Conservative dilemma

[Herb Stahlke]

[ moderator re-formatted ]

>>> "Dr. John E. McLaughlin" <mclasutt at brigham.net> 09/10 7:11 AM >>>
Herb Stahlke wrote:

> Perhaps this is why many Africanists are bemused at the intensity of the
> Americanist reaction to Greenberg's work.

> As to Greenberg's alleged absolutism in his claims of relationship, what is
> relevant is what the field does with his work, not what he thinks it means.
> As Bill Welmers used to say of G's Niger-Congo, "G hasn't proved that the
> languages are genetically related; he's made it inconceivable that they
> aren't."

McLaughlin writes:

This is the main difference between Greenberg's African work and his
"Amerind" work.  G. has NOT made it inconceivable that the "Amerind"
languages are genetically unrelated.  

>>>>>>>>

I can't argue this since I don't know the American data.  The literature I've
read, however, suggests that, while "inconceivable" is too strong a word, the
case is not without merit.

>>>>>>>>>>
McLaughlin writes:

There is also a fundamental
anthropological difference between Africa and Native America.  African was
generally populated "from within", that is, no one had to come there in
order for it to be full of people (indeed, it's the only continent that was
not populated through immigration).  The Americas were colonized by
immigrants.  Greenberg assumes one tribe speaking one language (excluding
the much later Na-Dene and Eskimo-Aleut immigrations) entered the Americas
and then differentiated.  We cannot (at this time, and possibly never) prove
whether the populating of the Americas was a one-time, one-tribe,
one-language event, or a multi-time, multi-tribe, multi-language event.
Indeed, Greenberg himself believes there were three events--one for Amerind,
one for Na-Dene, and one for Eskimo-Aleut over the course of the last 40
some-odd thousand years.  Just three immigrations in 40,000 years.  

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The opportunities for migration have been limited by geology.  That several
related groups could have migrated over a period of a few thousand years, and
at a time depth of 40,000 years it would be hard to tell the difference.  The
comparative method has never been extended back more than about a quarter of
that time depth.  That the non-Na-Dene and non-Eskimo-Aleut migrations were
consistently earlier seems indisputable.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

McLaughlin writes:

Hmmmm.
That's the difference between the Americas and Africa.  Africa's had a
stable indigenous population.  The Americas haven't.  Indeed, it's quite
possible that northwestern North America has been the site of many groups of
people from Asia, speaking different languages, landing on the shores of or
walking across the "bridge" to a New World.

>>>>>>>>>>

This apparent difference is deceiving.  The Khoi-San languages, with or without
the Tanzanian pair, represent a clearly distinct group probably originating in
southern Africa.  Although all but substratal information on pre-Bantu pygmy
languages has disappeared, and the substratal information isn't any better than
in most other parts of the world (worse, in fact), they must have represented
at least one ancient language family that has disappeared.  Beyond those, the
major migrations appear to have east to west (most of Niger-Congo) and north to
south (Cushitic, Nilotic, and Bantu, in that order).  Nilo-Saharan, if Songhay
belongs in it, may represent a central Sahara to Great Lakes migration.
Cushitic, as a branch of Afro-Asiatic, represents either a group that
originated somewhere along the Red Sea or a migration from the Arabian
Peninsula.  A-A probably is NE African in origin.  All of these represent time
depths of rather less than 40k:  N-C and A-A in 10k-15k range, and Nilo-Saharan
and older.  At these time depths, it's hard to make a case that extra-continent
vs. intra-continental orign makes much of a difference.

Herb Stahlke