Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 21:26:40 -0600 (CST) From: (ANE Digest) To: ane-digest@asmar.uchicago.edu Subject: ANE Digest V1999 #348 Sender: Precedence: bulk ANE Digest Sunday, December 12 1999 Volume 1999 : Number 348 Re: ane Amarna letters ane Address? Re: ane query/ spread of indo-european Re: ane query/ spread of indo-european Re: ane query/ spread of indo-european Re: ane "Conquest" only of states? ane spread of Indo-European Re: ane query/ spread of indo-european ane query/ spread of indo-european Re: ane "Conquest" only of states? ane spread of Indo-European Re: ane On the trade road/Ceasaria vs Jerusalem Re: ane Leibniz, Ludolf, Schlzer, and Semitics Re: ane query/ spread of indo-european Re: ane "Conquest" only of states? Re: ane spread of Indo-European Re: ane query/ spread of indo-european Re: ane "Conquest" only of states? Re: ane query/ spread of indo-european Re: ane "Conquest" only of states? ane The Ancient World on Television (North America) Re: ane spread of Indo-European Re: ane query/ spread of indo-european Re: ane "Conquest" only of states? ane Inquiries by Peter T. Daniels ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 09:22:58 GMT From: "P. James Cowie" Subject: Re: ane Amarna letters Dear Rick (and others interested in the Amarna period), One very convenient and readable introduction to the Hittite world through their texts, as a study parallel to Moran's compilation of the Amarna texts, would have to be Garry Backman's Hittite Diplomatic Texts, vol. 7 in the SBL Writings from the Ancient World Series. Happy hunting, P. James Cowie PhD Candidate, Dept of Egyptology and Ancient History, Macquarie Univeristy, Sydney, Australia PO Box 16700, London, WC2N 6NH, UK Beth Shean Valley Archaeological Project (visit http://www.rehov.org) Yafo Excavations >From: "Rick and Sandy Baude" >Reply-To: "Rick and Sandy Baude" >To: >Subject: ane Amarna letters >Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 12:13:28 -0800 > >I've been reading Moran's the Amarna Letters for sometime. Are there any >books that document the Mitannian, Assyrian, or Hittites of the times? >Thanks >Rick ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 12:12:35 +0200 From: Mikey Subject: ane Address? Hi, Can someone please provide me with the address of Egyptologist Dr Toby Wilkinson at the University of Cambridge? Cheers, Michael Brass Archaeology BA (Hons): University of Cape Town History (BA): U.C.T. Member: The Egyptian Society of South Africa The Archaeological Society of South Africa A+ Certified Technician ICQ: 44563988 - ------------------------ CO-AUTHOR OF: "ANCIENT EGYPT AND WORLD PREHISTORY" ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 07:44:20 -0400 From: "Peter T. Daniels" Subject: Re: ane query/ spread of indo-european laura@rconnect.com wrote: > > On 11 Dec 99, at 16:55, chris.cleutjens wrote: > > Settlements are always the result > of conquest. > > But such settlements are made by an intrusive > people, and not by an intrusive language. Language > replacement is only sometimes a matter of conquest; > if they slaughter all the natives, then you can say > both conquerer and the conquering language have > won. > > The usual pattern, however, is one of bilingualism. > Sometimes the language of the conquerors disappears > (as with Norman French vis-a-vis English). Other > times, it finally establishes itself (Greek vs. > Pelasgian). > > The pattern is more of elite-dominence. If you want > to get ahead in the world, you learn your master's > language. To drag this kicking and screaming back to the ANE, here's a quote from Richard Parkinson, *Cracking Codes* (catalog of the Rosetta Stone bicentenary at the BM that I'm reviewing for *Written Language and Literacy*): "Coptic was developed in a thoroughly bilingual and educated setting, and many Greek words were imported into the language as well as the alphabetic letters ... "Greek retained its importance in economic and official matters for several centuries after the appearance of Coptic [NB for Parkinson, Coptic is primarily a writing system and not a demarcated stage of the Egyptian language]. Contrary to what is often assumed, the two languages were not divided between poor country dwellers speaking Coptic and sophisticated town dwellers writing in Greek. ... Such factors [reasons for preservation of papyri] produce the misleading impression that it was only after the Arab conquest of Egypt in AC 639-41 that Coptic began to replace Greek as a language of administrative affairs. A huge number of Arabic papyri survive from Egypt for the first few centuries after the Muslim conquest. Arab dominance over the native Egyptian population eventually caused Coptic to die out as a spoken language, probably by the fifteenth century." (102f.) The Arab-Conquest-wiping-out-Egyptian has already been adduced more than once of a conquest causing a language change -- which managed to overlook nearly a millennium of Greek-Egyptian bilingualism: the *Greek* conquest, let alone the Persian before it, of Egypt didn't produce language replacement, and I find it hard to claim it was "conquest" that caused a language shift that took a millennium to eventuate. I thought of another example, too, back in beloved Europe: there were conquering Goths all over the place, presumably speaking Germanic languages, but I don't see much Germanic influence on the languages of, for instance, Iberia? Which reminds me, also, that not many Iberian locals ended up speaking Arabic, despite quite a long period of Arab domination? - -- Peter T. Daniels grammatim@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 07:53:17 -0400 From: "Peter T. Daniels" Subject: Re: ane query/ spread of indo-european BStetzer@aol.com wrote: > << France didn't "conquer" Louisiana from > anyone; they gradually explored and permeated the area. > >> > > Admittedly this has nothing to do with the ANCIENT NEAR EAST, except maybe in > the larger sense of population movements. However, since you did broach the > subject sometime ago (see previous letters for reference to [paraphrase] "i > can't think of many examples of language spreading by conquest....etc."), I > feel compelled to reply. France didn't conquer Louisiana from anyone? I > know a few Caddoan (Native American) groups that might disagree with that > point of view. I'm not sure what definition of conquest we're using here. > Is it only conquest if one nation-state is fighting another nation-state? > Does the forcible, violent subjugation (not to say extermination) of a people > not count as conquest? Maybe I need to read Howard Zinn (*People's History of the US*), but I'm not aware of French battles with Caddoans (nor, for that matter, that the French language replaced Caddoan or other languages in Louisiana Territory). There were the occasional French trapper, and the major settlements at St. Louis and New Orleans. I don't know whether those two replaced previous ones -- I expect the Natives were cleverer than to build anything significant or permanent on the flood plains (doesn't anyone else remember flying into St. Louis for the 1979 AOS, which was shortly after one of the Missouri's slightly higher than average floods, and seeing water in lots of places where it didn't appear on the maps?; note Cahokia on high ground across the river nearby). Does the Dutch settlement of New York count as a conquest? If it does, then the word "conquest" has been entirely bleached of any useful meaning. The British took over -- conquered -- New Amsterdam in 1664 (after just 40 years of Dutch ownership). Dutch was still spoken natively in New York in the early 19th century. - -- Peter T. Daniels grammatim@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 07:56:56 -0400 From: "Peter T. Daniels" Subject: Re: ane query/ spread of indo-european chris.cleutjens wrote: > Language is therefor the most precious evidence of the origin and history of > a people. I don't think it would be out of place to inquire about Mr. Cleutjens's qualifications to comment on the matters discussed on ANE List? He's already insulted religion and religious people, and in this statement he insults (presumably unwittingly) historians and linguists. - -- Peter T. Daniels grammatim@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 08:03:45 -0400 From: "Peter T. Daniels" Subject: Re: ane "Conquest" only of states? ECOLING@aol.com wrote: > > I think B. Stetzer has hit the nail on the head. > In a message dated 12/11/99 8:08:15 PM, BStetzer@aol.com writes: > > >France didn't conquer Louisiana from anyone? > >I know a few Caddoan (Native American) groups that might disagree with that > >point of view. I'm not sure what definition of conquest we're using here. > >Is it only conquest if one nation-state is fighting another nation-state? > >Does the forcible, violent subjugation (not to say extermination) of a > >people not count as conquest? > > It struck me as odd use of English to say that there was no "Conquest" > of North America, only of Meso and South America > (i.e. of Aztecs and of Incas). > And I had the same reaction, this seems to reveal that we apply the > word "conquest" only when there is some highly organized > state opposing it. So perhaps it is merely a mark of the fact that > the Caddoans, the Natchez, the Iroquoians are not much on the mental > horizon that it does not normally occur to us to refer to the "conquest" > of their societies. The 10th Collegiate refers to "force of arms" and "gain mastery." Since the Native Americans have never been legally incorporated into the US, the latter doesn't apply; and I've been asking for examples of the former. At best, very few examples of US dominance over Native peoples were accomplished by "force of arms" -- and perhaps the example of General Custer suggests that the US was generally better off not to try too often. BTW, however the domination was accomplished, even the most savage attempts thereafter to deliberately exterminate Native languages failed more often than they succeeded, and now that such policies have de jure been abandoned, some belated attempts at language rescue are succeeding. - -- Peter T. Daniels grammatim@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 15:04:14 +0100 From: "Bjarte Kaldhol" Subject: ane spread of Indo-European Dear listmembers, Robert Drews wrote: "To get this thread back toward the Near East, as Peter would like to do, let me ask what mechanism he does suspect in the arrival of Indo-European (and specifically Indo-Aryan) speakers in India and in Mitanni? In my regrettably titled "Coming of the Greeks" in 1988 I argued that the mechanism in both those instances, as well as in Greece, was chariot warfare. I'm fully aware that my argument has not been generally accepted, but would also point out that neither has it been refuted." I do not believe there was ever an "arrival of Indo-European speakers" in Mittani (sic) if by this is meant a conquest or an invasion. The Mittani kings were Hurrians, spoke Hurrian and had Hurrian names before they became kings, when, for some unknown and very enigmatic reason some of them took throne names which in some instances perhaps may have been Indo-Iranian (although these names are not attested in Indian or Iranian sources). The kings of Arrapkha and Nuzi, as well as their familiy members, had Hurrian names, however. The equid-drawn chariot was not introduced into Mesopotamia by "arriving" Indo-Iranians, as is generally believed; it had been used there for centuries before the supposed "arrival" of Indo-Iranian speakers. Chariots are known from Tell Beydar as early as the middle of the third millennium and from Tell Brak somewhat later. >From "Historical Commentary" in EXCAVATIONS AT TELL BRAK, Vol. 1, I would like to quote the following (p. 145-46): "One of the least understood facets of Mitanni society is the fact that among the new Hurrian immigrants (as opposed to the native, resident Hurrians; my comment) were groups with an Indo-Iranian background, presumably speakers of a dialect of this easternmost branch of Indo-European. The linguistic evidence is minimal to say the least..." (I would like to underline the words presumably and minimal!) "A combination of equestrian skill, the use of the light two-wheeled chariot (with spoked wheels) and the composite bow are widely thought to have contributed to Mitanni military success. Recent research, however, has emphasized the existence of fast, single-person, equid-drawn two-wheelers among the numerous chariot models of Akkadian Brak, as well as the earlier introduction of the horse (cf. Moorey 1986; Littauer & Crouwel 1996). Indeed, there is now evidence for the use of a bit by the late third millennium (Clutton-Brock & Davies 1993, 214-14; Littauer & Crouwel 1996, 937). Thus recent evidence would seem to invalidate the idea of a Mitanni 'introduction' of the light chariot and the domestic horse to draw it. What seems to have been new among the Mitanni was a military elite of 'chariot warriers'..." So, there is no evidence at all for the presence of Indo-Iranians among the Mittani Hurrians. What we have, is a theory of "groups with an Indo-Iranian background". These groups may have been Hurrians who had come into contact with Indo-Iranians elsewhere, not necessarily in the Hurrian heartland. The horse-trainer Kikkuli, who taught hippology to the Hittites, had a Hurrian name, and only a very few of the expressions he used, were Indo-Iranian: aika-wartanna (Sanscrit eka- and vart-) tera-wartann/terurtanna panza-wartanna $atta-wartanna (Middle Indian satta- (?) from Sanscrit sapta- !) na-wartanna (nava-) wa$anna a$$u$$anni (probably a combination of ashva- and Hurrian -$$e plus Hurrian - -Vnni) As far as I can see, this Hurrian horse-trainer in the land of Hatti from the fourteenth century represents no evidence for an Indo-Iranian arrival (invasion) in the Mittani heartland at the time of the Mittani expansion. Best wishes, Bjarte Kaldhol ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 16:15:27 GMT From: mcv@wxs.nl (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal) Subject: Re: ane query/ spread of indo-european "Peter T. Daniels" wrote: >The Arab-Conquest-wiping-out-Egyptian has already been adduced more than >once of a conquest causing a language change -- which managed to >overlook nearly a millennium of Greek-Egyptian bilingualism: the *Greek* >conquest, let alone the Persian before it, of Egypt didn't produce >language replacement, and I find it hard to claim it was "conquest" that >caused a language shift that took a millennium to eventuate. But it wouldn't have happened if the Arabs had never conquered Egypt. >I thought of another example, too, back in beloved Europe: there were >conquering Goths all over the place, presumably speaking Germanic >languages, but I don't see much Germanic influence on the languages of, >for instance, Iberia? Which reminds me, also, that not many Iberian >locals ended up speaking Arabic, despite quite a long period of Arab >domination? Gothic left few traces (the only one I can think of right now is Spa. "bagpipes", from Gothic "goat"), because there was little advantage in the local population learning Gothic: the administrative language was always Latin, and speaking Gothic (or adopting Arianism) didn't turn a Spaniard into a Goth. Elite dominance was too elite in this case. Arabic in Iberia is a different matter. Castilian, Portuguese and Catalan have a good number of Arabic loanwords, and in Andalusia and the Levant, Arabic was widely adopted by the indigenous population (although enclaves of Romance speaking and Christian "mozárabes" remained). When these territories were "reconquered" by the Christian kingdoms of Catilla-León, Portugal or Aragón, the situation was reversed (due in part to evictions and resettlements), but always in favour of the Northern Romance dialects. Mozarabic (Southern Iberian Romance) did not survive the Reconquista. The question of how language replacement operates is a complex and interesting one. Renfrew (in chapter 6 of "Archaeology and Language") gives an overview which covers the main modes, but I think not all of them. He first establishes three models of language change: (1) initial colonization (e.g. Polynesian into the previously uninhabited Pacific islands), (2) language replacement, (3) change by internal development (Modern Greek is not the same as Mycenaean Greek). Then he describes some processes leading to (2), language replacement. (I) "demography/subsitence": the newcomers (because of more advanced subsistence technology) simply outnumber the locals. E.g. early Neolithic farming can sustain population densities 5000% larger than hunting and gathering. Whether the local hunter-gatherers are conquered, killed, allowed to join in, or are simply left alone by the incoming farmers has no effect at all on the eventual linguistic outcome. A detailed sub-model is that of the "wave of advance" (which Renfrew adopts for the spread of Indo-European languages across the European continent). It is a statistical "invisible hand" process which explains the spread of a population across a geographical area, without anybody ever setting out to do so. Renfrew's process (II) is "elite dominance". A relatively small group of people imposes itself militarily on the local population and in the end its language is taken over by the locals. This is independent of whether we're dealing with a "conquest" in the sense of one _state_ conquering another, or whether the levels of political organization are less advanced on one or both of the sides. As we know, this model doesn't always "work" (Goths in Spain), nor does it always have an immediate effect (Arabs in Egypt). A lot of it depends on the social and linguistic attitudes of both conquerors and conquered. If the model has a "demography/subsistence" element in it (as in the case of North America), langauge replacement is the most likely outcome (as it is in the mode of conquest of "kill the men and rape the women", known from e.g. Roman and Hebrew traditional sources). Model (III) is "system collapse": a (usually advanced) society collapses due to internal factors (Indus Valley, Maya Lowlands), and is infiltrated by populations ("barbarians") which had been living on the fringe of the area. Next, Renfrew discusses the role of nomad pastoralists (whose mode of subsistence is demographically inferior to that of agriculturalists, but who can play a role in "elite dominance" and "system collapse" models). Finally, Renfrew briefly dicusses other models like "constrained population movement" ("conquest" by "refugees"), "sedentary/mobile shift" (climate causes the boundary between steppe and farmland to shift, an important factor in the histories of Ukraine, Hungary or Northern China) and "donor/recipient population systems". The example given by Renfrew is relevant to the ANE, so let me quote it in full: "... there is a case for seeing the development of the Semitic languages in the Near East, over a long period of time, as the result of such a process. The donor zone in this case would be, speaking approximately, the Arabian peninsula, and the recipient one, Mesopotamia. It can certainly be argued that from the third millennium BC onwards, there were frequent and sometimes steady influxes of Semitic-speaking groups into Mesopotamia, who settled there and ultimately came to outnumber the Sumerian-speaking population. In such circumstances, the language of the majority may well become dominant during a period of instability, as indeed occurred with the emergence to power of Sargon of Agade". I don't think the Akkadian population came from the Arabic peninsula, nor that they were necessarily later arrivals than the Sumerians. But the death of the Sumerian language is indeed a very interesting case, as it doesn't seem to obviously fit any of the models described by Renfrew. It wasn't exclusively elite dominance: the Sargonic conquest may have been a factor, but Sumerian was finally displaced by Semitic not in Sargon's time, but probably in Ur III times, when the Sumerians were politically dominant. It wasn't system collapse, although there was some of that too (the Guti and Elamites). Were there demographic/ economic factors (less salinization in the North)? There certainly was bilingualism for an extended period of time: were there any other social factors? ======================= Miguel Carrasquer Vidal mcv@wxs.nl ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 14:07:22 EST From: BStetzer@aol.com Subject: ane query/ spread of indo-european - --part1_0.886290f8.25854c6a_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit - --part1_0.886290f8.25854c6a_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-path: BStetzer@aol.com From: BStetzer@aol.com Full-name: BStetzer Message-ID: <0.1d8211dd.25854c1c@aol.com> Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 14:06:04 EST Subject: Re: ane query/ spread of indo-european To: grammatim@worldnet.att.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 45 In a message dated 12/12/1999 6:56:32 AM Central Standard Time, grammatim@worldnet.att.net writes: << I expect the Natives were cleverer than to build anything significant or permanent on the flood plains (doesn't anyone else remember flying into St. Louis for the 1979 AOS, which was shortly after one of the Missouri's slightly higher than average floods, and seeing water in lots of places where it didn't appear on the maps?; note Cahokia on high ground across the river nearby). >> Actually, although there is some evidence in the Woodland period of dual settlements, i.e. upland/lowland settlements that were probably used at different times of the year, the general pattern of settlement during the Mississippian Period in Lower Mississippi Valley is that of settlement directly along the major , and often minor, waterways. Although many of the mound centers have been destroyed (I refer you to the rapid destruction of the St Louis mound centers just as an example) some have survived, and those archaeological sites that we find today are often directly adjacent to rivers, or the former channels of rivers which have since changed course. Just a few examples would include Chucalissa (along the former bluffs of the Mississippi), Parkin (along the St. Francis), and the aforementioned mounds at St. Louis. If you drive through rural Arkansas or Mississippi, you will often see farm houses and barns built atop mounds specifically to keep them dry when the rivers flood. More often than not, those mounds are Native American. Bryan A. Stetzer University of Memphis - --part1_0.886290f8.25854c6a_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 14:25:16 EST From: BStetzer@aol.com Subject: Re: ane "Conquest" only of states? In a message dated 12/12/1999 7:07:00 AM Central Standard Time, grammatim@worldnet.att.net writes: << The 10th Collegiate refers to "force of arms" and "gain mastery." Since the Native Americans have never been legally incorporated into the US, the latter doesn't apply; and I've been asking for examples of the former. At best, very few examples of US dominance over Native peoples were accomplished by "force of arms" -- and perhaps the example of General Custer suggests that the US was generally better off not to try too often. >> When did this narrow specifically to the US? I thought we were discussing European conquest in the New World. If that is the case, i refer you to the accounts of LaSalle, de Soto, Pizarro, etc. The eraly European explorers of the New World certainly did not appear with flowers in their hands and love in their hearts for the indigenous populations. There is no doubt that European domination of Native American groups was accomplished by force of arms. Did the Cherokee and other southeastern/Muskogean groups take cheerfully and willingly to the Trail of Tears? This was not the first, or last, forced removal of large groups of Native Americans from there lands, although it is probably the best known. Admittedly, there were few pitched battles, since Native American groups were organized, and viewed warfare, differently from Europeans. More often, European expansion was done in the face of running skirmishes and raids by natives, which was the way they conducted warfare. Who won those? To further simplify the question, who is on that land now? That appears to be force of arms. As for Custer, his defeat was more a matter of arrogance and tactical blunder than evidence of native military might. In the overall scheme of US western expansion, it was a fluke, which is why it is so well remembered today. Certainly, this event did not stop US military action against native groups. Just because native groups have not been "legally incorporated" into the United States, this does not indicate a lack of "mastery" by the US government. Once again, I submit that they did not go down that Trail willingly and cheerfully. They were pushed. As always, Bryan A. Stetzer University of Memphis ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 14:26:42 -0600 From: Robert Drews Subject: ane spread of Indo-European Bjarte Kaldhol: You wrote, >The equid-drawn chariot was not introduced into Mesopotamia by "arriving" Indo-Iranians, as is generally believed; it had been used there for centuries before the supposed "arrival" of Indo-Iranian speakers. Chariots are known from Tell Beydar as early as the middle of the third millennium and from Tell Brak somewhat later.< I know about the Tell Brak teams, but the Tell Beydar chariots are a surprise for me, and I am sceptical. By "chariot" I mean a light, spoke-wheeled vehicle that can be drawn at the gallop by two horses. The earliest evidence that I have seen for spoke-wheeled vehicles comes from graves at Sintashta, in the upper Tobol valley east of the Urals, and from Krivoe Ozero, still furthern north. The evidence here are not chariots themselves but the impressions left in the soil by spoked wheels, and also "in corpore" evidence such as cheek-pieces and bits, and skeletal remains of horses. The calibrated dates for these burials average to 2026 BC. If there is evidence for light, spoke-wheeled chariots at Tell Beydar half a millennium earlier than these, please let me know where it's published. Peter Daniels: Marija Gimbutas' scenario for the dispersion of the Indo-European languages had them fanning out from southern Russia and Ukraine in several waves, the first of which set out in the fifth millennium BC, and the last in the early third. Even the last of her Kurganite waves was a millennium earlier than any chariot known in her time. And of course there is a big difference between chariots and chariot warfare. Chariots were important for status, prestige, recreation and racing for well over 2500 years (into the Byzantine period). Chariot warfare - in which chariots established the battle - seems to have commenced about 1700 BC and lasted about five hundred years. After the Bronze Age chariots were of ancillary importance in battle, for pursuit and for supporting infantry formations. The Indo-Hittite thesis? At our "Greater Anatolia" colloquium there will be linguists (Finkelberg, Lehrman, Melchert, Darden, Ivanov) who can clarify it much better than I can, but let me give a crude summary. The traditional "Indo-European" thesis, opposed to the Indo-Hittite thesis, is that Anatolian is a filial branch of PIE, cognate with Aryan, Greek, Keltic, Italic, Germanic and the rest. In contrast, the Indo-Hittite thesis holds that Proto-Anatolian (from which the Anatolian languages Hittite, Luwian, Lydian, etc. are descended)is related to Proto-Indo-European in a fraternal (sorornal?) rather than a filial way. Proto-Anatolian and Proto-Indo-European, in other words, are both descended from a still earlier hypothetical language, for which the term "Indo-Hittite" has been used since Sturtevant coined it. How PIE and PA came to be separated is variously conjectured, and recently the "Black Sea Flood" has begun to figure in that discussion. Come to the colloquium and help us sort it all out. Sorry it had to be March 17-19, the week after the American Oriental Society meets, but in steering around three conferences and three academic schedules this is the best I could come up with. Robert Drews Department of Classical Studies Vanderbilt University Nashville, TN 37235 phone: (615) 343-4115 fax: (615) 343:7261 robert.drews@vanderbilt.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 08:04:40 +1100 From: "George Athas" Subject: Re: ane On the trade road/Ceasaria vs Jerusalem > These two questions relate specifically to the stories about the Alexandrian > librarian travelling to Jerusalem. > _____________________________________________________________ > > On the Trade Road (1st century) > > Is it all right to look at Jerusalem as a bustling cosmopolitan city on the > Roman trade roads. I read somewhere that the good quality Roman roads which > the "conquerors" built (though the mid east does not speak Latin) really > brought a lot of business and people through Jerusalem. What about pilgrims > and tourists? > > ___________________________________________________________ > > Ceasaria vs Jerusalem > > Herod built Ceasaria as a ?trading city? and dedicated the temple/shrine (in > fact the whole city, hense the name) to Ceasar. At the same time he was > rebuilding the Temple in Jerusalem. Could someone compare the two cities > Ceasaria and Jerusalem. > > Paul Bourgeois Jerusalem is not on the most convenient of trade routes. In the Iron Age and earlier, the trade which flowed through Jerusalem was essentially oriented on a north-south axis - ie, from Egypt and Arabia to Syria and Mesopotamia. In the Roman Era, the trade gained more of an east-west axis - ie, from the Dead Sea out through the Mediterranean - though it certainly didn't negate the north-south axis. Caesarea Maritima was located on a more 'natural' trade route on the Coastal Plain. However, since Jerusalem was such an important city in terms of religious worth, it was a hub of human activity. As such, commodities were always drawn to it. Caesarea was built by Herod to solve the problem of the shallow coast line of Palestine and the lack of natural harbours. By creating a huge artificial harbour (surely a wonder of the world in its day - so much so that the harbour itself was deified), Herod created a trading centre on the coast of Palestine which would attract ships coming from Egypt and Europe to its shores rather than to the deep sea ports in Phoenicia (or "Syria"). This undoubtedly put a lot of wealth into the pockets of entrepreneurs in Palestine, as well as into Herod's own coffers. In fact, it would have been one of the ways Herod bankrolled the Temple Reconstruction. Caesarea was certainly a larger trading centre than Jerusalem, but Jerusalem was not a tiny market either. Caesarea was a sort of New York City with lots of economic activity with branches to all parts of the (known) world happening there. Jerusalem was more like a Washington D.C. with more social importance. Although the modern parallel isn't the best, its helps to picture what it was like. Best regards, George Athas Dept of Semitic Studies, University of Sydney ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Tel Dan Inscription Website http://members.xoom.com/gathas/teldan.htm ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: < gathas@ mail.usyd.edu.au > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 23:01:32 +0100 From: "Dr. Stefan Weninger" Subject: Re: ane Leibniz, Ludolf, Schlzer, and Semitics Dear Mr. Baasten, thank you for clearing that matter, and sincerest apologies for the confusion I caused with my uncritical quote of Elwolde. I aggree with A. Naccache in that you should publish your findings in a paper. Sincerely, Stefan Weninger M.F.J. Baasten wrote: > > Dear ANE list members > > In the following, I shall endeavour to provide some reliable > information and clear up some misunderstandings. Let me first > tell the *real* story, so that we do not get lost in the > details. > I am grateful to Han F. Vermeulen (a Leiden anthropologist > specialized in the emergence of ethnology in Europe) for his > useful comments, and for a copy of his _Taal-, land- en > volkenkunde in de achttiende eeuw_. Oosters Genootschap in > Nederland 23 (Leiden 1996). > > (1) > As far as we know, the first scholar to connect a certain > group of closely related languages with the descendants of > Noah's son Sem was Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) in > his essay "Brevis designatio meditationum de Originibus > Gentium, ductis potissimum ex indicio linguarum", published in > the journal _Miscellanea Berolinensia ad Incrementum > Scientiarum, ex scriptis Societati Regi Scientiarum > exhibitis edita_ 1 (1710) pp. 1-16. The essay is signed > "G.G.L.", which stands for G[odefridi] G[uilielmi] > L[eibnitii]. On p. 4 he writes (I'm quoting from the original, > interpunction copied faithfully and without typing errors; > diacritics between <>; _italics_): > > "Linguas ex antiqua illa latissim fusa derivatas, in > binas species non mal dividemus, _Japeticas_, ut ita > loquar, & _Aramas_: Japetic Septentrionem implevere, > Arame meridiem; totam vero Europam nostram Septentrioni > computo. Quod si Septentrionales ad _Japhetum_ referas, > meridionales fratrum _Semi_, _Chamique_ propaginibus non > inepte tribuentur." > > "The languages that derived from this ancient, widely > dispersed one, may be properly divided into two groups: the > Japhetic, so to speak, and the Aramean. The former have > spread in the North, the latter in the South; thereby > counting all of Europe as {belonging to} the North. Thus if > we refer the northern {languages} to Japhet, the southern > ones may be aptly attributed to the offspring of his > brothers Sem and Cham." > > In other words, Leibniz did *not* use the term "lingua(e) > Semitica(e)", but he was very close to doing so. He *did* > connect a group of languages to Sem, Ham and Japhet, and he > *did* use the term "linguae Japeticae" (see quote). From the > way Leibniz chose his words ("Japhetic, so to speak", "may be > aptly attributed...") we may presumably infer that he himself > introduced the idea of linking languages or language families > to Noah's sons, or at least that he introduced the adjective > "Japheticus". > > (2) > The Semitic language family had been recognized before 1710 by > Ludolf and Leibniz. Cf. John T. Waterman, _Leibniz and Ludolf > on Things Linguistic. Excerpts from their Correspondence > (1688-1703)_ [=1687-1702] (Berkeley 1978). (I'm grateful to > Han Vermeulen for the reference to Waterman.) But more > research is needed on this particular point. As I said in a > previous message to this list, the awareness of the relation > between various Semitic languages may have grown very > gradually. > We may conclude, however, that as early as 1710 Leibniz had > figured out a correct identification of the "Hamito-Semitic" > language family (which Leibniz called "Aramean"), containing a > branch "Egyptian" (incl. Coptic) and Semitic (in Leibniz' > terms "Arabic"), containing Arabic proper, Syriac, Chaldaean, > Hebrew, Punic, Abyssinian/ Ethiopian, and Amharic. (See also > Liselotte Richter, _Leibniz und sein Russlandbild_ [Berlin > 1946]). > [N.B. Leibniz is famous mainly for his mathematical > integral and differential calculus and many more such > things I don't understand. He taught himself Latin and > Greek at age 12, in order to be able to read his father's > books...] > > (3) > As far as we know, the first scholar to explicitly use the > term "Semitic language(s)" was August Ludwig Schlzer > (1735-1809) in an essay entitled "Von den Chaldern", > published in J.G. Eichhorn (ed.),_Repertorium fr Biblische > und Morgenlndische Litteratur_ 8 (Leipzig, 1781) pp. 113- > 176. On p. 161 he writes: > > "Vom Mittellndischen Meer an bis zum Eufrat hinein, und > von Mesopotamien bis nach Arabien hinunter, herrschte > bekanntlich nur Eine Sprache. Also Syrer, Babylonier, > Hebrer, und Araber, waren Ein Volk. Auch Phnicier > (Hamiten) redeten diese Sprache, die ich die Semitische > nennen mchte; sie hatten aber solche erst auf der > Grnze gelernt. Und von Babylon her drengte sich solche > in das nrdliche Assyrien ein, _Genes._ X, 11. > Nun nordwrts ber, --- und ostwrts hinter > diesem Semitischen Sprach- und VlkerBezirke, fngt > ein zweiter an: ich will ihn mit Moseh und Leibnitz den > Jafetischen nennen." > > "From the Mediterranean to the Euphrates, and from > Mesopotamia down to Arabia, there was, as is well known, > just a single language. Thus Syrians, Babylonians, Hebrews, > and Arabs were one and the same people. Also Phoenicians > (Hamites) spoke this language, which I prefer to call the > Semitic {language}; they, however, had learned it only at > the boundary. And from Babylon this language penetrated into > Assyria in the North, _Genes._ 10:11. > And north of --- and southward behind this region of the > Semitic language and peoples, a second area begins, which I > should like to call, after Moses and Leibniz, the Japhetic." > > [N.B. I am indebted to Han F. Vermeulen for a xerox copy > of this text. Han had to make his own copy in the > Gttingen library] > > The reference to Schlzer is found in P. Joon -- > T. Muraoka, _A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew_ (rev. ed.; Roma: > Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1993), $ 2, note 2, > page 3. There, however, Schlzer's initials are spelled > wrongly as "A.S.", instead of the correct "A.L." > The same reference to Schlzer (1781:161) is to be found > in Brockelmann, _Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der > semitischen Sprachen_ I (Berlin 1908) $ 1, p. 1, who mentions > that Schlzer invented the term "Semiten" there (which > latter point is incorrect, see below, 5). Also Gesenius- > Kautsch, _Hebrew Grammar_ $ 1, note 1, has the correct > reference to Schlzer (1781:161). > > (4) > To the best of my knowledge, the first attestation of the term > "Semitic language(s)" *after* Schlzer (1781:161) is > Wilhelm Gesenius (1786-1842), _Hebrisch-deutsches > Handwrterbuch ber die Schriften des Alten Testaments_ > (Leipzig 1810), p. iv speaks of "semitische Dialekte". But > there may be earlier attestations. > > (5) > The first attestation of the term "Semites" as a designation > of a people predates Schlzer (1781). As early as 1771 > Schlzer used the expression in his work _Allgemeine > Nordische Geschichte_ (= _Fortsetzung der Algemeinen > Welthistorie_, Theil XXXI) (Halle, 1771), p. 266 n. C and p. > 281. Also his colleague Johann Christoph Gatterer, _Einleitung > in die synchronistische Universalhistorie, zur Erluterung > seiner synchronistischen Tabellen_ (2 vols; Gttingen > 1771), vol. 2, pp. 64-103, distinguished Semites from > Japhetites and Chamites. [On this point, see Vermeulen > 1996:42, n. 21] > Thus Brockelmann, _Grundriss_ I, p. 1 is wrong in claiming > that Schlzer used the term for the first time in his 1781 > essay. > > CONCLUSIONS: > > (i) > Whoever comes up with a reference to the explicit connection > between Noah's son Sem and the language family that we now > call Semitic before Leibniz (1710:4) -- with the exception of > Gen. 10:31 itself --, is adding to our knowledge. > > (ii) > Whoever comes up with a reference to the term "Semitic > language(s)" before Schlzer (1781:161), is adding to our > knowledge. > > (iii) > Whoever comes up with a reference to the term "Semitic > language(s)" after Schlzer (1781:161), but before Gesenius > 1810 [???], is adding to our knowledge -- at least to mine. > > (iv) > Whoever comes up with a reference to the term "Semites" as a > designation of a people from before 1771 (Schlzer, > Gatterer), is adding to our knowledge. > > (v) > Leibniz's essay "Brevis designatio..." (1710) is hardly > accessible to modern scholars. Copies of the journal > _Miscellanea Berolinensia..._ in public collections are rare. > For that reason many scholars apparently deemed it sufficient, > for practical reasons, to quote references to the essay in > question rather than the essay itself, thus considerably > adding to the confusion. > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Now the misunderstandings: > > (A) > Holger Pedersen, _The Discovery of Language_ (Bloomington, > 1931), p. 118 writes: > > "The designation _Semitic_ had been proposed first by > Leibniz at the beginning of the eighteenth century and by > another scholar towards its close." > > Pedersen does not provide a reference. Strictly speaking, > Leibniz did *not* explicitly propose the *term* _Semitic_. The > reference to "another scholar" towards the close of the > eighteenth century is probably Schlzer 1781. > > (B) > In his review of Joon-Muraoka, _A Grammar of Biblical > Hebrew_ (Roma 1991) in _Leshonenu_ 56 (1991-1992) 163-174, > esp. p 166, as well as in his review of A. Senz-Badillos, > _A History of the Hebrew Language_ (Cambridge 1993) in > _Leshonenu_ 58/1 (1994) p. 88, Joshua Blau "corrects" the > references to Schlzer (1781:161) in these two books, > claiming that Leibniz was the first to use the term "Semitic > languages". He refers to Pedersen (1931:118), *adds* the > reference to Leibniz (albeit in an incomplete form: > _Miscellanea Berolinensia_ 1710, p. 4), but does not provide > the quotation. > > (C) > In his review of M. Hadas-Lebel, _Histoire de la langue > hbraque_ (1995) in _Journal of Semitic Studies_ 42 > (1997) p. 371, John Elwolde "corrects" the reference to > Schlzer (1781:161) in favour of Leibniz, referring to > Joshua Blau, _Leshonenu_ 58/1 (1994) p. 88. > Fortunately, in the second edition of Elwolde's translation > of Senz-Badillos's _History of the Hebrew language_, the > formulation is again correct: Schlzer was the first to use > the term "Semitic languages" in 1781, developing an earlier > idea of Leibniz from 1710. [Actually, I'm quoting from memory > here, since I only have the 1st ed. Could someone confirm this > off list?] > > (D) > On Monday, 29 Nov. 1999 Stefan Weninger wrote on the ANE list > that Leibniz preceded Schlzer in calling our language > family "Semitic", referring to John Elwolde, _JSS_ 42 (1997) > 371 and to Blau in _Leshonenu_ 58 (1994) 88. > > (E) > Alan Kaye and Peter Daniels in _Word_ 43 (1992), p. 451, n. 3, > mention a personal communication by Gideon Goldenberg, saying > that the latter discovered that Leibniz was the first to use > the expression "Semitic languages", and provides the Latin > quote above. They add, correctly, that the quote does not > prove Goldenberg's point. > In a recent e-mail, however, Goldenberg now refers me to the > passage in Pedersen (1931:118) and to the Latin passage in > Leibniz's "Brevis designatio". Goldenberg emphasizes that > Schlzer was by no means the first to have recognized the > Semitic language family, and that he should not be credited > for it. Goldenberg's point of interest, therefore, is not so > much the adjective "Semitic", but rather the historical > linguistic side of the argument. > This, in itself, is certainly correct; Leibniz fully > deserves our respect and admiration. But Pedersen's point > clearly pertains to "the designation _Semitic_", not to the > language family as such, and is therefore false. > > (E) > The invention of the term "Semitic languages" is sometimes > attributed wrongly to J.G. Eichhorn -- a big shot in Semitics > at the time --, who in fact was only the editor of the > _Repertorium..._ in which Schlzer's 1781 essay appeared. > This is done, e.g., by Ernest Renan, _Histoire gnrale > et systme compar des langues smitiques (Paris > 1855), p. 2: "les savants modernes, la suite d'Eichhorn, > se sont accords leur donner le nom de langues > _smitiques_". > > Hope this helps, > > --Martin Baasten > > --------------------------------------------------------- > M.F.J. Baasten -- Talen en culturen van het Nabije Oosten > Universiteit Leiden ---- Postbus 9515 --- 2300 RA Leiden > Tel +31 (0)71.527.2255 - Fax +31 (0)71.527.2042 - E-mail: > Baasten@rullet.LeidenUniv.nl ---------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 18:49:14 -0400 From: "Peter T. Daniels" Subject: Re: ane query/ spread of indo-european Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote: > > "Peter T. Daniels" wrote: > > >The Arab-Conquest-wiping-out-Egyptian has already been adduced more than > >once of a conquest causing a language change -- which managed to > >overlook nearly a millennium of Greek-Egyptian bilingualism: the *Greek* > >conquest, let alone the Persian before it, of Egypt didn't produce > >language replacement, and I find it hard to claim it was "conquest" that > >caused a language shift that took a millennium to eventuate. > > But it wouldn't have happened if the Arabs had never conquered > Egypt. It might well have happened if similar numbers of Arabic-speakers had come along for reasons other than "conquest." > >I thought of another example, too, back in beloved Europe: there were > >conquering Goths all over the place, presumably speaking Germanic > >languages, but I don't see much Germanic influence on the languages of, > >for instance, Iberia? Which reminds me, also, that not many Iberian > >locals ended up speaking Arabic, despite quite a long period of Arab > >domination? > > Gothic left few traces (the only one I can think of right now is > Spa. "bagpipes", from Gothic "goat"), because > there was little advantage in the local population learning > Gothic: the administrative language was always Latin, and > speaking Gothic (or adopting Arianism) didn't turn a Spaniard > into a Goth. Elite dominance was too elite in this case. > > Arabic in Iberia is a different matter. Castilian, Portuguese > and Catalan have a good number of Arabic loanwords, and in > Andalusia and the Levant, Arabic was widely adopted by the > indigenous population (although enclaves of Romance speaking and > Christian "mozárabes" remained). When these territories were > "reconquered" by the Christian kingdoms of Catilla-León, Portugal > or Aragón, the situation was reversed (due in part to evictions > and resettlements), but always in favour of the Northern Romance > dialects. Mozarabic (Southern Iberian Romance) did not survive > the Reconquista. You make my point: you identify the language as a form of Romance, which (from what little I've read about it, basically Entwistle, The Spanish Language) is what it was, and not as a form of Arabic. > The question of how language replacement operates is a complex > and interesting one. Renfrew (in chapter 6 of "Archaeology and > Language") gives an overview which covers the main modes, but I > think not all of them. He first establishes three models of > language change: (1) initial colonization (e.g. Polynesian into > the previously uninhabited Pacific islands), (2) language > replacement, (3) change by internal development (Modern Greek is > not the same as Mycenaean Greek). Then he describes some > processes leading to (2), language replacement. (I) Remember, Renfrew knew nothing about linguistics, and far worse, has never shown any willingness to learn anything about linguistics. He continues to repeat the same nonsense about IE entering Europe along with agriculture, despite Jasanoff's one-sentence refutation (in the review in *Language*); in the *When Worlds Collide* conference (1988, pub. 1990), he flat out admitted that the participating linguists had told him much that he did not know. But in 1993 (the *Archaeology and Language* international congress) and in 1996 (the Philadelphia Mummies conference = Mair 1998) he continues to repeat the same tired old story, apparently never hearing a word any linguist has ever said to him; Alan Kaye reported the same at a conference he hosted in England in summer 98; and apparently he will repeat it again in Richmond in March 2000, in an evening keynote address to which the public is invited to be misled, without, apparently, rebuttals by those who know what they're talking about. > "demography/subsitence": the newcomers (because of more advanced > subsistence technology) simply outnumber the locals. E.g. early > Neolithic farming can sustain population densities 5000% larger > than hunting and gathering. Whether the local hunter-gatherers > are conquered, killed, allowed to join in, or are simply left > alone by the incoming farmers has no effect at all on the > eventual linguistic outcome. A detailed sub-model is that of the > "wave of advance" (which Renfrew adopts for the spread of > Indo-European languages across the European continent). It is a > statistical "invisible hand" process which explains the spread of > a population across a geographical area, without anybody ever > setting out to do so. This is probably the most usual way language spreads. (See Cooper ed., *Language Spread*.) It happens not to work in the way he wants it to, for the case of IE in Europe! > Renfrew's process (II) is "elite > dominance". A relatively small group of people imposes itself > militarily on the local population and in the end its language is > taken over by the locals. This is independent of whether we're > dealing with a "conquest" in the sense of one _state_ conquering > another, or whether the levels of political organization are less > advanced on one or both of the sides. As we know, this model > doesn't always "work" (Goths in Spain), nor does it always have > an immediate effect (Arabs in Egypt). A lot of it depends on the > social and linguistic attitudes of both conquerors and conquered. > If the model has a "demography/subsistence" element in it (as in > the case of North America), langauge replacement is the most > likely outcome (as it is in the mode of conquest of "kill the men > and rape the women", known from e.g. Roman and Hebrew traditional > sources). He hasn't found any support for "elite dominance" from historical linguists. Archelogists may be attracted for a while, because they might be able to detect the presense of "elites" in the artifactual record, but where are attested examples? IIRC several articles in *Archaeology and Language* specifically oppose this model. > Model (III) is "system collapse": a (usually advanced) > society collapses due to internal factors (Indus Valley, Maya > Lowlands), and is infiltrated by populations ("barbarians") which > had been living on the fringe of the area. This does happen, all over the place, because climate change does happen, and is very powerful! (Beware, global-warming deniers!) > Next, Renfrew > discusses the role of nomad pastoralists (whose mode of > subsistence is demographically inferior to that of > agriculturalists, but who can play a role in "elite dominance" > and "system collapse" models). Finally, Renfrew briefly dicusses > other models like "constrained population movement" ("conquest" > by "refugees"), "sedentary/mobile shift" (climate causes the > boundary between steppe and farmland to shift, an important > factor in the histories of Ukraine, Hungary or Northern China) > and "donor/recipient population systems". The example given by > Renfrew is relevant to the ANE, so let me quote it in full: > > "... there is a case for seeing the development of the Semitic > languages in the Near East, over a long period of time, as the > result of such a process. The donor zone in this case would be, > speaking approximately, the Arabian peninsula, and the recipient > one, Mesopotamia. It can certainly be argued that from the third > millennium BC onwards, there were frequent and sometimes steady > influxes of Semitic-speaking groups into Mesopotamia, who settled > there and ultimately came to outnumber the Sumerian-speaking > population. In such circumstances, the language of the majority > may well become dominant during a period of instability, as > indeed occurred with the emergence to power of Sargon of Agade". > > I don't think the Akkadian population came from the Arabic > peninsula, nor that they were necessarily later arrivals than the > Sumerians. But the death of the Sumerian language is indeed a > very interesting case, as it doesn't seem to obviously fit any of > the models described by Renfrew. It wasn't exclusively elite > dominance: the Sargonic conquest may have been a factor, but > Sumerian was finally displaced by Semitic not in Sargon's time, > but probably in Ur III times, when the Sumerians were politically > dominant. It wasn't system collapse, although there was some of > that too (the Guti and Elamites). Were there demographic/ > economic factors (less salinization in the North)? There > certainly was bilingualism for an extended period of time: were > there any other social factors? Exactly: There *isn't* a case!! - -- Peter T. Daniels grammatim@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 19:08:01 -0400 From: "Peter T. Daniels" Subject: Re: ane "Conquest" only of states? BStetzer@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 12/12/1999 7:07:00 AM Central Standard Time, > grammatim@worldnet.att.net writes: > > << The 10th Collegiate refers to "force of arms" and "gain mastery." Since > the Native Americans have never been legally incorporated into the US, > the latter doesn't apply; and I've been asking for examples of the > former. At best, very few examples of US dominance over Native peoples > were accomplished by "force of arms" -- and perhaps the example of > General Custer suggests that the US was generally better off not to try > too often. >> > > When did this narrow specifically to the US? I thought we were discussing > European conquest in the New World. I specifically said North America. > If that is the case, i refer you to the > accounts of LaSalle, de Soto, Pizarro, etc. The eraly European explorers of > the New World certainly did not appear with flowers in their hands and love > in their hearts for the indigenous populations. Nor did they appear in North America with conquering armies. They were explorers, fishers, trappers, settlers. > There is no doubt that European domination of Native American groups was > accomplished by force of arms. Did the Cherokee and other > southeastern/Muskogean groups take cheerfully and willingly to the Trail of > Tears? This was not the first, or last, forced removal of large groups of > Native Americans from there lands, although it is probably the best known. Some centuries later ... > Admittedly, there were few pitched battles, since Native American groups were > organized, and viewed warfare, differently from Europeans. More often, > European expansion was done in the face of running skirmishes and raids by > natives, which was the way they conducted warfare. Who won those? To > further simplify the question, who is on that land now? That appears to be > force of arms. Is that the mechanism invoked by those who insist on IE "conquest" all over the place? I don't know that they've ever been specific, but they're probably not thinking in those terms. > As for Custer, his defeat was more a matter of arrogance and tactical blunder > than evidence of native military might. In the overall scheme of US western > expansion, it was a fluke, which is why it is so well remembered today. > Certainly, this event did not stop US military action against native groups. > Just because native groups have not been "legally incorporated" into the > United States, this does not indicate a lack of "mastery" by the US > government. Once again, I submit that they did not go down that Trail > willingly and cheerfully. They were pushed. And they didn't start speaking English. Remember, this thread is supposed to be about the cause of language shift (a vanishingly rare phenomenon?), not the histories of peoples. In order for the claim that "conquest" causese language shift to stand, you have to establish both that "conquest" occurred ... and that language shifted! - -- Peter T. Daniels grammatim@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 19:21:55 -0400 From: "Peter T. Daniels" Subject: Re: ane spread of Indo-European Robert Drews wrote: > The Indo-Hittite thesis? At our "Greater Anatolia" colloquium there will be > linguists (Finkelberg, Lehrman, Melchert, Darden, Ivanov) who can clarify it Finkelberg's article in Classical World (suggesting that Prehellenic is Anatolian) makes it clear that she is not a linguist, and that she is not familiar with several decades of work on that topic by Georgiev and Hamp, which show that Prehellenic is closest to Germanic among the IE languages. I'm sorry, I don't know the name of Lehrman; and the two linguists on your list whom I respect (Melchert and Darden) are not granted the status of Presenters, but only Responders. Plus, of course, Bill Darden's name was listed wrong ... > much better than I can, but let me give a crude summary. The traditional > "Indo-European" thesis, opposed to the Indo-Hittite thesis, is that > Anatolian is a filial branch of PIE, cognate with Aryan, Greek, Keltic, > Italic, Germanic and the rest. In contrast, the Indo-Hittite thesis holds > that Proto-Anatolian (from which the Anatolian languages Hittite, Luwian, > Lydian, etc. are descended)is related to Proto-Indo-European in a fraternal > (sorornal?) rather than a filial way. Proto-Anatolian and > Proto-Indo-European, in other words, are both descended from a still earlier > hypothetical language, for which the term "Indo-Hittite" has been used since > Sturtevant coined it. Actually, it hasn't: Puhvel traces the distribution of its usage, and in 1966 it was restricted exclusively to a handful of scholars in the US, most of whom had already died, and it never caught on in Europe. Merritt Ruhlen is certainly no guide to what linguists in general have to say about the connections (and namings!) of languages and language families. There is topologically absolutely no difference between trees whose topmost node is called "IH" or "IE": no one disputes that Anatolian was the first group to branch off, and abandoning the geographic designation "IE" (for the peninsulas at the extremes of its premodern range) in favor of one that privileges two sort of miscellaneous chunks of IE is pointless. So I still don't know what the *content* of the "thesis" is, beyond a relabeling of the topmost node of the tree. > How PIE and PA came to be separated is variously > conjectured, and recently the "Black Sea Flood" has begun to figure in that > discussion. Come to the colloquium and help us sort it all out. Sorry it > had to be March 17-19, the week after the American Oriental Society meets, > but in steering around three conferences and three academic schedules this > is the best I could come up with. The Black Sea Flood is a couple millennia too early to relate to the breakup of IE. It might be invoked, somehow, in connection with a possible breakup of Uralic and IE! I wish I could. I already don't know how I'm going to pay for flying from New York to Portland plus the approximately triple Home Health Care I will need to buy for my mother for the five days that will take. But to add four additional days and a non-round-trip airfare into the question? No way. - -- Peter T. Daniels grammatim@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 01:07:32 GMT From: mcv@wxs.nl (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal) Subject: Re: ane query/ spread of indo-european "Peter T. Daniels" wrote: >Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote: > >> Renfrew's process (II) is "elite >> dominance". A relatively small group of people imposes itself >> militarily on the local population and in the end its language is >> taken over by the locals. This is independent of whether we're >> dealing with a "conquest" in the sense of one _state_ conquering >> another, or whether the levels of political organization are less >> advanced on one or both of the sides. As we know, this model >> doesn't always "work" (Goths in Spain), nor does it always have >> an immediate effect (Arabs in Egypt). A lot of it depends on the >> social and linguistic attitudes of both conquerors and conquered. >> If the model has a "demography/subsistence" element in it (as in >> the case of North America), langauge replacement is the most >> likely outcome (as it is in the mode of conquest of "kill the men >> and rape the women", known from e.g. Roman and Hebrew traditional >> sources). > >He hasn't found any support for "elite dominance" from historical >linguists. Archelogists may be attracted for a while, because they might >be able to detect the presense of "elites" in the artifactual record, >but where are attested examples? So how do you call the kind of language replacement where the majority adopts the language of a minority (i.e. cases which do not fall under the "subsistence/demographics" model)? Attested examples: Latin outside Latium, Han Chinese in Southern China, Parisian French outside Paris, etc. >IIRC several articles in *Archaeology and Language* specifically oppose >this model. Assuming, of course, that you're referring not to Renfrew's "Archaeology and Language (The puzzle of IE Origins)", but to the volumes edited by Blench and Spriggs: which volume? (I have I & II; III & IV on their way). ======================= Miguel Carrasquer Vidal mcv@wxs.nl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 01:40:53 GMT From: mcv@wxs.nl (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal) Subject: Re: ane "Conquest" only of states? "Peter T. Daniels" wrote: >Remember, this thread is supposed to be about the cause of language >shift (a vanishingly rare phenomenon?), not the histories of peoples. I don't understand. How can language shift be vanishingly rare? If that were the case, then the linguistic map of the world would look like that of, say, New Guinea, which it doesn't (unless you assume that massacre and genocide have been more commonplace throughout history than they unfortunately already have). And without language shift, Cavalli-Sforza et al.'s language-genes diagram (1988) would have to be correct, which it isn't, and Ruhlen would be right, which can't be. ======================= Miguel Carrasquer Vidal mcv@wxs.nl ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 20:49:22 -0400 From: "Peter T. Daniels" Subject: Re: ane query/ spread of indo-european Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote: > So how do you call the kind of language replacement where the > majority adopts the language of a minority (i.e. cases which do > not fall under the "subsistence/demographics" model)? Attested > examples: Latin outside Latium, Han Chinese in Southern China, > Parisian French outside Paris, etc. What exactly do we know about how the Romance languages got established; and in China and France, don't you have diglossia rather than replacement? 100 years ago, anyway, MM. Edmont and Gilleron found a lovely atlas-ful of variation in France (and Jaberg and Jud the same for Italy; there's even an adorable little Linguistic Atlas of Andorra, with three data points!). > >IIRC several articles in *Archaeology and Language* specifically oppose > >this model. > > Assuming, of course, that you're referring not to Renfrew's > "Archaeology and Language (The puzzle of IE Origins)", but to the > volumes edited by Blench and Spriggs: which volume? (I have I & > II; III & IV on their way). Wow, you're rich! Both of them. I gave them back to the library a while ago. - -- Peter T. Daniels grammatim@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 20:58:27 -0400 From: "Peter T. Daniels" Subject: Re: ane "Conquest" only of states? Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote: > > "Peter T. Daniels" wrote: > > >Remember, this thread is supposed to be about the cause of language > >shift (a vanishingly rare phenomenon?), not the histories of peoples. > > I don't understand. How can language shift be vanishingly rare? > If that were the case, then the linguistic map of the world would > look like that of, say, New Guinea, which it doesn't (unless you > assume that massacre and genocide have been more commonplace > throughout history than they unfortunately already have). And > without language shift, Cavalli-Sforza et al.'s language-genes > diagram (1988) would have to be correct, which it isn't, and > Ruhlen would be right, which can't be. What do you mean by language shift? I mean what the "conquer" advocates seem to mean -- the army comes, and the conquered people, or I suppose their children, abandon the old language and speak the new one instead. - -- Peter T. Daniels grammatim@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 21:11:29 -0500 From: David Meadows Subject: ane The Ancient World on Television (North America) ]|[============================================]|[ ]|[ ]|[ THE ANCIENT WORLD ON TELEVISION ]|[ ]|[ (NORTH AMERICA) ]|[ ]|[ December 13 - 19 ]|[============================================]|[ A strangely quiet week ... All times Eastern: ]|[ Monday, December 13 7.00 a.m. A&E Classroom Rise of Christianity The second part of the series looks at Christianity's development from 312 A.D. to 461 A.D. ]|[ Tuesday, December 14 7.00 a.m. A&E Classroom Rise of Christianity Part three looks at the survival of the Eastern Roman Empire and developments in religion throughout the 'Dark Ages' ]|[ Wednesday, December 15 6.00 a.m. A&E Treasure! King Herod's Lost City Decent, but dated look at Caesarea ... 7.00 a.m. A&E Classroom Rise of Christianity >From Charlemagne to 1000 A.D. ]|[ Friday, December 17 7.00 a.m. A&E Classroom The Rise of Christianity First of a two or three parter (I can't remember right now) which begins with what happened from Pentecost on ... 9.00 p.m. DISCC Lost Warriors of the Clouds Excellent program on the discovery and story of the Chachapoya mummies .... ]|[ Sunday, December 19 12.00 p.m. A&E Ancient Mysteries Story of Creation Something's mixed up here ... this is from the Mysteries of the Bible series ... 1.00 p.m. A&"E The Unexplained Curse of King Tut Passable look at the various misfortunes which befell folks associated with the excavation. ++ Next installment on or about December 19, 1999++ ]|[============================================]|[ A channel guide is available at: http://web.idirect.com/~atrium/awotv/channelguide.html ]|[============================================]|[ To subscribe to these listings, send a blank email message to: AWOTV-subscribe@onelist.com To unsubscribe from these listings, send a blank email message to: AWOTV-unsubscribe@onelist.com Or go to: http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/AWOTV ]|[============================================]|[ Copyright (c) 1999 David Meadows. Feel free to distribute these listings via email to your pals, students, teachers, etc., but please include this copyright notice. Please do not post these listings to your website, but rather make a link to: http://web.idirect.com/~atrium/awotv.html Thanks! ]|[============================================]|[ ]|[ David Meadows ]|[ http://web.idirect.com/~atrium ]|[ Rogue Classicist ]|[ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 02:43:15 GMT From: mcv@wxs.nl (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal) Subject: Re: ane spread of Indo-European "Peter T. Daniels" wrote: >Finkelberg's article in Classical World (suggesting that Prehellenic is >Anatolian) makes it clear that she is not a linguist, and that she is >not familiar with several decades of work on that topic by Georgiev and >Hamp, which show that Prehellenic is closest to Germanic among the IE >languages. But there's more than one "Prehellenic". There is the one with some Germanic-looking features (at least in phonology), formerly (and misleadingly) known as "Pelasgian", but there is also Lemnian (the real Pelasgian, if we can believe Herodotus), a language closely related to Etruscan. And there *is* a form of Anatolian (Georgiev calls it "Pelasgian"), as evidenced by the names ending in -Vnthos and -Vssos (Luwian -anta- and -assi-), like the purely Anatolian word Parnassos (Hitt. pir, Obl. parn- "house", -assa- genitive/adjectival suffix). >> How PIE and PA came to be separated is variously >> conjectured, and recently the "Black Sea Flood" has begun to figure in that >> discussion. Come to the colloquium and help us sort it all out. Sorry it >> had to be March 17-19, the week after the American Oriental Society meets, >> but in steering around three conferences and three academic schedules this >> is the best I could come up with. > >The Black Sea Flood is a couple millennia too early to relate to the >breakup of IE. It might be invoked, somehow, in connection with a >possible breakup of Uralic and IE! Too recent. I must say I don't really understand the Black Sea Flood theory. The flood was indeed ca. 5500 BC and inundated the northern shores of the Black Sea. It supposedly caused a "diaspora" which somehow caused agriculture to spread across Europe. Now it's true that the LBK (Linear Ware, Danubian) culture started to spread out into Central and Northern Europe ca. 5500 BC, but it did so from *Hungary* (initially along the Tisza, Danube and further), far from the Black Sea. Not only that, but the LBK farmers actually spread out in the opposite direction: "This culture [Linear Ware] also extended around the northern side of the Carpathians into the Ukraine and Moldavia and was part of the process of expansion into the steppe zone referred to in the earlier section on the Balkans, but the eastern Linear Pottery culture will not be further discussed here [a pity, given their relevance to IE origins]" (Alasdair Whittle "The First Farmers", in: "Prehistoric Europe", B. Cunliffe ed., Oxford 1994.) The reference to the Balkans is to what Mallory calls the Bug-Dniestr culture, a 6th/7th millennium sub-Neolithic extension of the Balkan Neolithic, which preceded the Eastern Linear Ware culture (I presume, Mallory's Dniepr-Donets culture) by a millennium or so. In any case, the remains of the Bug-Dniestr and Dniepr-Donets culture in the non-inundated parts of the northern Black Sea littoral point to a sub-Neolithic way of life (pottery, animal husbandry, but little or no farming), with population densities far too low to warrant the use of the word "diaspora". For practical purposes, at the time, everybody was living on the west (Balkans) and south (Anatolia) shores of the Black Sea. ======================= Miguel Carrasquer Vidal mcv@wxs.nl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 03:13:07 GMT From: mcv@wxs.nl (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal) Subject: Re: ane query/ spread of indo-european "Peter T. Daniels" wrote: >Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote: > >> So how do you call the kind of language replacement where the >> majority adopts the language of a minority (i.e. cases which do >> not fall under the "subsistence/demographics" model)? Attested >> examples: Latin outside Latium, Han Chinese in Southern China, >> Parisian French outside Paris, etc. > >What exactly do we know about how the Romance languages got established; Given the Romans' regrettable lack of interest in matters linguistic, not nearly enough. This lack of interest also means that the Roman Empire had no linguistic policy to speak of (e.g. no attempt was made to impose Latin on the Greek-administrated eastern parts), which paradoxically might explain the very success of Latin in Italy, Gaul and Spain (as well as, presumably, in Northern Africa and Illyria). No one forced the locals to switch to Latin, but they did so in ever increasing numbers. Initially, Latin may have been adopted as a lingua franca to talk with foreigners (including Roman legionaires, administrators and colonists). Eventually, Latin became the public language, spoken in the street (but not in the home), and finally it came to replace the home language as well. >and in China and France, don't you have diglossia rather than >replacement? Southern China still has its Zhuang and Miao-Yao speakers, but the bulk of the population has switched to Chinese (I didn't mean Mandarin). Cantonese, Hakka, Min, Wu etc. all show traces of their Daic, Austronesian or Austroasiatic substrates (I forget which goes with which). ======================= Miguel Carrasquer Vidal mcv@wxs.nl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 03:17:39 GMT From: mcv@wxs.nl (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal) Subject: Re: ane "Conquest" only of states? "Peter T. Daniels" wrote: >What do you mean by language shift? I mean what the "conquer" advocates >seem to mean -- the army comes, and the conquered people, or I suppose >their children, abandon the old language and speak the new one instead. I mean people abandoning the old langauge and speaking the new one instead (for whatever reason). ======================= Miguel Carrasquer Vidal mcv@wxs.nl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 04:24:27 +0100 From: "chris.cleutjens" Subject: ane Inquiries by Peter T. Daniels This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0017_01BF4521.F1554D80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable chris.cleutjens wrote: > Language is therefor the most precious evidence of the origin and = history of > a people. I don't think it would be out of place to inquire about Mr. Cleutjens's qualifications to comment on the matters discussed on ANE List? He's already insulted religion and religious people, and in this statement he insults (presumably unwittingly) historians and linguists. - -- Peter T. Daniels - ----------------------------------------------- Dear list members, Where is this list going to, when a list member, in casu, Mr. Daniels, = takes the liberty to ask for INQUIRIES "about my qualifications"? Why does he repeatedly accuses me of insulting religions and religious people while I have more religious and human feelings in my left toe = than Mr. Daniels in his whole body or soul. Where do I insult historians and linguists? Is this man overworked? = Tired? No he's obsessed. I could have overlooked this posting about me and let it be. I won't because he will do it again to someone else tomorrow. A list member wrote me weeks ago about Mr. Daniels malicious strategies = to eliminate everyone he loathes in this list. I will not quote him literally. His style could reveal his name. But I was told that Mr. Daniels uses every possible means necessary = until the victim of his accusations is so angry that he leaves the list = voluntary. Or that the moderator is compelled to remove the member to avoid further insults posted in this list. Mr Daniels cries "fire!" setting the barn in flames. The ugliest aspect of all is the choice of his victims. They are always easy targets; not university-educated list members, preferably those members not using the English language daily. This time he is asking for an INQUIRY about my "qualifications". I am sure that an inquiry about HIS HUMAN qualifications would tell us a = lot about his deplorable attitude towards anyone thinking differently. He must be a very frustrated man. His bookworm "wisdom"made him into a typical example of a conceited arrogant man. I hope he doesn't lecture students, I pity them. Counting the number of his postings it is obvious that he considers this list as his private territory. He "catwalks" through it every day. At the same time he does nothing else than correct, doubt or attack = anyone's statement over any subject discussed in this list. The patience of the list members regarding this conceited list member is = one to be noted in the Guinness Book of Records. Probably the members of this list are too polite to tell Mr. Daniels to = shut his arrogant mouth for once and a while. I am not THAT polite. Remove me from the list and you'll loose nothing, I am aware of that. You may inquire my qualifications, but not question my integrity. Remove Mr. Daniels from this list and what do you loose? A living reference book? But you would gain serenity. To the moderator, I have this last request. If you are compelled to remove me from this list, so be it, I will understand I don't belong in ANE. I will have no hard feelings or regrets. At the same time ANE would have revealed itself as an elite group where there is no place for members with lesser qualifications than those of = Mr. Daniels. Meanwhile I will not sit back and read Mr. Daniels's accusations and his pathetic cries for my removal whenever I post to the list no matter the content of it. This time he unmasked himself and showed a bit of his inner self: a deplorable picture. Christiaan Cleutjens - ------------------------------------------- PS - I sended this post to the moderator. But Mr. Daniels answer to Miguel Carrasquer Vidal proves my point - Mr = Daniels is an arrogant man. >Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote: > Assuming, of course, that you're referring not to Renfrew's > "Archaeology and Language (The puzzle of IE Origins)", but to the > volumes edited by Blench and Spriggs: which volume? (I have I & > II; III & IV on their way). Wow, you're rich! Both of them. I gave them back to the library a while ago. - --=20 Peter T. Daniels - ------=_NextPart_000_0017_01BF4521.F1554D80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
chris.cleutjens wrote:

> Language is therefor the most = precious=20 evidence of the origin and history
of
> a people.

I = don't think=20 it would be out of place to inquire about Mr. = Cleutjens's
qualifications to=20 comment on the matters discussed on ANE List? He's
already insulted = religion=20 and religious people, and in this statement he
insults (presumably=20 unwittingly) historians and linguists.
--
Peter T.=20 Daniels

-----------------------------------------------

Dea= r list=20 members,

Where is this list going to, when a list member, in = casu, Mr.=20 Daniels, takes
the liberty to ask for INQUIRIES "about my=20 qualifications"?
Why does he repeatedly accuses me of insulting = religions and=20 religious
people while I have more religious and human feelings in my = left=20 toe than
Mr. Daniels in his whole body or soul.
Where do I insult=20 historians and linguists? Is this man overworked? Tired?
No he's=20 obsessed.

I could have overlooked this posting about me and let = it=20 be.
I won't because he will do it again to someone else = tomorrow.

A=20 list member wrote me weeks ago about Mr. Daniels malicious strategies=20 to
eliminate everyone he loathes in this list.
I will not quote = him=20 literally. His style could reveal his name.
But I was told that Mr. = Daniels=20 uses every possible means necessary until
the victim of his = accusations is so=20 angry that he leaves the list voluntary.
Or that the moderator is = compelled=20 to remove the member to avoid further
insults posted in this = list.
Mr=20 Daniels cries "fire!" setting the barn in flames.
The ugliest aspect = of all=20 is the choice of his victims.
They are always easy targets; not=20 university-educated list members,
preferably those members not using = the=20 English language daily.

This time he is asking for an INQUIRY = about my=20 "qualifications".
I am sure that an inquiry about HIS HUMAN = qualifications=20 would tell us a lot
about his deplorable attitude towards anyone = thinking=20 differently.
He must be a very frustrated man. His bookworm = "wisdom"made him=20 into a
typical example of a conceited arrogant man. I hope he doesn't = lecture
students, I pity them.

Counting the number of his = postings it=20 is obvious that he considers this
list as his private = territory.
He=20 "catwalks" through it every day.
At the same time he does nothing = else than=20 correct, doubt or attack anyone's
statement over any subject = discussed in=20 this list.
The patience of the list members regarding this conceited = list=20 member is one
to be noted in the Guinness Book of = Records.
Probably the=20 members of this list are too polite to tell Mr. Daniels to shut
his = arrogant=20 mouth for once and a while.
I am not THAT polite.

Remove me = from the=20 list and you'll loose nothing, I am aware of that.
You may inquire my = qualifications, but not question my integrity.
Remove Mr. Daniels = from this=20 list and what do you loose?
A living reference book? But you would = gain=20 serenity.

To the moderator, I have this last request.
If you = are=20 compelled to remove me from this list, so be it, I will
understand I = don't=20 belong in ANE.
I will have no hard feelings or regrets.
At the = same time=20 ANE would have revealed itself as an elite group where
there is no = place for=20 members with lesser qualifications than those of=20 Mr.
Daniels.

Meanwhile I will not sit back and read Mr. = Daniels's=20 accusations and his
pathetic cries for my removal whenever I post to = the list=20 no matter the
content of it.
This time he unmasked himself and = showed a=20 bit of his inner self: a
deplorable picture.

Christiaan=20 Cleutjens
 
-------------------------------------------
 
PS - I sended this post to the moderator.
But Mr. Daniels answer to Miguel Carrasquer Vidal proves my = point=20 - - Mr Daniels is an arrogant man.
 
>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:
> Assuming, of course, that you're referring not to = Renfrew's
>=20 "Archaeology and Language (The puzzle of IE Origins)", but to = the
>=20 volumes edited by Blench and Spriggs: which volume?  (I have I=20 &
> II; III & IV on their way).

Wow, you're = rich!=20 Both of them. I gave them back to the library a = while
ago.
--=20
Peter T. Daniels


 
- ------=_NextPart_000_0017_01BF4521.F1554D80-- ------------------------------ End of ANE Digest V1999 #348 **************************** Back issues are available on the Oriental Institute World-Wide Web (WWW) site at: http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/ANE/OI_ANE.html