GREEK PREHISTORY AND LANGUAGE

[X99Lynx at aol.com]

In a message dated 10/15/99 7:43:37 AM, sarima at ix.netcom.com wrote:

<<I sometimes think the critics of linguistic archaeology make too much of
this sort of continuity.  In a mixing of cultures in which one language
eventually displaces another, *naturally* many aspects of the culture of the
"losing" language will persist afterwards.>>

It's not a criticism of "linguistic archaeology" or "paleolinguistics".  It's
simply that material remains speak for themselves.  If you have "mixed
cultures", one can make any linguistic conclusions one feels appropriate.
That doesn't change the hard evidence and the fact that it may not endorse
any particular conclusion about the languages being spoken.

sarima at ix.netcom.com also wrote:
<<In the Pacific islands, the replacement of many of the Polynesian languages
by various European Creoles was *not* accompanied by a
complete"europeanization" of these islands.  Quite the contrary.  Even to
this day the peoples of these islands still retain many of the cultural
practices from before, and continue to make many of the same cultural
artifacts (e.g. stone heads).  A future archeologist is likely to argue that
"there is a continuity in many aspects of the Pacific island material culture
...".>>

And that is exactly the case.  If you are saying that material culture has
remained, than what would you expect him to report?  ANYTHING else would be
INCORRECT.

The point you've made is that the material culture can sometimes be
independent of language change - which is exactly what the problem is in
expecting that archaeological evidence can be used to support  e.g., the
presence or absence of Greek being spoken in parts or all of Greece in
prehistoric times.  Which is why I wrote ALTHOUGH THIS MIGRATION (from
Anatolia) MAY HAVE INTRODUCED GREEK INTO GREECE, THERE IS NO REAL
[archaeological] EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY EVEN THIS CONCLUSION.

Regards,
Steve Long