Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Indo-European family tree (was Re: Celtic and Afro-Asiatic?)

From:Andreas Johansson <andjo@...>
Date:Saturday, October 1, 2005, 10:31
Quoting Jörg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhiemeier@...>:

> Hallo! > > Andreas Johansson wrote: > > > Quoting Jörg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhiemeier@...>: > > > > [...] > > > > > Which climatological arguments? Crops that grow in Ukraine also grow > > > in central Europe and the Balkans. I don't think the climate > > > differences > > > are too great to adapt to - especially if the previous population is > > > not displaced but assimilated. > > > > As I thought I made clear, the climatological argument is against IE being > > carried west from the Ukraine by steppe *nomads*. This difficulty is not > > alleviated by pointing out further reasons the *nomad* scenario can't be > right. > > 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.
> > [...] > > > > > > I can't say that one group of stone-age agriculturalists replacing > almost > > > all > > > > others over so vast an area sounds like a terribly likely scenario > either. > > > > Also, worsening climate in the Ukraine might easily propell them into > into > > > the > > > > Balkans or Poland, but what kept them going to the Atlantic coast? > > > > > > That happened rather late. There is no solid evidence for Indo-European > > > west of the Rhine before 1000 BC. The only IE branch that went far > > > beyond the Rhine before the ascendancy of the Roman Empire seems to > > > have been Celtic (a possible exception is Lusitanian, which perhaps > > > was a non-Celtic IE language, but very little is known about that > > > language); and Proto-Celtic is probably to be identified with > > > the Hallstatt culture ca. 600 BC in the Alpenvorland. > > > > That still leaves it unexplained i) what allowed the Celts to replace > whatever > > preceded them in most of Gaul and Britain, > > 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. 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.
> > 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.
> > When IE languages have replaced non-IE ones in historical times, eg > Etruscan and > > many languages of the Americas, the process has been facilitated by > imperial > > control by IE-speakers. Since there presumably weren't any empires around > in > > pre-Roman West and Central Europe, some other mechanism is presumably > required > > to explain its initial spread. > > 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. [snip]
> > [...] > > > > > Yes. Indo-Iranian is clearly closer to the European IE languages than > > > to Anatolian. *If* PIE was spoken in Anatolia at all, then I-I went > > > round the Black and Caspian Seas. And what regards Armenian, it is > > > closest to Greek, and must have entered Anatolia from the Balkans. > > > > I suppose another possible Renfrewesque scenario would be having > Graeco-Armenian > > splitting off from "Indo-Irano-European" before it left Anatolia, and Greek > > representing a secondary migration out of Anatolia. This takes us back to > an IE > > language taking over a place already agriculturalized, which Renfrew > presumably > > wouldn't like, but it would be consistent with the basal position within > "Core > > IE" for Graeco-Armenian assigned to it in many trees. > > > > 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. Andreas
> What I have noticed about Renfrew's hypothesis is that it is championed > mainly by non-linguists. Renfrew himself is an archaeologist; Gray > and Atkinson are mathematicians dabbling in [glottochronology], which > has been discarded by linguists for good reasons. Gamkrelidze and > Ivanov are linguists, but of a pseudo-scientific Soviet tradition. > Some of the "facts" they use to underpin their theory are simply > false. > > > to the extent I have a > > position on the location of the Urheimat at all, I lean towards the > northern > > shore of the Black Sea/Euxine Lake. > > So do I. See above. > > Greetings, > > Jörg. >

Reply

Jörg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhiemeier@...>