----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2002 9:50
PM
Subject: Re: [nostratic] Re: Origins of
I-E
[Alexander]
Actually every hypothesis
suggests a zone for searching the IE homeland
depending on the features
which are accepted as the early IE ones. The
question is : "Where is the
most probable location of people who meet the
following demands: ... ?"
Put instead of dots your ideas about the people
who spoke PreIE and its
daughter languages and you'll get the answer. Your
own answer.
GRW: QUESTION: How are you defining the "people" you are
searching for? Are you defining them by morphological/physiological
traits or "mental traits" that can be determined by the products found in
the archaeological record (art work, animal husbandry, farming, clothing
etc.)? IOW, when you assess "migration" is it of a "pure"
morphological group? Hope this is clear; it might not be. Let
me try again: are you telling me to select a list of criteria such
as: nomadic, no potters wheel, fancy leatherworking for horse
trappings, elaborate felt appliques, presence of calendrics, etc. and then
add a "pin" to the Euroasian map?
Alexander:
Yes, however, one also needs to add an
idea, when PIE could exist (usually Late Neolithic-Eneolithic-Early Bronze
periods are accepted) and how its daughter branches development
principally could bring the situation to the present state of
affairs.
Gerry:
Yes, the concept of "time" is
VERY important. Yet even when that is factored in, trying to decide
which group spoke what in say the Bronze Age is still terribly
problematic.
GRW: [with wrinkled forehead]
Huh? Do you live in Florida?
Alexander:
Not, I visited
St.Petersburg,Florida only once.
Gerry:
Me too. An interesting
place to visit.
GRW:
Seriously, I thought St.
Petersburg was the intellectual capital of Russia. From wence Vadim
Masson hails. Did St. Petersburg successfully secede from
Russia?
Alexander:
Not yet.
Gerry:
Whew. I thought I had missed the
event what with everything happening so quickly these days.
GRW: Valery Alexeev
always claimed that all early groups were genetically mixed. Is this
what you are claiming as well?
Alexander:
Well, any natural group
of organisms (plants, mushrooms, animals) is genetically mixed. However
new genes (or variants of old genes) arise regularly. Principally
they could be used as markers, like ringing of birds is used by
ornithologists. If we could obtain genetic information from bone remains
it would be a great source of information concerning populations
migrations. Unfortunately now we can get genetic
information only from living people which pictures the present day
situation. In some cases (when populations are well isolated with sea,
high mountains, deserts etc.) this picture is rather conservative and
can reflect ancient processes of populations movements and mixings. But
not in steppes. The picture for the period of our interest (about
9000-5000 years ago) has been disturbed and practically erased many times
there. A
lexander
Gerry:
Yes, new genes
arise regularly but IMO language really isn't a genetic factor.
Languages are controlled by memes which are behaviorally and
environmentally determined. Agree? Disagree? Actually
genetic information (DNA) can only tell us about physical (morphological)
traits but actually says nothing about the language(s) we speak, or
dialects. Even in the steppes, the human element needs to be
factored into behaviors of the nomads.
Gerry