GREEK PREHISTORY AND IE (EVIDENCE?)

[X99Lynx at aol.com]

X99Lynx at aol.com writes:

<<Just what those considerable difficulties [with Renfrew's hypothesis that
the initial expansion of IE languages occurred in conjunction with the
neolithic expansion of agriculture] are is still something I am trying to get
at.>>

In a message dated 1/29/00 4:24:49 PM, JoatSimeon at aol.com wrote:

<<Ridiculous time-depth.  Even if all the IE languages changed as slowly as
Lithuanian, a 7000 BCE date for PIE is grotesque; and that's leaving aside
the question of the technical vocabulary.>>

Well, I've seen recent dates- coinciding with the Balkan-Anatolian pottery
group - putting the intial expansion into Europe at 6000-5500BC.  From the
Balkans to the Ukraine and northern and western Europe between 4000 and
3500BC.  So that IE languages would effectively have been present (if not
alone) across that range by 3500BC.

The hypothesis does not require that those languages change slowly at all.
It may suggest a larger group of intermediate and unknown descendents between
PIE and the first attestation of the various IE families.  And because rates
of change logically vary, I'm not sure that the string of sound changes
reflected in many PIE reconstructions cannot easily survive the difference
between say 6000BC as a latest date and the earliest date of 4500BC
(mentioned a number of times as the assumed earliest possible date used by
the UPenn tree on this list.)  If post-Anatolian "narrow PIE" is the measure
(Hittite being generally considered a very odd IE language) then 5500-5000BC
as a dispersal date becomes even less compelling.

There's no requirement of course that any of the attested languages would
have developed at that point or even by 3500BC.  The UPenn tree (only as an
example) might not even 'require' that Tocharian (the second branch-off on
that tree) to break off at this point.

It should be remembered that 75 years ago - even after Hittite was discovered
- it was commonplace to associate the date of PIE dispersal with the arrival
of the Medes, the Achaeans at Troy and of course with the "Aryan" invasions.
V. Gordon Childe actually set the clock going backward by postulating a
pre-2000BC.   If reconstructed PIE can survive a 2500 year change in that
time, it surely can handle another millenium and a half more.

JoatSimeon at aol.com also wrote:
<<Ignorance of the interrelationships of the IE language (according to
Renfrew's theory Greek ought to be closely related to Hittite and distantly
related to Sanskrit, whereas the reverse is true).>>

That conclusion is not required.  But the hypothesis does actually reasonably
suggest that Greek's 'grandparent' and Hittite's 'grandparent' should have
had a closer relationship than a coeval IE language located across the
continent.  But you get a much better time-spread in which Greek and Sanskrit
can make whatever connection is there - which after all is based on
similarities that I believe are post-PIE.

It is after all a problem IN ANY THEORY as to why Greek and Sanskrit should
show a 'closer' relationship. (See Lloyd's map.)  I don't believe that any
current theory is that Greek and Sanskrit managed to split-off from PIE in
the Ukraine and went their separate ways sharing innovations that are not
found in PIE.  (The UPenn tree (again only as an example) actually has only
Tocharian and Italo-Celtic separating Greek from Hittite and I-Ir splitting
off later.)

<<Dogmatic insistance that human behavior, linguistic and otherwise, was
somehow completely different in prehistory.>>

This is a very large accusation.  The range of human behavior reflected in
history doesn't seem - to me at least - to prohibit Renfrew's conclusions.
But perhaps this enters the ideological area that is beyond the scope of this
list.

<<-- in which [Renfrew's] simply wrong.  What he's resistant to is the idea
that linguistics can tell things about the past that archaeology cannot.>>

I'm pretty sure this is not true.  Renfrew actually relies on established
linguistics much more than I think many archaeologists and prehistorians do.

And he certainly hasn't attacked the fundamental methods or principles.  He
has however challenged historic linguistics to consider how a change in data
(which is there whether we like it or not) affects specific theories.  Such
challenges I'd suggest should be seen as opportunities to expand the reach
and grasp of historical linguistics.  Rather than acts of unrationalized
destructiveness.

Regards,
Steve Long