The Neolithic Hypothesis (Fashion)

[Robert Whiting]

On Wed, 7 Apr 1999 X99Lynx at aol.com wrote:

Subject: Re: The Neolithic Hypothesis (Fashion)

<snip>

>In a message dated 4/6/99 11:40:17 PM, whiting at cc.helsinki.fi wrote:

><<External to what? -- the language or the culture or both?>>.

>Language is a fundamental part of culture and does not exist
>without it.  Language without culture has no referents, no
>context, no medium, no way of propagating and no reason for
>being.

Ah, so the primary function of language has gone from being
communication to being a marker of cultural identity -- no
culture, no language.  While you are quite right that language
and culture are inextricably intertwined and no one should try
to separate them, this interdependence does not mean that they
are coterminous or coextensive.  A language can belong to more
than one culture (e.g., a lingua franca such as medieval and
modern Latin, or Akkadian used by Egyptians, Canaanites, Hittites,
and Hurrians for diplomacy) and a culture can have more than one
language (doesn't really need an example).  In short, language
may be a fundamental part of culture, but no specific language
has to be a fundamental part of any specific culture.  Entire
cultures can change their language.  They don't have to, and
they don't do it very often, but they can and do (modern Hebrew
is an example).

Language and culture are in many ways aspects of the same thing.
Both are passed on from generation to generation by instruction
(i.e., they are not inherited genetically), both are subject to
unpredictable change, and both can borrow elements from other
languages/cultures.  But there are also features of language that
are not connected to culture (universals) and there are features
of culture (e.g., religion) that are not tied to a language.

So it is a quite legitimate question to ask whether a linguistic
change had its origin within the language or within the culture
or from a source external to both.  So what was the point of your
comment?

>One of the reasons I cannot honestly argue with Miquel's notion
>that LBK carried PIE or its descendents into northern Europe is
>that the evidence does support the existence of a coherent
>culture or uberkultur that tracks that idea well.  You can't
>support the PIE/LBK premise on human genetics, but its hard to
>fight it based on the evidence of culture.  Once you see a
>cohesive culture, historically or prehistorically, you see a
>clear medium for the transmittal and maintenance of an
>identifiable language.

Or two languages, or three languages.  A coherent culture doesn't
have to be based on a single language.  Historically it often is,
but it doesn't have to be.  How many languages are there on the
Indian sub-continent?  A single language may make a plausible
story, but plausible stories are not evidence.  Plausible stories
are what we use to bridge the gaps where there is no evidence.
The evidence is the cultural continuum.  The plausible story is
that it represents one language and that language is presumably
IE (or some branch of it).

>This is historically confirmed again and again.

And again, prior experience is not proof nor is it predictability.
Historical analogs are useful for showing that a particular
development could have taken place.  They do not prove that it
*did* take place.

>Archeaologically you can pinpoint where you will find Latin
>inscriptions based on finding Roman cultural remains first.

There is no cultural artifact that is diagnostic of language
except writing.  If you don't find the Latin inscriptions there
is no proof of the presence of the Latin language no matter how
many Roman cultural remains you find.  You can say Latin was
probably the language, but you can't prove it.

>Is it 100% predictable?  Of course not.  But it is the anamolies
>that prove the rule.  The shock of finding out Linear B was Greek
>(nobody was predicting it, not Evans or even Ventris) has now
>faded away because the cultural remains have confirmed a clear
>demarcation between Minoan and Mycenaean cultures.

But only because the discovery of the language made it imperative
to find the cultural differences.  And without the language we
still wouldn't know that Mycenaean was Greek.  Even if the
cultural differences had been noted, there would still just be
two cultures of unknown linguistic affiliation with people
probably still positing a mainland colonization from Crete.

>All of this is hard history.

But it is history based on language, not the other way around.

>It is not pop sociology.

Oh dear, I seem to have given you another buzz-word, like "walks
like a duck..."  I expect we'll see a lot of it in the future.

><<One might as well try to explain why Europeans and North
>Americans no longer wear three-cornered hats and powdered wigs
>based on physiology or geography or manufacturing techniques or
>conquest or substratum populations or the general unsuitability
>of the hats and wigs themselves, when in fact it is a
>sociological phenomenon known as fashion.>>

>Culture and "fashion" are historical evidence.

Yes, but they are not evidence for language.

>Proto-Geometric was nothing but a fashion but it reliably labels
>a period, a culture and a developement.  You have no idea how
>important bronze helmets, beaver hats and three cornered hats are
>to our understanding of history.

But not for language.

>When we are not identifying a culture by a fashion in material
>culture, we are identifying it by its language.  LaTene becomes
>Celtic.

Language and culture are not coextensive.  Three-cornered hats
were worn from Russia, across Europe, to the East Coast of North
America.  Now, based on your theory of cultural and linguistic
unity, you will tell me that this shows that a single language
was spoken across this same area.  No, I'll say, three-cornered
hats are not related to a single language.  Then you will tell me
that the languages that belong to three-cornered hats are all
Indo-European.  No, I'll say, Finns and Magyars and Basques also
wore three-cornered hats.  Then you'll say that these are the
exceptions that prove the rule, that Indo-European languages
still go with three-cornered hats.  No, I'll say, Indians and
Persians did not wear three-cornered hats despite the fact that
they speak Indo-European languages.  Then you'll say that these
are satem languages and obviously three-cornered hats were an
innovation of the centum languages.  No, I'll say, languages that
simply share archaisms do not innovate collectively.  Then you'll
say that's just pop sociology and the discussion will be over.

>If you feel that historical linguistic evidence has no pattern,
>no meaning and is pure frivilous fashion, that's fine.  I
>wouldn't want to talk you out of it.

No, I don't feel that, and I didn't say that, though with your
proclivity for misunderstanding and your natural contentiousness
I can see how you might seize upon that as interpretation of what
I did say.  What I said was that although languages are
constantly changing (although not from English to Bantu :>),
linguistic change is unpredictable and most often comes from
outside language itself and that patterns of change can usually
only be seen and analyzed in retrospect.  Historical linguistic
evidence is the only thing we have for reconstructing earlier
stages of languages.  And no number of bronze helmets or
three-cornered hats can tell you what language the people who
wore them spoke without written records.

Bob Whiting
whiting at cc.helsinki.fi