GREEK PREHISTORY AND IE (EVIDENCE?)

[Miguel Carrasquer Vidal]

JoatSimeon at aol.com wrote:

>-- there has been no change in the relevant data; only in (Renfrew's)
>_interpretation_ of the data; ie., saying that a linguistic change requires a
>massive amount of archaeological evidence associated with fundamental
>technological-economic transformation.

That's not at all what Renfrew says.  He's saying that "a
massive amount of archaeological evidence associated with
fundamental technological-economic transformation requires a
linguistic change", as it were.  Which is true.  The Neolithic
Revolution was the second most important such event in European
history (the most important was the introduction of language --as
we know it-- itself in the Upper Paleolithic, 50-40,000 BP).

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv at wxs.nl