Dating the final IE unity

[X99Lynx at aol.com]

In a message dated 1/26/00 11:19:04 PM, JoatSimeon at aol.com wrote:
<<-- Renfrew (in Language and Archaeology) says that the pre-Celtic IE
language reached Ireland with the first farmers -- that's 4000 BCE, roughly
-- and that the Celtic languages developed _in situ_ >>

I wrote:
<<I've looked through Renfrew and I do not find any reference to either
"Celtic" or "pre-Celtic" reaching these areas at that time.  I do find him
saying the precise same thing about "an early Indoeuropean language."  I
suspect the difference is critical.>>

In a message dated 1/29/00 9:48:31 AM, JoatSimeon at aol.com replied:
<<-- no, it's trivial.  Celtic... If it didn't spread by migration (which
Renfrew denies), then it must have evolved _in situ_>>

No.  I really think if one permits oneself a close look, one will see that
the difference between saying "an early indoeuropean language" and "Celtic"
is very important here.

I'm sure that the author does not want to misrepresent what Renfrew wrote.
And I'm sure that a closer look will convince him that Renfrew is not making
the above claim.

All that Renfrew's statement 'requires' is that "an early indoeuropean
language" arrive in europe 'north and west of the alps' before 4000BC.

AND that the Celtic languages were - perhaps very distant - descendents of
that language.

***And there is nothing in what Renfrew wrote that precludes the Celtic
languages from first developing as such at any particular time - even in
250BC.***

All that is required is that some ancient and distant parent or
great-great-grand parent IE language arrived in western europe in the
middle-late European neolithic.  (As a side-note: copper metallurgy arrives
in that area very soon after.)

The idea that that early indoeuropean language had to be a 'proto-Celtic' or
'Celtic' or even distinctly 'Pre-Celtic' language is simply not to be found
in the text of A&L.  And the addition of that idea is not I'm sure the
conclusion any reader would come to with a fair reading of the text.  (Even
in Renfrew's map of the migration he expressly avoids labeling the arrows of
movement because 'attested divisions as we know them had not yet occurred.')

This may create a problem in dealing with the unknowable - what
linguistically occurred in the region between the arrival of "an early
indoeuropean language" and what will emerge as Celtic.  But it most
definitely does NOT mean that Celtic arrived in western Europe in 4000BC.

The gap should not be a surprise to the holder of any theory about how and
where Celtic emerged - unless you hold the belief that Celtic was born
full-blown out of the head of PIE.

And IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO NOTE that the gap between PIE and that 'early
european language' could be - under Renfrew's scenario - much shorter in time
than the gap between that 'early IE language' and Celtic.   Based on this,
the language that arrives in western Europe at 4000BC should be much closer
to PIE than to Celtic.  Going further - if you compare this early
indoeuropean language in western Europe to the so-called post-Anatolian 'narro
w PIE' - there could be as little as 500 years difference under Renfrew's
analysis.  To repeat that's as little as 500 years difference between narrow
PIE and the first IE language in western Europe.  Attested Celtic will be a
long way off.

I will try to address other issues brought up in another post.  But I think
that the basic fairness of readers on this list will come into play here if a
careful consideration of what I've just written is given a chance.

Celtic does not arrive in western Europe in 4000BC under Renfrew's scenario.
A distant - and perhaps very distant ancestor does.

Once this is understood, I think the harshness of the counterpoints made will
be alleviated.

Here by the way is the pertinent quote (remembering again that A&L is 'not
the Bible' and that the argument is not about something written in stone):

(C. Renfrew, A&L, Cam Univ Press, p. 249):
"Celtic languages are seen to emerge, by a process of differentiation or
crystalization, from an undifferentiated early Indo-European language spoken
in Europe north and west of the Alps, and may be preserved in certain river
names....  The earliest Indo-European speakers will have reached these areas
by 4000BC, although the differentiation into individual languages may have
taken place very much later."

Others have mentioned before often enough that the reference to "individual
languages" is expressly NOT to individual Celtic languages - and there is
good reason for this (Renfrew possibly also had non-Celtic languges in mind
'north of the Alps' in mind.) And so this understanding of what was written
here may raise other issues.  But as to the issue raised here - it should be
clear that nothing in it prevents Celtic from arising with LaTene for example
- or even after it.

Regards,
Steve Long