• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Language as a Clue to Prehistory

He also proposes vowel variations for expressing shades of meaning, which makes vowels somewhat phonemic.

While English has "hither, thither and yon" to mean "here, there, there-far-away", Thai has more choices to suggest increasing distance:
/nii/, /nan/, /nun/, /nuun/, /noon/, /nuuun/, etc.

The Thai words for "near" and "far" differ only in tone. Coincidence?
Click and then click Listen to hear Google pronounce the two words.

English is far from that. Consider bat, bet, bait, bit, beet / beat, bot / bought, boat, boot -- differing by vowel but being semantically unrelated.

Even with identical consonants and vowels, Thai makes different words via different tones. Click the following link and then click Listen (the speaker icon near lower left) to hear Google pronounce six words all transliterated as /khao/.


The first three words appear with a different (longer duration) vowel than the last three. There are at least five other words which are homonyms of one of these six: same spelling but different meaning and etymology.

(Have we mentioned that Thai pronouns are weird? The /khao/ which Google translates as "he" can be used as "I" when speaking to an intimate.)
 
thai-language.com - Pronouncing the Tones
  • khao-R - (3rd person singular or plural pronoun) he; she; him; her; they; them
  • khao-L - knee
  • khao-F - to enter; go in; penetrate; insert; approach; begin
  • khaao-R - (is) white
  • khaao-L - news; tidings; information received; message
  • khaao-F - rice
 
Mother Tongue 3 has John Bengtson noting his meeting with fellow long-ranger Sergei Starostin in Moscow.
He is, like other good Long-Rangers, acutely aware that some of the most stable vocabulary exhibits puzzling irregularities (e.g., Indo-European 'tongue', or 'name').
Looking at "tongue (body part)": Proto-Germanic *tungôn -- Irish teanga, Welsh tafod < Proto-Celtic *tangwâss -- Latin lingua, Oscan fangvu < Proto-Italic *denghwâ -- Armenian lezu -- Proto-Slavic *ezyku, Lithuanian liezhuvis < Proto-Balto-Slavic *inzû -- Sanskrit jihvâ, Proto-Iranian *hizhwaH < Proto-Indo-Iranian *jijhwaH -- (grossly irregular) PIE *dnghwéh2s (*dnghwâ)

Greek glôssa has an obscure origin.

Looking at "name": Proto-Germanic namô (namn-) -- Proto-Celtic *anman -- Latin nômen (nômin-), Oscan numn-, Umbrian nome, numem < Proto-Italic *nomen -- Greek onoma (onomat-) -- Armenian anun -- Proto-Slavic *yime (*yimen-) < Proto-Balto-Slavic *inmen -- Sanskrit nâman, Proto-Iranian *Hnâma < Proto-Indo-Iranian *Hnâma -- Proto-Tocharian *nema -- Hittite lâman (lamn-) -- (irregular) PIE *h1nomn (*nomn)

"Tongue" and "name" are well-preserved, but irregular. Another irregularity is Latin canis "dog", cognate with PIE *k'won- -- English hound, German Hund "dog", Irish cú "hound", Welsh ci "dog", Greek kuon "dog"
 
Mother Tongue issue 3
After JB discussed how SS does his work,
These principles have come into play in several of Sergei's recent publications. In "Old Chinese Vocabulary: A Historical Perspective" (1995b) it is shown that Old Chinese and Caucasic share 13 "precise phonetic and semantic matches" in Yakhontov's 35-word list, and 0ld Chinese and Yeniseian share 9 items. For the rival Chinese-Austronesian hypothesis (recently associated with L. Sagart, and others) Sergei finds only four matches, and six matches in a Chinese-Indo-European (e.g. E. Pulleyblank) comparison.
So SS is confident that Sino-Caucasian is well-established. As a comparison, English and Russian have 19 matches on that list. Basque and North Caucasian have 13 matches, and only 6 on an extra list of 65 words.

SS also concluded that Altaic is a genetic grouping, and that it includes Korean and Japanese.


The issue includes a review by Vaclav Blazhek of Merritt Ruhlen's book "A Guide to the World's Languages. Vol. I: Classification"

"Following volumes will be devoted to Language Data (vol. 2) on about 2,000 better-known languages, and Language Universals (vol. 3) on typology." Unfortunately, he never published those planned books.
 
Making wild simplifying assumptions, including that the 35 words all have the same replacement rate, total time since separation is given by k*(log 35 - log x) where x is the number of matches.

... Old Chinese and Caucasic share 13 "precise phonetic and semantic matches" in Yakhontov's 35-word list, and 0ld Chinese and Yeniseian share 9 items.
... For the rival Chinese-Austronesian hypothesis ... Sergei finds only four matches, ...
... As a comparison, English and Russian have 19 matches on that list. Basque and North Caucasian have 13 matches...
pre-English and pre-Russian separated about 3000 BC so there are 10,000 years of total separation (5000 plus 5000) assuming Modern English and Modern Russian are compared. This calibrates k in the formula above as k = 16400; this will be used in the next paragraph.

Assuming that it is Modern Basque and Modern North Caucasian that are compared as x=13, their separation dates to 6000 BC -- just right assuming separation began with the Westward migration of Impressed Ware. If Old Chinese is from 2000 years ago, then Chinese-Caucasic split dates to 7000 BC and Chinese-Yeniseian dates to 10,000 BC. Chinese-Austronesian to about 16,700 BC.

These guesstimates are much MUCH too crude to even waste the back of an envelope on. Still, the numbers don't seem too far-fetched. (But borrowings and random matches are not accounted for, so the distant numbers should be pushed back farther.)
 
I've been re-reading Julian Jaynes' famous book  The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind and just read some of his speculation on the earliest development of language that, by coincidence, relates to the present discussion, and specifically to the Thai words mentioned above: /thii-nii/ ("here") and /thii-nuun/ ("over yonder").

Page 132 said:
... a danger call for immediately present danger would be exclaimed with more intensity, changing the ending phoneme. An imminent tiger might result in 'wahee!' while a distant tiger in a cry of less intensity and so develop a different ending such as 'wahoo.' It is these endings, then, that become the first modifiers meaning 'near' and 'far.'

Jaynes gets criticized for over-speculation and this may be an example. Still, I was bemused that the phonemes he speculates for those endings are the same as the Thai words. (/ii/ and /uu/ are the same sounds as the Anglophilic 'ee' and 'oo.')

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

I think We should have a thread on Julian Jaynes' theories (or revive an old one if it exists). He has much to say on the evolution of religion, a topic of much interest at IIDB. Moreover his ideas on the development of human consciousness stunned the world 47 years ago and have wrongly fallen into obscurity.
 
Mother Tongue 4 discusses Yeniseian and Ainu (Hokkaido, Sakhalin), and has another article by RW Westcott on Indo-European consonant ablaut. It contains comparisons like this:

PIE k: English hen, PIE g: Latin gallus "rooster", PIE gh: English gander "male goose", PIE H: Latin anas "duck" -- as was rather typical of the article, it did not list PIE reconstructed forms.

I researched it and I found
  • English hen < Proto-Germanic *hanjô, also *hano "rooster" < PIE *keh2n- (*kan-) "to sing"
  • Latin gallus < PIE *golsos "voice"
  • English gander < PGmc *ganzo < PIE *gh2ens (*ghans) "goose"
  • Latin anas < PIE *h2enh2ts (*Hanats) "duck"
The two chicken words seem to come from the sound that male ones make: Rooster Crowing Compilation Plus - Rooster crowing sounds Effect 2016 - YouTube

I decided to look at chicken words across IE.
  • English chicken < Proto-West-Germanic *kiukîn < Proto-Germanic *kiukinan an extension of *keukon- a variant of *kukkaz (>English cock). Imitative?
  • English hen, German Hahn, Henne < PGmc *honan-, *hanjô
  • Latin pullus: two possible IE etymologies, gallina: feminine of gallus
  • Proto-Celtic *yarâ "chicken, hen": obscure origin
  • Greek alektôr "rooster" < "protector" < alex- "to protect"
  • Armenian haw "bird, chicken" < PIE *h2ewis (*awis) "bird", akʿlor "rooster" < possibly from PIE *kelh- "to call"
  • Proto-Slavic *kokotu "rooster", *kokoshi "hen", *kuri "rooster", *kura, *kuritsa "hen": all imitative? *petulu "rooster" < *peti "to sing"
  • Lithuanian vishta "hen, chicken", gaidys "rooster"
  • Persian marg "hen" < Middle Iranian *mury "bird", Persian khorus "rooster" < Middle Iranian *khrôs < khrôstan "to call, cry out"
  • Sanskrit kukkuta "rooster": imitative
Three origins: imitative, "singer, caller, crier", "bird" (in general)

 Chicken - domesticated in SE Asia around 6000 BCE, and reached India and Syria by 2000 BCE, and Egypt by 1400 BCE. Widely raised for food in the S Levant around 250 BCE, and reached Europe by 100 BCE. But curiously there is no wander word for the chicken, like there is for the cat. Instead, words vary like crazy.
 
Continuing, a relation between the duck and the goose words depends on the prehistory of PIE laryngeals, a phonological feature that has long been controversial. But there might be, like between *kap- "to take" and *ghebh- "to give".

John Bengtson discussed "Consonantal Apophony in Proto-Human" noting that second consonants often have t/d ~ n ~ l ~ r

I don't have good references for most of his examples, so I'll concentrate on the Indo-European ones.

English "feather" < Proto-Germanic *fethrô "feather" -- Latin penna "feather" -- Greek pteron "feather, wing" -- Hittite pattar "wing, feather" -- from PIE *peth2r (*pth2en-) < *peth2- "to spread out, to fly"

Proto-Slavic *pero "feather", Sanskrit parna "feather, leaf", Proto-West-Germanic *farn "fern" ("feather plant")

Proto-West-Germanic *finnâ "fin", Latin pinna "fin" -- fins are flattened appendages, much like wings

So PIE had *pet- ~ *per- ~ *pen- with similar meanings.

JB noted some r-l alternations in present-day words, like Sarah > Sally.

So one doesn't have to go all the way to Proto-World for such alternations.
 
Making wild simplifying assumptions, including that the 35 words all have the same replacement rate, total time since separation is given by k*(log 35 - log x) where x is the number of matches.

... Old Chinese and Caucasic share 13 "precise phonetic and semantic matches" in Yakhontov's 35-word list, and 0ld Chinese and Yeniseian share 9 items.
... For the rival Chinese-Austronesian hypothesis ... Sergei finds only four matches, ...
... As a comparison, English and Russian have 19 matches on that list. Basque and North Caucasian have 13 matches...
pre-English and pre-Russian separated about 3000 BC so there are 10,000 years of total separation (5000 plus 5000) assuming Modern English and Modern Russian are compared. This calibrates k in the formula above as k = 16400; this will be used in the next paragraph.

Assuming that it is Modern Basque and Modern North Caucasian that are compared as x=13, their separation dates to 6000 BC -- just right assuming separation began with the Westward migration of Impressed Ware. If Old Chinese is from 2000 years ago, then Chinese-Caucasic split dates to 7000 BC and Chinese-Yeniseian dates to 10,000 BC. Chinese-Austronesian to about 16,700 BC.
Good calculations. I'll try to improve on them. I'll do so by looking for protolanguage time depths where I can find them.

Proto-North-Caucasian:

Evolution of Eurasian and African Family Systems, Cross-Cultural Research, Comparative Linguistics, and Deep History – тема научной статьи по языкознанию и литературоведению читайте бесплатно текст научно-исследовательской работы в электронной библиотеке КиберЛенинка

4,000 BC - 3,500 BCE

Old Chinese: roughly 1,000 - 500 BCE

Proto-Sino-Tibetan:

Phylogenetic evidence for Sino-Tibetan origin in northern China in the Late Neolithic | Nature
5,800 - 3,900 - 2,200 BCE
Dated language phylogenies shed light on the ancestry of Sino-Tibetan | PNAS
5,200 BCE

 Proto-Austronesian language - 4,000 - 3,500 BCE
 
A further problem: sampling error. For a binomial distribution with total number N and probability p, the mean is N*p and the standard deviation sqrt(N*p*(1-p))

For Core Indo-European, I'll use the beginning of the Corded Ware archeological horizon; Core IE being all but Anatolian and Tocharian.

For Yeniseian, I'll use a time depth of 2000 years before present or around 1 CE.

For Basque, I'll use the present.

The numbers:
  • Yakhontov-list total: 35
  • Calibration: Core Indo-European: English-Russian: 19
  • Old Chinese - North Caucasian: 13
  • Old Chinese - Yeniseian: 9
  • Old Chinese - Indo-European: 6
  • Old Chinese - Austronesian: 5
  • Basque - North Caucasian: 13
So the calibration point has a stdev of about 3. I find a decay constant of 6,400 - 8,200 - 10,800 years, using e as the exponent base and not 2.

Results:
  • English-Russian (back calculated): 4,200 - 3,000 - 1,900 BCE
  • Basque - N Caucasian: 10,900 - 8,800 - 7,200 BCE
  • Old Chinese - N Caucasian: 12,100 - 10,100 - 8,500 BCE
  • Old Chinese - Yeniseian: 14,100 - 11,400 - 9,300 BCE
  • Old Chinese - Indo-European: 19,700 - 16,200 - 13,600 BCE
  • Old Chinese - Austronesian: 22,100 - 18,200 - 15,400 BCE
This makes the Basque-N-Caucasian separation in time for the expansion of agriculture into Anatolia and its split into Europe and the Caucasus Mountains. The Sino-Caucasian breakup was a little before then.

OC - IE & AN is well into the Pleistocene, close to the Last Glacial Maximum.

Source code in Mathematica:

Calculating the standard deviations:
Code:
bnsd[ntot_, n_] := (p |-> Sqrt[ntot*p*(1 - p)]) @ N[n/ntot]

bnsd[35, 19]

Calculating the decay constant:
Code:
5000./Log[35./(19. + 3.*{-1, 0, 1})]

Calculating the divergence times:
Code:
dcy = {6400., 8200., 10200.};

qts[x_] := Quantile[x, {0.25, 0.5, 0.75}]

tmr[ntot_, n_, t_ : 0] := 
 Round[qts[
     Flatten[Outer[Times, dcy, 
        Log[ntot/(n + {-1, 0, 1}*Sqrt[n*(1 - n/ntot)])]] + t/2]] - 
    2000, 100] // Reverse
 
The crude "half-life" formula I gave has at least one major flaw: Even within the 35 most-preserved word list, some words will have slower decay times than others. This can probably be accommodated (and then calibrated via two or more references) with a 2-parameter formula, but it's as easy to just run simulations.

The results will be VERY crude estimates. Among other flaws is the faulty assumption that all languages have the same word-replacement rates.
 
Mother Tungue 4 did a review of "Indo-European, Nostratic, and Beyond: Festschrift for Vitalij V. Shevoroshkin" a collection of papers in that prehistorian's honor.

From German Festschrift "festival writing", something that academics do in honor of some much-appreciated fellow academic.

"The Myth of the Primordial Click" by JC Catford - an interesting one. Clicks are common in southern Africa but rare elsewhere, which is an odd sort of distribution. Arriving Bantu speakers ended up using clicks, and might South African Afrikaans and English speakers end up using clicks?

In "Does Altaic Exist?" Joseph Greenberg states "Now it is a worldwide typological fact that where there is a first person inclusive/exclusive distinction in the plural, the exclusive, when analyzable, is the plural of the first person." That is, we (excl.) = I's / me's


"Rigor or Vigor: Whither Distant Linguistic Comparison?" by Mark Kaiser
Amidst a fair amount of confusion, two positions have formed: those who reject out of hand any claim of genetic affinity which fails to meet the degree of proof established by Indo-European, and those who randomly pick out stems which are only similar in sound and meaning and, without reconstruction of the proto-language, claim genetic cognates.
Rigorists vs. vigorists.

Then describing the work of Vladislav Illich-Svitych and Aharon Dolgopolsky on Nostratic.
1) Comparison of multiple languages or language families - binary comparisons are to be avoided.
2) Reconstruction of the protolanguage by means of a system of strict phonological and semantic correspondences.
3) The possibility of borrowing must be taken into account.
4) Treatment of the data involves ongoing modification and refinement.
Essentially what one does with well-established language families. Though noting "At an early stage, Illic-Svityc's and Dolgopolsky's articles were similar to the mass comparison technique of J. Greenberg."

About VS, "He has struggled against the anti-historical bias in American linguistics and against fellow Indo-Europeanists who were unwilling to consider any proposal of a genetic relationship involving Indo-European and other language families."
 
Mark Kaiser then discusses the work of Allan Bomhard on Nostratic, which started with his comparison of IE and Afroasiatic, mainly Semitic.
However, in addition to being primarily a binary comparison, there are numerous other methodological errors in the work: roots are truncated or in other ways modified to better match data from other languages, and the semantics of reconstructions are embellished (for details, see Kaiser-Shevoroshkin 1987, Palmaitis 1986). Other scholars duly noted the lack of a rigorous methodology and dismissed not only Bernhard's questionable reconstructions, but, unfortunately, his good reconstructions and the entire concept of Nostratics, as well.
Then the question of Moscow vs. Bomhard about how Indo-European stops' voicing corresponds to the rest of Nostratic.

MK then gets into Joseph Greenberg's mass comparisons. Like Macro-Panoan for "woman": chalo-na, kilaua, kelaa, kila, kili-p, which he compares to Equatorial kvantua, kneu, *kuja:, kunja, igun. Seems like he was working in a very subjective fashion. One may indeed develop a lot of intuition from one's experience, but one should not have to be Joseph Greenberg to do such work. Semantics are also rather loose: 'feather'- 'leaf, 'strong' - 'bone', 'small' - 'daughter', 'light' - 'burn' - 'sun', 'burn' - 'star', 'shoulder' - 'arm' - 'back'.

Seems to me that it's good as a preliminary collection of data and not much more. If one was doing that with Indo-European, one would stumble over deus ~ theos, much ~ mucho, haben ~ habere, etc.

About global etymologies, "These types of comparisons are exceptionally fascinating and exceedingly premature." I agree.

Finally, he mentions Sergei Starostin's more vs. less stable test, noting Turkic-Tungusic having 8 in the more stable 35-word list and 8 in the less stable 65-word list: 22.9% vs. 12.3%.
 
There's an article titled "The Polygenesis of Western Yiddish--and the Monogenesis of Yiddish" by Alexis Manaster Ramer -- mentioning the common belief that different dialects of Yiddish are derived from different dialects of German or mixtures of them. AMR proposes that there was a single ancestral dialect of this language that split into several dialects as its speakers moved around in Central and Eastern Europe.

That fits in well with Ashkenazi Jews' population history: Ashkenazi Jews descend from 350 people, study finds | The Times of Israel -- "'Bottleneck’ dates back 600 to 800 years, genome analysis shows; researcher says among population ‘everyone is a 30th cousin’"

Did that population speak Proto-Yiddish?


"Altaic Evidence for Clusters in Nostratic" by Peter A. Michalove -- consonant clusters

Discusses VIS's reconstruction of nine Nostratic affricates (/ts/ and similar): three voicings, three points of articulation, hissing /s/, hissing-hushing, hushing /sh/. They stayed affricates in some branches, while in IE they became /s/ + stop, simplifying medially to /s/.

Alexis Manaster Ramer suggests that it was the IE forms that were original, and that they turned into the affricate forms in some of the other subfamilies, and PAM describes that for Altaic.
 
Vladimir Orel contributed "New Albanian Etymologies" from his then-upcoming work "Albanian Etymological Dictionary"

Ilia Peiros: "Macro Families: Can a Mistake Be Detected?"

When he took a course on Nostratics from Aharon Dolgopolsky around 1980, he asked "Why should I accept this strange idea? Comparative Slavonic is much more convincing and I know the languages involved." But he ended up getting involved in Nostratics, because he liked those who were working on it.

A continuum of language relationship that he divides up:
  • Dialect
  • Language - which he distinguishes from "sociolanguage"
  • Young Family - members can communicate across it, but with difficulty, like Russian and Ukrainian (East Slavic)
  • Developed Family - Germanic, Romance, Slavic, ... - easily recognized even if lacking in mutual intelligibility
  • Old Family - Indo-European, ... - not very obvious, but generally recognized by comparative linguists
  • Macrofamily - Nostratic, Dene-Caucasian, ...
Serbian and Croatian are sociolanguages within one language, Serbo-Croatian, and Chinese is a sociolanguage that includes languages Mandarin, Cantonese, etc. Danish and Norwegian and Swedish are either three sociolanguages in one language or else three languages in one young family.

Indo-European was discovered by comparing Latin, Greek, and Sanskrit, which are more like a Developed Family. But once linguists learned what to look for, they could apply their techniques elsewhere. Techniques like using protolanguages of subfamilies.
 
Ilya Peiros then divides relationship claims into three groups:
  1. Well-supported: Sino-Caucasian (Sino-Tibetan, North Caucasian, Yeniseian)
  2. Plausible: Austronesian & Tai-Kadai (Austro-Tai), Austroasiatic & Miao-Yao
  3. Not supported by convincing evidence: Sino-Austronesian, Japanese-Austro-Tai
Then explaining why he comes to those conclusions.

He explains what words or word parts (morphemes) a language may have:
  1. Sound-imitation ones
  2. Cultural ones - often borrowed along with acquaintance with what they name
  3. Core ones - essentially universal, seldom borrowed
  4. Grammatical ones - like core lexicon, but far from universal
  5. Environmental ones - natural phenomena, substances, plants, animals
  6. All the rest
So one should use the core lexicon and grammar for comparisons.

Any two transparently related languages always show a certain number of comparisons from the 100-item list, usually more than 12-15. About 5 comparisons will usually be found between any two languages due simply to chance factors, and they do not indicate a genetic relationship.
Extrapolating to the Yakhontov 35-word list gives a coincidence threshold of 2 matches.

He also says that one should compare at least 3 (proto)languages. I must say that doing so makes cognates much more obvious.

As to sound correspondences, he notes that they are given for Sino-Caucasian, but at least when he wrote this article, not for Austro-Tai or AA-MY.
 
Back to Mother Tongue 4. Roger W Wescott reviewed "Indo-European, Nostratic, and Beyond: Festschrift for Vitalij V. Shevoroshkin." - what he called 23 "thought-provoking" articles.

Now MT 5. He editorialized:
The disagreements among the twelve authors of the first nineteen selections in MT-V seem to me to spring primarily from the philosophical divergence between absolutists and relativists. The absolutists appear to regard some genetic connections between languages as indisputable and others as inconceivable. The relativists, by contrast, tend to regard all such connections as possible, but only some as probable. The relativists, moreover, seem to treat probable affiliations as differing in degree, some being more probable than others.
I'm clearly on the relativist side.

The issue started off with LaVaughn H. Hayes claiming that there is an Austronesian - Austroasiatic correspondence that provides "irrefutable proof" that the two have a common ancestor. Vaclav Blazhek, no shrinking violet in long-range comparison, concluded that "Without careful AA reconstructions based on the partial reconstructions of the daughter's protolanguages, the AA-AN comparisons remain only speculative." There was more back-and-forth between LVHH and the others, and I'm inclined to agree with VB.

Then a lot of back-and-forth about Basque and North Caucasian. Paul Whitehouse in "The Basque Language and its Closest Relatives" compared Basque to a lot of languages and language families, finding Dene-Caucasian the closest.
In the specific case of Dene-Caucasic, I would answer that the similarities between Basque and the other Dene-Caucasic languages are non-random because they are significantly more numerous than those between Basque and non-Dene-Caucasic languages, and because John Bengtson is able to point to specific recurrent similarities which are definitely not evident elsewhere.
PW then says that it would be absurd to call Basque-DC "obvious". Then,
Proper linguists may prefer to skip this next heretical paragraph, but I don’t like re¬ constructions. I don’t trust them. Reconstructions are theories, even the best reconstructions, yet too often they are treated as hard fact. It sometimes seems as if conformity to theory is prized above common sense, particularly when the reconstruction proposed appears unlike any word ever found in the real world.
 
Then some articles about Sumerian, with Michael Witzel stating about long-range comparison, "As some of its detractors have maintained for long, one can always find some 50 look-alikes in any two languages."

John Bengtson:
First, let me say how difficult it has been to get Sumerologists to discuss the topic of possible genetic relationships of Sumerian. Several of my letters to experts on Sumerian went unanswered. Are they totally uninterested in the topic, or do they wish to keep their cherished language forever unique and mysterious? (I have detected a similar attitude among some Vasconists.)
In fairness to such people, they may have seen numerous amateur comparisons.

Then Randy Foote on climate effects over the last 100+ thousand years. Changes were sometimes surprisingly fast, within a few decades or even one decade.

131,000 - 114,000 BP (before present: BCE + 1950) - the Eemian interglacial period, much like the Holocene. But our ancestors back then didn't colonize our planet's land surface as they would do later.  Behavioral modernity - the oldest clear evidence of that is from 80,000 years ago in places like Blombos Cave in South Africa.

The most recent Ice Age (glacial period) started around 115,000 BP, and relatively quickly, around 400 years. Sea level dropped around 120 meters, and the climate became drier. Forests turned into grassland, and grassland into desert.

Then mentioning  Toba catastrophe theory about that Indonesian volcano's big eruption around 74,000 BP. Was it devastating enough to make our ancestors have a population crash?

In any case, this is around when the first members of our species successfully departed from Africa, likely by crossing the Bab el Mandeb strait by boat. They spread in southern and southeastern Asia, crossing the Sunda Strait by boat to New Guinea and Australia, then one landmass, the Sahul. A population went northward and spread eastward and westward in Eurasia.

Then the Last Glacial Maximum, around 30,000 - 16,000 BP, and then a warming period around 14,000 BP - 12,800 BP. Could that warm period explain dispersals like of Nostratic, Afrasian, and Dene-Caucasian? Then the Younger Dryas cold snap, a return to Ice-Age conditions, aridity and all. It ended quickly around 11,400 BP, as fast as 20 years, an event now used to mark the beginning of the Holocene Epoch.

The climate continued to improve to 8,200 BP, then a 400-year cold snap that started and ended in less than a generation: coldness and dryness that caused many Neolithic settlements to be abandoned. From 9,000 BP to 4,500 BP was the Holocene Climate Optimum, with the Sahara and Arabian Deserts being grassland.
 
Then a special issue that's also in the Long Ranger archive, and it's followed by issue 6. It has a tribute to Joseph Greenberg where this macro-comparatist said that his greatest regret was not finishing up Southeast Asia. Has last work was on Eurasiatic langs, finishing its second volume, on its lexicon, not long before he died.

Then John Bengtson introduced a festschrift for Roger Wescott with these questions:
  • What can we learn from a historical overview of the field of paleolinguistics?
  • How, if at all, do methods of long-range comparison and traditional comparative linguistics differ?
  • What core philosophical differences (e.g., absolutism vs. relativism; monogenism vs. polygenism; lumpers vs. splitters) exist among linguists?
  • To what extent is paleolinguistics an art and to what extent a science?
  • What constitutes scientific evidence in paleolinguistics?
  • What time depth is possible in paleoliguistics?
  • What should be the rules of discourse and polemics for paleolinguists?
Michael Witzel did some history, noting that early Indo-Europeanists worked in Greenbergian fashion, collecting lots of similar-looking words, then finding sound correspondences and grammatical similarities. A big help was having long-ago langs in addition to present-day ones.

He also mentioned mythology - Laurasian vs. Gondwanan, named after those long-gone supercontinents which roughly match the geographic extents of those mythologies. Gondwanan: Sub-Saharan Africa, New Guinea, Australia. Laurasian: the rest of the world.
While Laurasian mythology can be described as being highly interested in origins, especially the origins of the universe and the succession of the various generations of the gods and that of four subsequent ages, the mythologies of Afiica and Australia/New Guinea generally do not take notice of this question and generally confine themselves to describing the emergence of humankind in an already existing world.
Laurasian-mythology territory roughly matches that of the putative Borean macrofamily: Nostratic, Afrasian, Dene-Caucasian, and Amerind.
 
Back
Top Bottom