Hallo!
Andreas Johansson wrote:
> Quoting Jörg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhiemeier@...>:
>
> > Hallo!
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > Sorry, but I don't understand what you are aiming at. As you say,
> > the climatological argument is against *nomads* carrying IE westward,
> > and not against *farmers* doing so. The nomad scenario just doesn't
> > hold water, I agree fully on that point; so why do you argue that way?
>
> Because I was of the impression that Gimbutas et consortes thought that IE was
> carried west by nomads. If not, I suppose I attacked a strawman.
Gimbutas may have thought so, but I definitely don't. So you indeed
attacked a strawman.
> > [...]
> >
> > What allowed the Anglo-Saxons to replace Celtic and Latin in Britain?
>
> Being the language of the new rulers, I suppose. That Latin was the language of
> the elite, but Celtic (presumably) that of most of the population may have
> helped by leaving the former without a demographic basis after the old elite
> was replaced and the later without prestige.
Yes. This may have been part of it.
> I wouldn't think that the Celtic immigrants to Britain had even the primitive
> state systems of the Anglo-Saxons, but I suppose the imposition of a
> prestigious warrior aristocracy (which the Celts by all accounts had) could
> have the same effect.
>
> But this happening *consistently* over most of Europe seems to be a tad much to
> explain by the IEans simply being more aggressive. One'd be inclined to think
> it would require some more concrete advantage; some more efficient social
> organization, perhaps.
Probably that. Not a unified empire, but clearly a prestigious,
aggressive and well-organized warrior aristocracy.
> > > and ii) why IE got as far as the
> > > Rhine in the first place.
> >
> > Point is, that it *happened*.
>
> Obviously it did, but one would nonetheless like to be able to say with some
> confidence *why* it happened.
True.
> > You don't need an empire to conquer your neighbours (unless those
> > neighbours are highly organized); bands of warriors can do so.
> > And the examples of Anglo-Saxon England and Indo-Aryan India show
> > that such conquests *can* lead to language replacement.
>
> What I feel needs some special explanation is that the IEans succeeded in
> inflicting language replacement over almost all of Europe; the Anglo-Saxons,
> after all, was close enough to the *only* Migrations Age Germanic people who
> succeeded in replacing the previous languages in the area they occupied.
True. The Goths, Franks and Lombards failed to displace Romance,
while the Anglo-Saxons displaced Celtic and whatever kind of Romance
(or Vulgar Latin) may have existed in Roman Britain. But you offered
an explanation by yourself above. Thomas Wier says that it was
"more or less now accepted that the Anglo-Saxons exterminated most
of the Romano-Celtic population in Britain". I am doubtful of that;
at any rate, the Anglo-Saxons managed to impose their language onto
southern Britain, even if the language began to undergo changes that
are possibly due to a Celtic substratum (which is controversial,
though).
> > > I should perhaps say I'm not a Renfrewian myself;
> >
> > So why do you defend his hypothesis? You seem to like playing
> > "devil's advocate".
>
> I suppose I do. But mostly I'm just throwing out ideas to see what people think
> of them.
I see.
Greetings,
Jörg.