The Single *PIE Village Theory

[X99Lynx at aol.com]

In a message dated 7/20/2001 3:32:45 PM, acnasvers at hotmail.com writes:

<<  I'll tell you what. If you can show me a recognized PIE tree with a
European naming pattern comparable to that of Taxus baccata, I'll publicly
admit that my efforts to use yews for the IE homeland problem were in vain. >>

I was doing a quick look at the IE box and of course Doug Kilday's post made
me look and now I have to answer at least this part.

First of all, the arrowwood example - which you dismissed - is how I must
understand the ordinary behavior of tree-naming on a local level - before
science, trade or dictionarians intervene.  All our historical experience
with "common names" for trees and plants is that they are highly local and
irregular.

I cannot with any integrity accept the idea that most *PIEists even knew the
name for a yew tree or most other trees.  And that is because when we look at
pre-lierate societies we see that such comprehensive distinguishing between
flora is limited to a specialized group within the group, if it is anyone's
job at all.

So, if I were to look for the source of the names of the yew, it would not be
*PIE speakers.  It would be linguistic communities that would have some real
vested interest in finding a common name for the yew among themselves.  These
would be people who made a living out of trees and wood -  especially those
along the intergroup supply chain who were trading wood in a manner that what
tree the wood came from would make a difference.

We have evidence that stone and metal workers were specialists at a very
early date.  We have evidence of trade in worked goods ranging several
hundred miles and that evidence extends from Cro-Magnon to the mesolithic
obsidian cutters of the Italian coast - even the Iceman's arrow points were
from a site 300 miles from his home.  Workers in wood, bone, tusk and antler
would have looked to extend their markets beyond a few local customers - the
other trades were doing it.  This means they needed to identify the raw
materials they needed to tree-cutters and describe the wood they used to
traders and customers.  And the primary "name" standardizers would be those
who moved goods from market to market, buying and selling raw materials and
finished products.

That is the primary way I see a standard name coming about, reconciling the
highly observable inconsistency of local names - and that would include early
IE speakers.  Scientific botany is comparatively recent - its an anachronism.
 The spread of a religion might also standardize the names of some sacred
trees or wood.   But the need to spec wood for trade all the way back to
trees would be the first likely candidate for any tree name that spans beyond
local villages.

If this has any possible connection with "a recognized PIE tree with a
European naming pattern," then I might be able to answer your question.

Regards,
Steve Long