Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!news.duq.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!news.mathworks.com!howland.erols.net!netcom.com!petrich
From: petrich@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
Subject: Re: Sanskrit: was: Re: Etruscans [was: Re: The Coming of the Greeks]
Message-ID: <petrichE1B59q.CzH@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <54q9ou$85o_002@dialin.csus.edu> <572tef$g2g@fridge-nf0.shore.net> <5748qq$oqk@halley.pi.net> <574sbv$eeu@fridge-nf0.shore.net>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 05:15:25 GMT
Lines: 59
Sender: petrich@netcom14.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.archaeology:56442 sci.lang:64795

In article <574sbv$eeu@fridge-nf0.shore.net>,
Steve Whittet <whittet@shore.net> wrote:
>In article <5748qq$oqk@halley.pi.net>, mcv@pi.net says...

>>If historical linguistics is speculative then so is archaeology. 
>Yes. The only difference is that archaeology does have some
>artifacts to work with when it looks at prehistoric cultures.

	One difficulty: some artfacts can *easily* be carried around.

>>This is the case for the movements of the Indo-Aryans.  There is no
>>historical record, and archaeology is more or less silent.
>I disagree with that. In the last two decades archaeology has
>done a good job of linking the Indus Valley to Makaan, Dilmun
>and Mesopotamia via the Persian Gulf from the 3rd millenium onward.

	What kind of linkage? Trade? That's *not* something that tends to 
spread languages.

>> one would expect Proto-Greek and Proto-Sanskrit to have sprung
>>from some common source between 2 and 4 millennia before the first
>>textual evidence (1st/2nd millennium BC).

>Why? When is the first evidence that they share a common word?
>My guess would be not earlier than c 800 BC. Projecting a common
>source back to between the 2nd and 4th millenium BC is not necessary
>yet. ...

	That's extrapolation, the way that one can extrapolate back from 
the present-day Romance languages and find a Latin-ish language.

>>The Yamnaya culture of 3500-2500 BC, and its predecessors, the 
>>Sredny Stog (4500-3500) and Dniepr-Donets (5000-4500) make a 
>>rather good fit. 

>No, actually they do not. Look at the ethnic distribution map I 
>sent you. The archaeological evidence shows that the these cultures
>consisted of a cluster of villages within about a 50 mile radius
>of the Dneister delta in the Crimea.

>There is absolutely nothing to associate them with India at any
>time but especially prior to c 2500 BC.

	Spreading from that homeland.

>>It appears from the archaeological evidence that the Sredny Stog 
>>people were the first to domesticate the horse,

>No. All the evidence from archaeology says is that the earliest 
>evidence of the domestication of the horse which we presently have
>comes from this area. ...

	And there are plenty of other places where evidence of domestic 
horses might have been preserved, but was not.
-- 
Loren Petrich				Happiness is a fast Macintosh
petrich@netcom.com			And a fast train
My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html


