----- Original Message -----
From: "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
To: <nostratic@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 1:34 AM
Subject: Re: [nostratic] Re: AA and IE


[Glen]
> Well, suddenly the Nostratic has gone dead again...
>
> Hmm, was it something I said? :)

[Alexander]
I'm sorry for not-answering some messages. I was busy the day when I
received them, and in a couple of days ...
You know, I'm not clever in English, so I need a lot of enthusiasm and time
to write a long message. Besides some literature is needed to be looked
through again to give not only declarations but arguments.

However it seems to me that the cause of our divergence of opinions is not
only in facts and their interpretations but rather in the principal approach
to the problem.

I see your position as the following (I apologize in advance for some
intentional exaggeration to sharp points of divergences):

- Only pure linguistic data are important for reconstruction of
ethnolinguistic evolution.
- Any facts from other disciplines (archaeology, mythology, ethnology,
anthropology, paleobiology, physical geography etc.) are not relevant.
- Languages can travel separately from ethnic units; ethnic units are not
connected with economical way of life and therefore with archaeological
cultures; etc.
- The reason of human migrations are not cognizable principally.

Please correct me if I'm wrong in the interpretation of your position.

Now I formulate my position, my model of early ethnogenesis processes (with
some exaggeration too):

- The behaviour of human populations (tribes) with various cultures (what
includes type of economy; spiritual life - mythology, customs, rites;
language;) can be considered for a long time (until the period when states
appear - the Bronze Age) typologically like behaviour of different species
(of animals or plants - doesn't matter) with various peculiarities.
- Every such population has a certain "economic-demographic potential" which
reflects its maximal density of peopling which is possible for them at this
territory under current conditions.
This potential depends on peculiarities of economy and cultural traditions
on one hand, and on natural zones and climate on the other hand.
- Every changing of the tribes areas is caused by interaction of
neighbouring tribes potentials what can be a result of either an economic
innovation (and increasing of the potential of one of tribes), or climatic
change.
In other words if we see an enormous spreading of a tribe or a related group
of tribes we must find an important economical innovation (or a set of
successive innovations) behind it. Climatic changes can provide the
influence on the picture only in a restricted scale (on the borders
steppe-forest, steppe-desert, forest-tundra etc.)
- Languages are just one of markers of a tribe (side by side with the
genetic composition or mythological traditions).
Normally at early stages (say, Mesolithic - Neolithic - Early Bronze) they
must correlate well with economics and anthropology.
- New languages can arise on the basis of the ancestor language, if parts of
its area had become geographically isolated. Usually such an isolation
occurs when the square of the area increases considerably (the degree of the
necessary extension depends on the population mobility - if we speak about a
nomadic or semi-nomadic population, the territories must be huge). Here we
can again compare this process to the process of new biological species
(subspecies) formation.
1st stage - extension of the area as a result of the population increase;
2nd stage - decrease of contacts between peripheral parts of the area;
3rd stage - accumulating of differences;
4th stage - formation of new items (species or languages - does not matter).
- The earlier is time we investigate, the clear is this model ; the closer
to the historical times the more "border effects" (economical interaction of
different cultures).

This description is inevitably simplified, still it demonstrates our
principal divergences, I think.


[G]
> I have trouble believing
> that Altaic came from anywhere other than Central Asia and that
> it had been there for some time previous. Actually, I just
> remembered that I still have that roughly done map on my site
> that was meant to illustrate my ideas on the placement of
> postglacial languages of Central Asia c. 8500 BCE.
>
> The link is here:
> http://glen_gordon.tripod.com/LANGUAGE/CAsia8500_prelim.gif

[A]
NWC on Volga ...
Do you have some arguments to place them there?
I'd expect to meet them somewhere in Asia Minor.

BTW, on your another map (Black Sea Area 6000 BC) you place Kartvelian in
the SE part of the Pontic basin. Any suggestions - why so? The Early
Kartvelian region is a dark spot for me.

[G]
> The colours are meant to mark three major linguistic groups:
> BuruYen in green,

[A]
I'm not very interested in Yeniseian people (fishermen and hunters),
however, as far as I remember Kets came to Middle Yenisey relatively late
(AD) from South Siberia (archaeological data). Besides, there are traces of
contacts with Turks in their lexics.
So I think you may put them in a more South position. The closer to
Burushaski the better for the conception, if I understand it right.


[G]
> Drawing maps and assigning dates is my way of making sense of
> it all and keeping organized in the process. Am I mad? Perhaps.

[A]
If drawing maps is a symptom of madness I must be locked in the next cell to
yours.
BTW my favourite background is the map of natural zones.


Alexander