Dating the final IE unity, in particular the word for "horse"

[Gábor Sándi]

----- Original Message -----
From: proto-language <proto-language at email.msn.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 29 March, 2000 5:32 AM

> Dear Gabor and IEists:

>  ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gabor Sandi" <g_sandi at hotmail.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 9:36 AM

>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: proto-language <proto-language at email.msn.com>
>> Sent: Saturday, 25 March, 2000 4:10 PM

>>> Dear Gabor and IEists:

>> [ moderator snip ]

> [GS]

>> Gimbutas's arguments are based on
>> archaeology, as well as a certain amount of theorizing that goes along with
>> any innovative scientific thinking. There are many linguists who accept the
>> Kurgan hypothesis - probably more than those who reject it outright.

> [PR]

> My problem with Gimbutas is not the Kurgan Hypothesis per se but the
> extraneous ideological interpretation she attached to the bare
> archaeological facts.

[GS}

But aren't there extraneous ideological interpretations on the other side as
well? Reading through Renfrew, Whittle et al. I can't help noticing a very
strong resistance to the ideas that (1) populations can move from one area
to another, displacing, swallowing or simply eliminating the previous
inhabitants; and (2) one language can displace another, either through
process (1), or - even without major population displacement - by having
people switch from one language to another, for whatever reason. The
archaeological buzzword is "process archaeology", which seems to claim that,
in general, populations may go through major changes in pottery, burial
customs, agriculture and housing without any major change in their ethnic
identity (including language).

For example, it is claimed that when the major archaeological culture of the
North European plain switched from TRB to Corded Ware, there was no change
in language (otherwise Renfrew's hypothesis is refuted, at least for this
region). The argument is purely ideological. There can of course be language
switch even if the material culture remains the same. For example, I doubt
that there are any archaeological signs of the switch from Cornish to
English in Cornwall in the 17th-18th centuries, or - for that matter - of
the switch from Irish to English in Ireland during the 19th and early 20th
centuries (aside from the small remnants in the Gaeltacht). I would say that
when there is a major cultural switch, a language shift is even more likely.

Insofar as Gimbutas's idealization of Old Europe is concerned, I am
skeptical. Just because people worshipped a mother Goddess and had superb
pottery does not mean that their society was all that pleasant for everyone.
The poor peasant lad born on the wrong side of the mud-track might well have
preferred the exciting life and opportunities offered by some
hero-worshipping horsemen moving to the area, and for all we know this might
have contributed to the success of the Indo-Europeans. But all this is my
supposition, and I certainly would not advocate it as dogma.

The biggest gap in the Kurgan theory is the apparent lack of cultural
continuity between groups of IE speakers that are supposed to have had a
linear historical relation. E.g. Kurgan > Globular Amphora, Balkan Bronze >
Greek Bronze, etc. Although Gimbutas et al. try valiently to show that some
artifacts (say, burial mounds) do show such continuity, the evidence is
certainly debatable. However, similar gaps exist with the Neolithic IE
hypothesis as well. In the final analysis, language switching must have
occurred somewhere along the line, the question is: where (or rather when?)

With best wishes,
Gabor