Subject: Re: Etruscans [was: Re: The Coming of the Greeks]
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 17 Nov 1996 14:05:21 GMT
In article , petrich@netcom.com says...
>
>In article <56e16h$5d2@fridge-nf0.shore.net>,
>Steve Whittet wrote:
>
>>I think you are missing the point Ben. If hunter-gathering and nomadic
>>pastoralist groups were perfectly proficient in language, language
>>would not evolve. ...
>
> Irrelevant; there is an abundance of evidence of evolution of
>historically-attested languages -- and often evolution in fields that
>show no need for evolution, such as phonology, grammar, basic vocabulary,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>etc.
You don't think language evolves. Are you a creationist?
>
>... Chimpanzees can be
>>taught to form sentences even though their mouths and vocal cords are
>>not suited for speech using sign language. Their sentences often use
>>pivot words just as is the case with children.
>
> However, there's been a lot of controversy over simian linguistic
>abilities; it's not clear that chimps are able to construct coherent
>sentences, even with sign language.
Not since the mid sixties when Washoe began to construct coherent
complex sentences, or aren't you familiar with the work of Allen
and Beatrice Gardiner? I don't know how many times the experiment
has been replicated since then but to label it contraversial is
simply uninformed.
>
>>Perhaps you are confusing speech with language. People have had the
>>ability to speak for about the last 200,000 years and may have had
>>several hundred different vocalizations or calls ranging from
>>grunts and growls to whoops, howls, screeches, screams, barks,
>>whines, chortles, groans, whimpers, oohs, and aahs to whistles.
>
> Very cute. I'm sure that you can make all these sounds on
>command, Mr. Whittet. However, why isn't there *any* human society, even
>in the most isolated parts of the world, which have only those
>aforementioned sounds as their means of communication?
There are a lot of things everyone used to do 200,000 years ago which
most people today don't do. As I have repeated ceaselessly, language
tends to evolve as people do. Are you claiming there are some isolated
human societies who have survived 200,000 years to be with us today
representing lines of development which have not evolved at all in
all that time?
>
>>>It's not for nothing you've been compared to a squid. An apt comparison,
>>>in my experience.
>>Generally it has been my experience that people who have the facts to
>>make a case need not resort to recycling used invective.
>
> Just more proof of how well my comparison to a squid holds up;
>Mr. Whittet (metaphorically) squirts ink to cloud an issue when he sees
>that he's about to lose.
>
>>>I can't imagine why you think a major adaptation like language, with
>>>serious associated neurological apparatus, should have only appeared in
>>>the last 6,000 years, and then spread without a single exception to every
>>>group world-wide in such a short period of time. (Or, presumably, much
>>>more recently, since urbanization in most of the world is a very recent
>>>phenomenon.)
>
>>I am measuring it as an exponential curve. ...
>
> And what is your motivation for an exponential curve, Mr. Whittet?
Let me put aside your interesting selection of the word motivation
as the object of your question and provide you my reason for using
an exponential curve to measure the growth of language.
Language has evolved over a period of 200,000 years. Very slowly
at first but with the rate of change changing at an increasing rate,
in very recent times very rapidly. Generally when you observe a
phenomena where the rate of change changes at an increasing rate
you may describe this as an exponential curve.
When this curve is compared with increases in population, urbanization
or indeed any observable sociological trend you care to name, there
is very close congruence. This is what connects the evolution of
language to the process of civilization and the growth of cities.
>--
>Loren Petrich
steve
Subject: Diffusion of Sanskrit (was Re: The Coming of the Greeks)
From: joe@sfbooks.com (Joe Bernstein)
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 08:56:12 -0600
Posted and e-mailed (though not to the previous poster).
Indology listowner: While one of my main reasons for joining the list is
in fact the hope of finding archaeologists there, I've only just joined,
and hesitate as yet to post this there. My apologies for adding to your
burdens, but please forward this to the list if it's in fact appropriate,
or if you prefer, forward a pointer to let archaeologists know this topic
is under discussion on Usenet newsgroup sci.archaeology.
In article <56lmr8$b1p@reaper.uunet.ca>, sshankar@waterloo.border.com wrote:
>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:
>>
>> Indo-Iranians from Central Asia came into Iran and India somewhere in
>> the 2nd millennium. Given that Indo-Iranian is closely connected to
>> languages in Europe (Greek especially), their ultimate origin must be
>> (Eastern) Europe.
(Just before we get any further... I'm not current on I-E origins stuff,
but hadn't understood it to be *quite* that simple!)
> Do you know of any archeaological evidence for the "movement of
>Indo-Iranians into Iran & India" ??
> Recent studies seem to question the validity of the "IE movement into
> India" theories.
I've yet to see such studies unconnected to places with names like "Vedic
Research Institute"; in particular, I've seen a spectacularly unconvincing
paper by one David Frawley (presumably still findable on the Web, where I
first saw it). (Also, in the distant past, various articles assuming or
claiming to support the chronology appeared in the .) I will appreciate any better references you can
provide. The rest of this post proceeds on what I know, which
unfortunately derives from a lot of careful study years ago, plus rather
less, and less careful, recent reading.
There are lots of disagreements over how *many* Indo-European speakers
arrived in India, in particular (or South Asia more generally: in this
post, I'm awake as to which I use, thanks), or about *how* these speakers
arrived. Some months ago, Moin Ansari and I debated these issues at some
length on this newsgroup, and I'm cc'ing him on this post partly to let
him know the topic's back.
But there is very little doubt that such people *did* arrive in India, and
around the time Mr. Carrasquer Vidal says (though maybe the 3rd millennium
BC is a possibility).
Several lines of evidence converge on this, and there doesn't seem to be a
lot of room left for disagreement. When I last studied the subject in
detail (1986-7), the main arguments that held water were still the
19th-century linguistic and textual ones (e.g., the similarity between
Avestan Persian and Vedic Sanskrit, or the tendency for the older texts to
use further-west place names). While these were good enough to persuade
me the movement happened, I wasn't terribly confident about much more than
that. (Mr. Ansari, by the way, disagrees strenuously with me on the
validity of the other older arguments, but he can make his own case.)
Recent evidence appears to make it much clearer. First of all, Asko
Parpola's belief that the Indus Valley Civilisation's language was a
Dravidian language is now persuading quite a few people who had been
skeptical; I understand he's close to a translation of the seals. (Mr.
Ansari's references are much likelier to be current than mine, here.)
Much the most plausible way to explain the subsequent disappearance of
Dravidian languages from that area is by positing a migration from the
northwest, not one from the southeast.
Second, there's evidence for that migration. See the interim site report
on Harappa, in particular (Meadow 1991 below). In the chapter which John
Lukacs worked on, there is an unequivocal assertion of significant
population changes in the centuries prior to 800 B.C. The people who
worked on this chapter have my respect, and their methods are as carefully
scientific as I can imagine a way to be; I haven't had the opportunity to
read it yet, but I'm inclined (reluctantly, I might add) to assume they're
correct.
In addition (somewhat older argument here, but germane), there's more
general "touchy-feely" evidence of the pottery-styles sort of some sort of
migration southeast. Notable stylistic traits in pottery show this
direction of diffusion. I'm thinking in particular of the appearance of
fine grey wares. It's also worth considering Pirak Damb (Jarrige 1979),
where there are clear Central Asian affinities in the post-Harappan
population's material culture. Some summary of the "grey ware - Sanskrit"
equation may be found in Gaur 1983 (though this has to be read with care,
as Gaur was not entirely free to speak his mind there).
I'm not sure what else goes into the shift in opinion. Ten years ago,
there was a general sense in South Asian archaeology of an opening, a
sense that much of the standing interpretation of that archaeology was
simply wrong and needed revising. One of the things that grew out of that
was, of course, the opening for claims (e.g.) that Sanskrit (or for that
matter the human race) originated in India. But there was also a lot of
work being done trying to replace the flawed conclusions of the past with
better ones. Unfortunately, my brief opportunity to watch that work
happen ended; in the past eight years, I haven't even found a library
where I can read .
I have, however, found a number of supporting references. Ghosh 1989
is a full-blown encyclopaedia of Indian archaeology. This has been
supplemented by a number of books from Dilip Chakrabarti synthesising the
archaeology of specific regions (I'm sure of both Bangladesh and West
Bengal, but there may be more; no references handy, sorry); I believe
there's been similar regional work in Pakistan, which Mr. Ansari can
perhaps confirm or deny.
In addition, a full-blown synthesis of protohistorical and early
historical archaeology has appeared, cited below as Allchin 1995. This
contains two different discussions of the "Aryans", quite at odds with
each other. But the contributors (again trustworthy, George Erdosy and F.
R. Allchin) leave no doubt that the fact of Aryans arriving is settled.
I'm sorry that this is the best I can offer. Mr. Ansari and I were
supposed to go back to the libraries after our last debate ran its course,
revise our respective opera, and come back here in the spring. I believe
he's ready now, but I'm not: shame on me.
All the same. His case for a full-blown "Aryan invasion" with all the
blood and gore that implies is stronger than I then gave it credit for,
though I continue to prefer a model more analogous to that by which
Spanish became the dominant language of Mexico (say), or perhaps less
violent than that. Much of my evidence for this has to do with pottery
sequences and such from sites which I don't believe Mr. Ansari is that
familiar with*, just as much of his "invasion" evidence has to do with
sites I don't know well. But either way, there doesn't seem to be any
room left to deny that Sanskrit came from elsewhere.
While this post is rather less confident than my ones in the prior debate,
by the way, it's got something those generally didn't. I now have my
bibliography on this stuff stored where I post from: so this one has
REFERENCES. These follow.
Joe Bernstein
* Some of what I mean by this: At least as of 1987, I was pretty firmly
convinced: that the dish-and-bowl assemblage which characterises
protohistoric pottery in the region had originated in the Doab, based
partly on Sahi 1978; that the Black-and-Red pottery technique had been
learnt from the south (common sense, see H. Singh 1982); that the first
settlers in UP other than the mysterious Ochre-Coloured Pottery folks were
from the hills south of the Doab (I'm having trouble finding a good
reference for this; try G. R. Sharma in Kenoyer X below, if Sharma has an
article there); and that both rice and iron (Chakrabarti 1977 on the
latter) reached the Doab from Bengal. On top of all this, I was
confident, on the basis of Erdosy 1985 and other sources, that the
urbanisation of the region was more or less independent of, and prior to,
the arrival of the Vedic Aryans. Ultimately, my argument was that they
just didn't matter that much. How much of this I can still sustain
remains to be seen.
Items referenced in this post:
Allchin 1995: THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF EARLY HISTORIC SOUTH ASIA: THE
EMERGENCE OF CITIES AND STATES, by F. R. Allchin, with contributions from
George Erdosy, R. A. E. Coningham, D. K. Chakrabarti, and Bridget
Allchin. (Erdosy has since changed his name to Muhammad Usman Erdosy,
according to the preface.) Cambridge: Cambridge, 1995.
Chakrabarti 1977: "Distribution of iron ores and the archaeological
evidence of early iron in India" by Dilip K. Chakrabarti. JOURNAL OF THE
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL HISTORY OF THE ORIENT 20: 166-84. I am quite aware
that this topic has remained controversial; at the time I wrote my paper,
*this* paper still looked good to me, and I haven't had the opportunity to
catch up or reassess my judgement then. My apologies for lacking full
references to Chakrabarti's books on Bangladesh etc. I've seen them in
the library of Northwestern University, and I'd look them up there now if
this computer would allow that, but at the moment it won't.
Erdosy 1985: "Settlement archaeology of the Kausambi region" by George
(now Muhammad Usman) Erdosy. MAN AND ENVIRONMENT 9: 66-79.
Gaur 1983: EXCAVATIONS AT ATRANJIKHERA, by R. C. Gaur. Delhi: Motilal
Banarsidass, 1983.
Ghosh 1989: AN ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF INDIAN ARCHAEOLOGY, edited by A. Ghosh.
New Delhi: Munshiram Monoharlal, 1989. Two volumes, one with entries on
topics, the other with entries on sites. (I've seen this cited as also
appearing in Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1991, as AN ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF ANCIENT
INDIA, but have not seen this edition.)
Jarrige 1979: FOUILLES DE PIRAK, by Jean-Francois Jarrige, Marielle
Santoni, Jean-Francois Enault, et al. Paris: Diffusion de Boccard, 1979.
Meadow 1991: Meadow, Richard H., ed. 1991. Harappa Excavations 1986-1990:
A Multidisciplinary Approach to Third Millennium Urbanism. Monographs in
World Archaeology No. 3. Prehistory Press. Madison, WI. (Entry from Ben
Diebold)
Sahi 1978: "New light on the life of the Painted Grey Ware people as
revealed from excavations at Jakhera (Dist. Etah)" by M. D. N. Sahi. MAN
AND ENVIRONMENT 2: 101-3.
H. Singh 1982: HISTORY AND ARCHAEOLOGY OF BLACK-AND-RED WARE
(CHALCOLITHIC PERIOD) by H. N. Singh. Delhi: Sundeep Prakashan, 1982.
Additional items for which I have references handy, which seem likely to
be of interest (credit to Ben Diebold and Moin Ansari for these, except
for King 1984, Lal 1984 and Shaffer 1981):
Clark, John E. and William J. Parry 1990 " Craft Specialization and
Cultural Complexity." Research in Economic Anthropology, vol. 12, pp:
289-346. (from Moin Ansari. I haven't yet looked for this, but the title
certainly relates to the topics of current discussions of Harappan civ)
Michael Jansen `Forgotten Cities of the Indus' 1993 or 1994 - (from
Moin Ansari; apparently a good introductory book; the Jansens have been
central to recent work systematically re-examining the records of the
Mohenjo-daro digs)
Old Problems and New Perspectives in the Archaeology of South Asia
edited by J.M.Kenoyer, Wisconsin Archaeological Reports Vol 2, 1989. [from
conference in 89] (from Moin Ansari) Nope, the conference was in 1986 or
1987, I was there. Lots of good stuff here. If there's an article by G.
R. Sharma or R. C. Gaur there, check it for material on the earliest
settlers of the Doab.
Kenoyer, Jonathan Mark. 1991a. "The Indus Valley Tradition of Pakistan
and Western India." Journal of World Prehistory. 5:4:331-385. (from Ben
Diebold: I've skimmed it; a good solid basic article on the Harappan civ;
at first glance not much about Aryans)
King 1984: "Some archaeological problems regarding Gangetic cultures in
early historical India" by Anna King. In STUDIES IN THE ARCHAEOLOGY AND
PALAEOANTHROPOLOGY OF SOUTH ASIA, ed. Kenneth A. R. Kennedy and Gregory L.
Possehl, pp. 109-19. New Delhi: Oxford & IBH, 1984. Forcefully presents
the case against invasions during the first millennium BC in the Doab and
adjacent regions.
Lal 1984: SETTLEMENT HISTORY AND RISE OF CIVILIZATION IN GANGA-YAMUNA
DOAB: FROM 1500 B. C. - 300 A. D. by Makkhan Lal. Delhi: B. R., 1984.
Though strongly bound by the old consensus, this is still a superb
synthesis of knowledge on the subject as of its date, and includes the
first substantial settlement survey done in north India (I believe M.
Rafique Mughal's work in the Cholistan area of Pakistan preceded, but am
not that familiar with that).
Lukacs, John R. 1992. "Dental Paleopathology and Agricultural
Intensification in South Asia: New Evidence From Bronze Age Harappa."
American Journal of Physical Anthropology 87:133-150. (from Ben Diebold)
Shaffer 1981: "The protohistoric period in the Eastern Punjab: a
preliminary assessment" by Jim G. Shaffer. In A. H. Dani, ed., INDUS
CIVILISATION: NEW PERSPECTIVES, pages 65-102. Islamabad: Centre for the
Study of the Civilization of Central Asia, Quaid-i-Azam University, 1981.
The only thing I've read which synthesises the relevant period in any of
the Punjab, though one hopes it's now fully superseded by Allchin 1995.
--
Joe Bernstein, free-lance writer and bookstore worker joe@sfbooks.com
speaking for myself and nobody else http://www.tezcat.com/~josephb/
Subject: Re: earliest human arrival in Americas
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 17 Nov 1996 15:31:26 GMT
In article <56js9j$aa9@stc06.ctd.ornl.gov>, jonathan says...
>
>mankin@bcf.usc.edu (Eric Mankin) wrote:
>>In article <56il85$3gk@fridge-nf0.shore.net>, whittet@shore.net (Steve
>>Whittet) wrote:
>>
>>* 1.) Mans arrival in North America was about 12,000 years BP
>>* Though earlier dates were claimed some decades back, none of the
>>* 30 some odd early claims in the Americas have remained uncontroversial.
>>
>>My understanding is that this isn't quite correct. I think there
>>are authenticated remains in Alaska earlier than this -- my understanding
>>is that humans lived in Alaska for some time, but were unable to proceed
>>until the retreat of the ice sheet slightly more than 12000 Y BP opened
>>an ice-free corridor allowing passage south.
>> Eric Mankin
>
> From discussions I've seen in the literature, the various sites that turn
up
>in Alaska may not actually be any older than 12,500 y.a. (approximately
>contemporaneous with Clovis); I think the carbon dating
evidence/stratigraphy
>is still somewhat controversial, but that hardly anyone thinks that there
were
>humans at those sites before 15,000 y.a.
> Any latest opinions on those Alaskan sites?
> Jonathan Adams
>
In "The Colonization of Beringa and the Peopling of the New World"
Science, Vol 259, 1 January 1993, John F Hoffecker, W Roger Powers
Ted Goebel begins by saying
"(1.) Although the presence of a population in North and South America at the
close of the Pleistocene roughly 11,000 years before present (year BP)
(2.) has been thouroughly documented in the archaeological record,
prehistorians continue to debate the question of earlier settlement."
The article then proceedes to document "recent finds in Alaska of
an industry older than 11,000 years BP that exhibits many similarities
to early sites in mid latitude North and South America"
"The land bridge probably reached its maximum extent between 20,000
and 18,000 years BP"
"Until recently it was believed that a rapid rise in sea level after
the Last Glacial Maximum cold peak reduced the land bridge to a narrow
isthmus at Anadyr strait as early as 15,500 yr BP, which was flooded by
14,400 yrs BP.
"New studies of global sea level since 17,000 BP have underlined the
need for sifgnificant revision of the previously accepted chronology."
"A land connection between Northeast Siberia and Alaska appears
to have survived as late as 11,00 or 10,000 yr BP"
"Retreating ice masses in western Canada yeilded access from
Beringa to the North American Plains by at least 14,000 years BP.
"The poverty of large mammalian prey inhibited human colonization
of Beringa until the spread of Mesic shrub tundra vegitation recorded
in the birch zone (after 14,000 yr BP) (30)"
The stratigraphic profiles from each site illustrated in fig 2 p 48
show that the oldests artifact horizons are the Nenarna or pre
microblade complexes and after that the Denali Complex.
Dry Creek, 11,120 +/- 85 yrs BP, Nenarna
Panquine Creek, 10,100 +/-130 yrs BP Denali
Walker Road , 11,820 +/-200 yrs BP Nenarna
Walker Road , 11,300 +/-120 yrs BP Nenarna
Walker Road , 11,170 +/-180 yrs BP Nenarna
Walker Road , 11,010 +/-230 yrs BP Nenarna
Owl Ridge, 11,340 +/- 150 yrs BP Nenarna?
Broken Mammoth, 11,770 +/- 220 yrs BP, Nenarna
Broken Mammoth, 11,770 +/- 210 yrs BP, Nenarna
Broken Mammoth, 11,510 +/- 120 yrs BP, Nenarna
Broken Mammoth, 11,280 +/- 190 yrs BP, Nenarna
Broken Mammoth, 11,040 +/- 260 yrs BP, Nenarna
Healy Lake, 10,133 +/- 174 yrs BP, Nenarna?
Chugwater, 9460 +/- 130 yrs BP Nenarna
Central Kamchatka - Ushki I: 14,300 13,600 years BP
"There is a amall but growing body of negative evidence
against Beringian colonization before 12,000 years BP."
"Clovis occupations tend to cluster between 11,200 and 10,900
years BP and not as previously thought between 11,500 and 11,000
years BP"
"Paleo Indians in Beringa: Evidence from Artic Alaska"
Science Vol 263 4 Febuary 1994, Michael L Kunz and Richard E Rearnier
Excavations at the Mesa site place humans at the site between
9,730 and 11,660 years BP with projectile points.
"Routes: Alternate Migration Corridors for Early Man in North America"
K R Fladmark, American Antiquity Vol 44 Nov 1 1979
Studies of maritime occupation of the Queen Charlottes 9,000-10,000 BP.
Examines the idea of coasting the Northern pacific Island Chains as
opposed to entering the Americas through an ice free corridor and
points out that there are no early sites in said ice free corridor.
Sitka - An interdisciplinary on line discussion group focused
on Alaska and particularly on Fladmarks refugia which has recently
found human remains in the 9,000 BP range.
9,000 BP is c 7,000 BC
Now just to really stir thing up, Meadowcroft Rock Shelter,
a number of East Coast Maritime Moorhead or Red Paint sites
and other occupations from Maine to Florida are coming up in
the same range suggesting Alaska was not the only possible
route to the New World.
steve
