DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**usaguedriedax** · 06-28-2012, 11:56 PM

But someone still had to bring Indo-European languages for them to develop from, unless he is suggesting that all Indo-European languages are actually a sprachbund?

One of the biggest problems with explaining the arrival of IE languages to Central and Western Europe relates specifically to the Celtic, Germanic, and Italic families.

David Anthony's book argues for a large scale convergence process for the arrival of IE languages from the Pontic Caspian steppe area (he advocates the Pontic Caspian steppe homeland hypo) further west into Europe.

Conversely, he argues for a very explicit migration process ultimately out of Bronze age Ukraine for the development of Indo-Iranian languages in Central Asia and then they're arrival into present day Iran and India as an explicit process of elite dominance. Likewise, Tocharian is expressed as a very expicit migration process.

Quite honestly, I never understood why the elite dominance process coupled w/ migration could not be applied to Western European IE language groups since there is some archaeological evidence to suggest the arrival of chiefs from Bronze age Ukraine. Of particular interest here is the stone stelae fround in NE Italy c. 3500 BC with stylistic components very similar to what one finds in Ukraine during same time period. Let's compare:

Kernosovka, Ukraine, c. 4000 BC

Lagundo, Italy c. 3500 BC

Trento, Italy c. 3000 BC

Reocurring themes are axe deptictions and face of a bearded or mustached man, persumably a chief.

Anthony argues for a huge convergence process for Western IE language appearance via the Usatovo culture, and an apparent Yamna culture migration into Hungary followed by a return migration to Ukraine.

Should be mentioned here that Anthony doesn't really know the archaeology of Neolithic-Bronze age Central Europe that well. His expertise is really more with Neolithic and Bronze age eastern, and Central Asian archaeology or the Eurasian steppe belt if you will. Hence partly why he assigns a convergence process to Europe further west of Ukraine under guise of Usatovo culture for IE language development there. IMO, Usatovo culture would have to do more with simply the development of certain N. Balkan IE groups like Geto-Dacian-Thracian etc.

A big part of the problem is that people don't understand the CWC Horizon's archaeology that well. The Baltic Pontic Studies series had done much to address the realtionship of CWC to the steppes and its earliest characteristics do show a melding of steppe characteristics w/ local TRB components. Migration as part of the development for CWC stemming from the steppes particulalry in its northern, Central, and Eastern variants is still a likely hood. That being said, its the CWC that could have very well indeed played a role in the development of Celtic and Germanics languages and be remedied within the Pontic-Caspian IE homeland theory as such.

The subsequent Bell Beaker culture, which has strong ties to CWC, would have been the time of perhaps a type of Poto-Celtic language or even pre-proto-Celtic.

Prehistorians of the past once suggested that the late Neolithic prehistoric Bell Beaker cultural horizon may correspond with the spread of the pre-Celtic proto -language since the material culture is found nearly everywhere "Celts" are said to be (Britain, Ireland, Iberia parts of Northern central Europe, France, Northern Italy). This of course would resolve the Lepontic languages relationship to the rest of Continental Celtic and also explain why the material culture of the Celt Iberians differs so much from the Halstatt culture, ergo a Bronze age dispersal theory is no longer required. Interestingly enough, certain groups of people were very mobile during the Bell Beaker cultural horizon based on modern strontium isotope analysis. On a more antiquated basis of analysis, the physical type of skeletal remains from certain Bell Beaker sites differed from skeletal remains of preceding archaeological horizons. That one study found continuance however of Maternal aDNA from pre- to actual Bell Beaker era in northern Europe. Needless to say, there is still much research needed to be done here.

On a more sobering note consider this: Do we actually know what language the people of Halstatt culture spoke? The answer is of course no. Our knowledge of ancient "Celtic" comes not from prehistoric Neolithc or Bronze/Iron Austria but rather from a few Celt-Iberian inscriptions, Lepontic (n. Italy), and that's about it. Linguists noted similarity of these ancient inscriptions to Scots, and Irish Gallic, Welsh, and the language of todays Bretons of N. France and this is partly how we get our idea of "Celtic" culture history, the concept of "Our ancestors the Guals" etc.

That being said, I am really not a firm believer in macro-level convergent processes and expect more of migratory aspects with a strong chiefly or elite dominance process here or there.

06-28-2012, 11:56 PM	#21
usaguedriedax Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 596 Senior Member	But someone still had to bring Indo-European languages for them to develop from, unless he is suggesting that all Indo-European languages are actually a sprachbund? One of the biggest problems with explaining the arrival of IE languages to Central and Western Europe relates specifically to the Celtic, Germanic, and Italic families. David Anthony's book argues for a large scale convergence process for the arrival of IE languages from the Pontic Caspian steppe area (he advocates the Pontic Caspian steppe homeland hypo) further west into Europe. Conversely, he argues for a very explicit migration process ultimately out of Bronze age Ukraine for the development of Indo-Iranian languages in Central Asia and then they're arrival into present day Iran and India as an explicit process of elite dominance. Likewise, Tocharian is expressed as a very expicit migration process. Quite honestly, I never understood why the elite dominance process coupled w/ migration could not be applied to Western European IE language groups since there is some archaeological evidence to suggest the arrival of chiefs from Bronze age Ukraine. Of particular interest here is the stone stelae fround in NE Italy c. 3500 BC with stylistic components very similar to what one finds in Ukraine during same time period. Let's compare: Kernosovka, Ukraine, c. 4000 BC Lagundo, Italy c. 3500 BC Trento, Italy c. 3000 BC Reocurring themes are axe deptictions and face of a bearded or mustached man, persumably a chief. Anthony argues for a huge convergence process for Western IE language appearance via the Usatovo culture, and an apparent Yamna culture migration into Hungary followed by a return migration to Ukraine. Should be mentioned here that Anthony doesn't really know the archaeology of Neolithic-Bronze age Central Europe that well. His expertise is really more with Neolithic and Bronze age eastern, and Central Asian archaeology or the Eurasian steppe belt if you will. Hence partly why he assigns a convergence process to Europe further west of Ukraine under guise of Usatovo culture for IE language development there. IMO, Usatovo culture would have to do more with simply the development of certain N. Balkan IE groups like Geto-Dacian-Thracian etc. A big part of the problem is that people don't understand the CWC Horizon's archaeology that well. The Baltic Pontic Studies series had done much to address the realtionship of CWC to the steppes and its earliest characteristics do show a melding of steppe characteristics w/ local TRB components. Migration as part of the development for CWC stemming from the steppes particulalry in its northern, Central, and Eastern variants is still a likely hood. That being said, its the CWC that could have very well indeed played a role in the development of Celtic and Germanics languages and be remedied within the Pontic-Caspian IE homeland theory as such. The subsequent Bell Beaker culture, which has strong ties to CWC, would have been the time of perhaps a type of Poto-Celtic language or even pre-proto-Celtic. Prehistorians of the past once suggested that the late Neolithic prehistoric Bell Beaker cultural horizon may correspond with the spread of the pre-Celtic proto -language since the material culture is found nearly everywhere "Celts" are said to be (Britain, Ireland, Iberia parts of Northern central Europe, France, Northern Italy). This of course would resolve the Lepontic languages relationship to the rest of Continental Celtic and also explain why the material culture of the Celt Iberians differs so much from the Halstatt culture, ergo a Bronze age dispersal theory is no longer required. Interestingly enough, certain groups of people were very mobile during the Bell Beaker cultural horizon based on modern strontium isotope analysis. On a more antiquated basis of analysis, the physical type of skeletal remains from certain Bell Beaker sites differed from skeletal remains of preceding archaeological horizons. That one study found continuance however of Maternal aDNA from pre- to actual Bell Beaker era in northern Europe. Needless to say, there is still much research needed to be done here. On a more sobering note consider this: Do we actually know what language the people of Halstatt culture spoke? The answer is of course no. Our knowledge of ancient "Celtic" comes not from prehistoric Neolithc or Bronze/Iron Austria but rather from a few Celt-Iberian inscriptions, Lepontic (n. Italy), and that's about it. Linguists noted similarity of these ancient inscriptions to Scots, and Irish Gallic, Welsh, and the language of todays Bretons of N. France and this is partly how we get our idea of "Celtic" culture history, the concept of "Our ancestors the Guals" etc. That being said, I am really not a firm believer in macro-level convergent processes and expect more of migratory aspects with a strong chiefly or elite dominance process here or there.
	Quote