. Sindsh languages (Congo-Kordofanian+Nilo-Saharan) pressed out all
> the languages of hunter-gatherers from Central and South Africa
> (excluding only areas not suitable for farming)
> AND
> Sindsch languages spread from the region where cattle and bulrush
> millet has been domesticated (Sahara)
>
> Thus, in the Old World
> - There is no superfamilies which would not be connected with one of
> the centers of neolithisation
> - There is no centers of neolithisation which would not produce a
> superfamily

Interesting.

> The linguistic situation in Americas and New Guinea is not so well
> studied however these regions seem to fit this scheme as well.

Alexander, I know the PNG situation very well, and it does not fit
your schema here at all Alexander. But then New Guinea sees a
spectrum of cultures from intensive gardeners and pig raisers
(Chimbu), shifting gardeners (Medlpa and Anggal Heneng),
hunter-gardeners (For/Fasu) to Hunter-Fisherfolk (Biami) and others
all existing in close proximity through major micro-environmental
divergencies in the very diverse PNG landscape. I suspect there is a
difference in neolithic between vegetative digging stick gardening of
the South American rainforest and PNG kind, and the grain farming,
plough agriculture of the Eurasian and North African kind. This
latter type of farming has tended to be much more imperialistic than
we see in either the Americas (which has high linguistic diversity of
macro-families) and Melanesia (the same).

> I understand, it is not a proof, just a comparison of facts.

Interesting.

Regards

John