The Neolithic Hypothesis (Germanic)

X99Lynx at aol.com X99Lynx at aol.com
Wed Apr 7 16:00:31 UTC 1999


I wrote:
<<Or isn't it more likely that Germanic was
either cut-off, isolated or geographically distant from the
"innovative core" - all external factors.

In a message dated 4/6/99 11:40:17 PM, whiting at cc.helsinki.fi wrote:
<<External to what? -- the language or the culture or both?  Is it
possible that Germanic peoples are simply conservative by nature,...>>

Ha! I once put up a straw man on this list by asking if *p>f was possibly
caused by a change in the shape of the German people's lips.  I think Larry
Trask replied, "ridiculous."  He was kind enough not to say "massive
stupidity."

There is clear evidence that the Northern European plain up into Jutland was
a cultural vacuum at the beginning of the the first millenium bce.  In the
south, trade and technology were thriving.  (From John Collis,'The European
Iron Age') .But in the north, "fortified cities were virtually unknown,...
Settlements above the size of villiages were unknown, and compared to central
Europe industrial organization was at a low level.  The potter's wheel, for
instance, was not introduced, though known" throughout the rest of Europe.
"Burials, where known, contain a minimum of grave goods - usually no more
than a rough urn to contain cremated remains."

The thriving trade to the north that clearly existed during bronze age
disappeared. Old routes of trade and cultural continuity with the
Mediterranean are just no longer there.  The diagonal routes of LBK and the
corded amphorae are gone.  There is evidence at certain points that Celts
control trade from the south to the north and nothing gets through.  Evidence
of "even Celtic material contact up through Scandinavia is not just rare, it
is fundamentally non-existent."

And therefore, as time goes on, the inhabitants of this area begin to develop
"burial rites and material culture" markedly distinctive "from their central
European neighbors."  700 years later a culture emerges and starts to spread
that is "generally termed 'Germanic'."

That is the compelling historical and archeaological evidence of ISOLATION.
And it is a much better explanation of how Germanic stayed archaic then - oh,
they're just like that.  In fact I even like the unique lips explanation
better.

<<Is it possible that Germanic peoples are simply conservative by nature,
resisting change with a fervor that is perhaps exemplified by the current
proposed orthographic revisions in German or the
resistance of English speakers to systematic spelling reforms?>>

There are obviously better explanations for why Germanic stayed archaic.

On this very list, we have been told that Slavic speakers can still
understand each other after 1500 years since Slavic speakers first appeared
on the historical scene.  Meanwhile, after some 1500 years of separation,
German speakers with no English and English speakers with no German
understand nothing each other say.  (I've been there and I've seen it.)  That
is not conservatism.

The 'Germanic' we are talking about happened @3000 years ago.  Its speakers
were primitive, poor and had lost contact with the rich and "linguistically
innovative" regions to the south.  Is this the only explanation for its
archaism?  No.  But it is better than pop sociology.

Regards,
Steve Long



More information about the Indo-european mailing list