Re: AA and IE

Hello Alexander, Glen

Like you Alexander, I prefer to place NW Caucasian south of the
Caucasas rather than north as Glen does. This makes better sense
archaeologically with the flow of cultures around the western
Caspian region over the period we are speaking of. Also the
movement of a language in the direction Glen seems to be suggesting
runs counter to the direction one would expect from climatic change
at the period suggested.

One would expect a southward movement of languages (as Glen suggests)
with a worstening of the climate and a considerable cooling (eg, such
as brought Turkic into the Middle East from 800 CE, with the climatic
shifts of that period, culminating in the Little Ice Age).

In actual fact, the time that Glen is positing for these maps is a
period of warming climate, in which climatic belts are moving
northwards. One would expect the movement of peoples (and hence of
languages) to move in a similar fashion.

Thus I support you Alexander in supposting that Ket moved northwards
out of the Burushaski rather than the other way around. Similarly I
see the Yukaghir, Chukchi and Eskimo-Aleut rather than spreading
eastward through the heart of Manchu Evenki country (which seems
extraordinarily stable archaeologically), as advancing northwards in
Siberia (again warming climate) following the rivers northwards
(easier travel than eastwards through the forest) to the Arctic Sea,
where with skin canoes and whale hunting they spread rapidly eastwards
along the Arctic coast. This I understand fits in best with what is
known archaeologically of the area.

I would be interested in your thoughts, Glen and Alexander

Regards

John

--- In nostratic@..., "Alexander Stolbov" <alex@...> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
> To: <nostratic@...>
> 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