Renfrew and IE Overlords

[X99Lynx at aol.com]

In a message dated 12/11/99 11:04:36 AM, rohan.oberoi at cornell.edu wrote:

<<To try to track the "consensus date" sounds like a misrepresentation
of the consensus.  2500 BC was (and is) more of a "terminus ante quem"
than a date for IE dispersal (based of course on the earliest attested
dates for Anatolian, Indic and Iranian -- and hence presumptive
Indo-Iranian -- and possibly Mycenaean Greek).>>

But 2500BC was very often the ONLY date given for a long time.  In other
circumstances, earliest possible dates generally share some equal time with
latest possible dates.

A fine example of how entrenched the 2500BC date (without qualification) has
been can be found on none other than the *IE Documentation Center* web page
on the the Univ of Texas at Austin site.
(http://www.dla.utexas.edu/depts/lrc/iedocctr/ie-lg/ie-lg.html)
On that page we are offered only one link regarding the overall subject: "For
an online discussion of the IE Language Families see The Indo-European Family
of Languages (by Kerilyn Cole)."  There we learn that "The general consensus
is that the original Indo-European civilization developed somewhere in
eastern Europe about 3000 B.C. About 2500 B.C. it broke up..."  The date on
this page is 1998.

More importantly - in the context of my post - was the way the 2500BC date
was used in Archaeology & Language (1987) (Cambridge Press pb).  Renfrew
wrote: "... My analysis of the literature suggest that the date of c.2500 BC
often cited for the dispersal..."  and  "....the conclusions either of the
Kossinna school or of the early Childe or of Gimbutas in favor of a late
neolithic dispersal.  The dispersal is thus set around 2500 BC."  (pp165-66).
  Both references are not to inner limits on dispersal based on attestation,
but rather the most likely dates reflected in specific theories of who the
original "Indo-Europeans" were in the archaeological record.  A reading of
the sections involved will make it clear that Renfrew was not merely arguing
about the latest possible date for dispersal based on attestation.  And
neither Childe nor Gimbutas were *merely* giving a terminus ante quem.

(In 1960, Gimbutas's "Culture Change in Europe at the start of the second
millenium BC" did not I'm told address any date earlier than 3000BC.  I
believe at that time the dialogue between the "long chronologists" and "short
chronologists" was still going on.  The Funk and Wagnell's Online Encyc has I
believe the right order of events in its article on the subject: "Various
names were proposed for the archaeological culture itself, based mainly on
mortuary practices and ceramics types, the most known of which is the Kurgan
("burial mound") culture. The term was introduced in 1956 by the American
archaeologist Marija Gimbutas (1921-94), who applied it to a more extensive
homeland for the Proto-Indo-Europeans AND FOR WHICH OLDER DATES (between 4500
and 2500 BC) WERE ESTABLISHED BY RADIOCARBON c-14 AND SUBSEQUENT CALIBRATION
DATING METHODS.  Based on new data provided by Central and Eastern European
archaeologists, the dating and spread of this culture are under
reconsideration." (CAPS ARE MINE)  I may be wrong about Gimbutas' early
datings of PIE and I would very much appreciate being corrected if I am.)

I have read a good number of critiques of Renfrew and I have not seen any
that say that he misinterpreted the "consensus" of the time - not even
Mallory.  I believe the standard reading in ancient history courses of say
twenty years ago routinely offered 2500BC as the *likely* date of dispersal -
not qualified as just a latest possible date.  So far as I know the only
exception was the notice given to Swadesh and the Glottochronologists for
suggesting such early dates as 4500BC for differentiation within the IE
family - and they were hardly included in any "consensus."

If in fact you know of any instances of such a description of the "consensus"
from say before 1970 that explicitly leaves open a substantially earlier date
of dispersal (4000BC or earlier), I for one would be very interested to see
it.  If you are saying there was always an admission of uncertainty, I'd have
to agree with that.  But that uncertainty was not what Renfrew was
addressing.  And I believe that uncertainty was not ordinarily described as
the consensus of the time either among ancient historians or historical
linguists.

You wrote:

<<4000 BC sounds like an attempt at a terminus post quem (others are
Renfrew's 5000-4500 BC) based on the articles indisputably
reconstructable to PIE.  I would hope it is not a new "consensus date
for IE dispersal".  I doubt the available evidence allows us to narrow
the date of IE dispersal down with such precision.>>

The real point is I think that - given the archaeological record developing
in Greece and elsewhere - a 2500BC date of first dispersal has seemed more
and more improbable.  So that the whole window has moved backward in time.

And the new termini come out of theories based on new archaeological data
that are not inconsistent with the historic outcome, given the already wide
dispersal of IE at the times of actual attestations.

The terminus post quem provided by the evidence of the spread of agriculture
is the basis of Renfrew's theory.  And that does not necessarily yield a
5000-4500BC date.  The earliest date of dispersal could correlate with the
first diffusion of agricultural culture into mainland Europe or elsewhere -
both of which could be as much as a thousand years earlier than 5000BC.

You wrote:

<<...based on the articles indisputably reconstructable to PIE.>>

What "articles" might you be refering to?  Are these also the "available
evidence" you refer to that you say will not let us narrow the date?

You wrote:

<<I would hope it is not a new "consensus date for IE dispersal".  I doubt
the available evidence allows us to narrow the date of IE dispersal down with
such precision.>>

The early dates have been pretty much based on correlations with the
appearance of widely dispersed characteristics of particular material
cultures.  There is no direct evidence of any IE language before 2200BC.  Any
theory of what happened before then carries by necessity a fair degree of
uncertainty.  Some theories do seem more probable than others, but not one
has the advantage of direct proof.

Regards,
Steve Long