Ancient Survivals.
December 19, 2011 - 9:26pm
>>>>
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: Become a Podcaster | Find a Show
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2012 the authors
Syndicate
I'm hoping this is going to be about Natufians or homo erectus.
Is that a subtle joke there that I'm too thick to pick up on? :)
Has finally been pretty much proven that (as I long suspected) pre-modern hominids did indeed add something to our otherewise common human inheritance, but this is just about the continued survival of ethnic groups and their cultures from relatively recent neolithic and bronze age times. Been finding alot of them recently, which I thought was interesting. And also abit hopeful IMO.
"Irish travellers, long derided as anti-social itinerants rather than "true" Gypsies, are an ancient people in their own right, researchers say."
"Research by an Irish socio-linguist, Dr Alice Binchy, suggests that more than half the surviving Cant/Gammon lexicon may be derived from a long-lost language spoken in Ireland before the Celts arrived. "A partially pre-Celtic origin would have substantial implications for the way we look not only at traveller history, but at early Irish history as a whole," said Dr Binchy, a delegate at a conference of linguists, historians and anthropologists to be held at the University of Limerick."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/academics-suggest-iris...
This particular 'discovery' is still rather controversial, but from what I've read over the years about long submerged groups bring 'found' again it's entirely possible. (could also be important, if accurate, as the aboriginal tongues of Northern Europe, were mostly gone before they could be recorded)
The "Cant" and "Gammon or "Shelta" dialects spoken by non-Gypsey (Roma) travellers or "Tinkers" in Britain are mixtures of Gaellic Celtic (mostly vocabulary) and English (most grammar) with some words turned around to add to its in-group secrecy, not unlike some traditional occupational argots, but its roots may go back to groups dispossessed millennia ago. Here's a good site on this particular language by someone who should know: http://www.travellersrest.org/shelta.htm
I can't tell what words might be rooted in what, as my own Irish and Scots were lost a long time before I came onto the scene. Maybe someone else could.
It was a rather poor joke and an honest hope that the topic was going to be about ancient ancestors and some non-ancestors as well. I'm almost finished reading "before the dawn" by Nicholas Wade and it's riveting.
So I am abit thick then. :) I'll definitely look it up, what exactly is the book about?
It's a cross study of anthropology, archeology and most especially genetics. Starts about 5 million years ago but mainly focuses on the last 50000 years. Using genetics it follows the migration out of Africa to recent times. Fascinating stuff about how quickly we evolve at a genetic level. The impact of communities, glaciation, isolation etc... Apparently on a particularly isolated island in the south pacific there exist descendants of homo erectus ( genetically speaking ), the only descendants that were not extinguished by our ancestors or bad luck. I also do not believe your are a bit thick, or any kind of thick for that matter. Natufians are believed to be the first settlers of our species, transitioning from hunter/ gather to stationary encampments. Just some examples. I've learned a lot ( hopefully it's also correct ) from the book.
Chimpanzee communities, which are dominated by the males, actually wage war with other chimpanzee communities including unprovoked attacks and raids. Bonobo communities, which are dominated by the females don't wage wars or initiate aggression. They are our two closest species from a genetic point of few. The narrative in the book tries to explain evolutionary pressures with genetics. I strongly recommend it, although it doesn't shy away from some controversial subjects.
Mm, the latest theory I've seen is that the constant shifts in the African environment of the time tested our ancestors adaptibility and encouraged further growth in intellect and complex means of subsistence. Or something like that. I have a couple minor quibbles with what I've seen but I best read the book first.
You won't be disappointed. I've read many books on the topic and so far it's by far the best. My descriptions or examples don't do it justice.
Here's another ditty: http://news.discovery.com/human/new-language-india.html
Interesting for two reasons. One is that it shows that a compltely separate language can be held even by the same ethnic group -and they may not even be aware of its own uniquenes. It also happens to be related to a group of obscure languages on the borders of India, China and Myanmar, which have traditonally been subsumed within the great Sino-Tibetan family. (Chinese, Tibetan, Burmese, etc) But now it turns out that they may in fact represent a whole other East Asian family, unrecognised up to now. Other poorly attested languages are also showing up, now hat better material is being collected, all of which open new windows into our pre-history and how much more *complex* the settlement of the world was than previously thought. Even the relatively developed theories I was reading twenty years ago look hopelessly outmoded now.
Looking fwd to it.
The book spends a great deal of time on language as the main driver for "modern humans", suggesting it came into play some 50 K years ago and was the spark that created religion as a means of implementing rules in what was an egalitarian and nomadic community. It traces back to what was some original words in the first language, although without a strong consensus from the liguistic community in that particular case. It is quite clear on where there is consensus and where there isn't in alll topics. References Chomsky in many instances, although not always in a positive light. The connections to Darwin and genetics is fascinating.
What do you think of the review in Nature?
Well I for one can't really say much about it, except that I'm *not* talking about heritability of 'behaviorial' traits via some sort of genetic determinism, only the survival of unknown and long forgotten languages and cultures. Please try to pay attention to whats actually being written. And what's not. I will say that I find it highly unlikley that fully 'modern' language (whatever that means compared to unknown others) only evolved about the time modern humans started to leave Africa (especially given the wide range of possible dates suggested for THAT) but I'd need to, you know, actually Read the book to see how well it actually meshes with what little we DO now know of our prehistory.
Before the Dawn slammed in Nature posted by Razib @ 6/15/2006 07:20:00 PMReaders know that I don't have a totally positive opinion of Before the Dawn, but this hatchet job in Nature is out of control, it stinks of "The Sociobiology Study Group." Full text below the fold, I'll let readers point out the issues....
And before you try to confuse the issue further, try to choose a less ambiguous source of support than Razib. The fashion of finding out the 'haplgroups' of various populations tell us next to nothing *except* the liklyhood of migration of certain Parts of a population from here or there, and their *relative* relation to others. And possibly some association with archeologically dated cultures and linguistic descendents, although that one is always very contentious and full of gaps and frequently contradictions. The origin of language and culture were linked not that long ago with popular theories about how our particular kind of humans displaced others (greater language ability meaning greater cognitive skills, leading to higher innovative potential basically) but that too has been found wanting. As I already hinted at above.
Back to the subject, another one on Shelta: http://www.linguistics.siuc.edu/jpclfiles/shgorigins.html
Interesting stuff if the renewed research turns up something substantal, and sheds somemore light on some admittedly minor questions.
And before you try to confuse the issue further, try to choose a less ambiguous source of support than Razib.
I don't know why you're so fucking hostile. I just asked a simple question of anyone who has read the book (I haven't). And I didn't cite Razib in "support" of anything - I cited a review in a highly respectable journal that Razib had nothing at all to do with.
I read the review after I had almost finished reading the book. I would have guessed which small parts of a large story would be focused on, and frankly misrepresented. There are lots and lots of conjectures in the book, necessary for the topic and present science, they are presented as conjectures. I found it an honest attempt at a difficult subject, very well written and structured for a lay person reading it. In general, since I read fast, I almost never pay attention to reviews.
I also enjoyed "Cro-Magnon: How the Ice Age gave birth to the first modern humans" by Brian Fagan. Less controversial I suppose. I haven't read any reviews on that one, before or after.
And before you try to confuse the issue further, try to choose a less ambiguous source of support than Razib.
I don't know why you're so fucking hostile. I just asked a simple question of anyone who has read the book (I haven't). And I didn't cite Razib in "support" of anything - I cited a review in a highly respectable journal that Razib had nothing at all to do with.
Why am I so hostile? I'm not. I just get tired of having my threads derailed by passive aggressive posts that have little or nothing to do with the subject.
I'd be very careful about anything much being assumed about that period, as you yourself wrote there's a lot of supposition (logical or not) based on very few ancient stones and bones and what we presume historica hunter-gathers had in common with them. The Cro-magnon proper were just one of the modern human colonizing the world, probably about 10-20,000 years after our common ancestors first left east Africa (and colonized the rest of Africa). Thirty thousand YBP used to be the generally accepted date of their arrival, so they lived side by side with their Neander cousins longer than thought. It's still unclear how much modern Europeans derive from the first wave of settlers, as opposed to various neolithic and historic movements. Recorded ones probably not much.
Why am I so hostile? I'm not. I just get tired of having my threads derailed by passive aggressive posts that have little or nothing to do with the subject.
You were awfully nice to Glenl, who started the whole Nicholas Wade diversion back in post #4. I was merely continuing the diversion that he started and that you happily participated in, by asking a simple question.
Go find yourself an encyclopedia and look up "passive aggressive". You clearly haven't got a clue what it means.
Just for clarification post #4 was in regard to my post #2. Post #2 was written in response to an interesting thread title and then a significant delay in flushing out what was intended by Ancient Survivals. Check the times. In #4 I mentioned what I hoped it was about, apologized for a poor joke and mentioned my hope as it related to a book I was reading. Then I was asked what the book was about by Erik. I wasn't and am not trying to divert or hijack the thread and I will stay out of it henceforth. Sorry for not being an asshole.
You have nothing to apologize for, Glenl, as you well know.
Anyhow, there's a whole slew of probable language isolates which have been 'discovered' recently. (Language having little to nothing to do with culture or what used to be called race, although certain groups sharing a common identity enjoying certain positional advantages have been able to expand at the expense of others -eventually losing their own commonality in the process)
One of the mysteries in linguistics has been why the so-called 'New World' (including the East Pacific) has so much more linguistic and cultural diversity than the 'old' does (in most places), with the generally accepted if rather simplified answers now being that the Old world has a longer history of agricultural spread, trade in metals, horses for rapid mobility, and larger nation states spreading, unifying and extinguishing others. And writing. More material for conquerers to work with IOW. It's also being found out that the old assimiliation process wasn't quite as complete as was once thought.
IN the last ten years these little known groups have been found to nolonger be so easily subsumed into the traditional language stocks (and the language stocks themselves are constantly being redefined and debated) recognised for the past fifty-hundred plus years.
*Engannese -language native to small isolated island off southern Sumatra, traditionally thought to be divergent form of Austronesian (Malay, Indonesian, Philipino, Oceanic, Madagasy, Formosan) but apparently showing on reexamination little in common but borrowing.
*Shompen -hunters of South Nicobar island off Burmese coast, assumed to be related to Mon-Khmer Nicobarese but new material shows two very different languages used, although possibly a deeper independent relationship.
*Kusunda -nearly extinct dialect spoken by tiny group of sub-Himalayan hunters, once assumed to be related to other Tibeto-Burman neighbours but possibly showing distant relationship to unique Andaman island languages -the last aboriginal languages spoken by the first settlers of SE Asia -possibly the first out of Africa.
*Tofalar -small Turkic speaking group of Siberians but with unusual substrate vocabulary which show no similiarity to any other known.
*Kett -long known "Paleo-Siberian" isolate but more and more evidence indicating distant relationship with Northern American Na-Dene(Athapaskan-Tlingit) family. Probably relatively recent migrants to Siberia but long established in Asia -possibly related to some of the founding tribes of Huns/Xiongu.
*Nahali/Kalto -Perhaps one of the worlds only true isolates, not even distant relationships likely. (except proto-world) Possibly last surviving members of India's aboriginal tribal people, closest relatives apparently now speak Indo-Aryan Bhili dialects. Heavily influenced by neighbouring languages but retains original core.
*Shelta -as mentioned. Gaellic-English but with substrata some now believe related to pre-Celtic populations of Northern Europe. If so could be distant relatives to any one of the aboriginal Basques, extinct Iberians, Scottish Picts or proto-IE 'Belgic' speakers.
*Saami -definitely related to Uralic Finns and others, but not as closely perhaps as once thought and showing strong lexical substrata from possibly more than one source. People now believed to be largely derived from early post-glacial expansion from Mesolithic 'Franco-Iberian' refuge, with later migrants.
*Bangyme -villagers once thought to be minor members of Dogon nation, part of wider Niger-Congo family covering most of Africa South of equater, but definitely unique. More remote relationship possible, but be diffucult to prove.
*Laal- traditionally thought to be Anamawan(Ubangi -Niger-Congo branch) or Chaddic (Afro-Asiatic) but core vocabulary hints at some other survival, pssibly some otherwise extinct Central African family.
*Centuum -another small group only recently 'found'' in NE Nigeria, but definitely no close relationship with others.
*Hadzape -long known East African group, assumed to be distantly related to Sandawe and SW Africa Khoisan languages because of 'clicks' used as consonants, but now accepted as independent language isolate. Maybe ethnically related to Rwanda and Burundi 'Twa'.
*Irimba Twa -small group of hunter-gathers in Gabon, with some still speaking a unique NW Bantu dialect with unknown substrata. Old question is what languages did the so-called 'Pygmies' speak before they partly assmilated with Ba-ntu farmers (if they were in fact separate to begin with -always complicated) and this group may still have some of the answers.
These are just the fairly recent discoveries -at least in their uniqueness and what they could tell us about our collective prehistory of settlement- oters no doubt will be found. If anyones interested I can link to sources for all these and some but I'm not going to all that trouble right now.
Just for clarification post #4 was in regard to my post #2. Post #2 was written in response to an interesting thread title and then a significant delay in flushing out what was intended by Ancient Survivals. Check the times. In #4 I mentioned what I hoped it was about, apologized for a poor joke and mentioned my hope as it related to a book I was reading. Then I was asked what the book was about by Erik. I wasn't and am not trying to divert or hijack the thread and I will stay out of it henceforth. Sorry for not being an asshole.
I wasn't saying that *you* were trying to hijack the thread, it was M.Spector looking to start a pointless argument over this sideline, with that overtly hostile 'review'. That would have derailed this otherwise light info-thread -I've seen it before. I am interested in that side of it too and I'm sure you can find other more balanced reviews on Amazon.
Why am I so hostile? I'm not. I just get tired of having my threads derailed by passive aggressive posts that have little or nothing to do with the subject.
You were awfully nice to Glenl, who started the whole Nicholas Wade diversion back in post #4. I was merely continuing the diversion that he started and that you happily participated in, by asking a simple question.
Go find yourself an encyclopedia and look up "passive aggressive". You clearly haven't got a clue what it means.
Right. Entering a thread by posting an overly hostile review on something I only said I was interested in reading (and I bet it is entertaining for those interested in this kind of 'origins' thing) then refusing to take responsibility for it is exactly the definition of passive aggressive -who ME? Youre SO Hostile! I've seen enough of it here to recognise it.
Back to the subject, for those who might be interested.
Anyhow, there's a whole slew of probable language isolates which have been 'discovered' recently. (Language having little to nothing to do with culture or what used to be called race, although certain groups sharing a common identity enjoying certain positional advantages have been able to expand at the expense of others -eventually losing their own commonality in the process)
One of the mysteries in linguistics has been why the so-called 'New World' (including the East Pacific) has so much more linguistic and cultural diversity than the 'old' does (in most places), with the generally accepted if rather simplified answers now being that the Old world has a longer history of agricultural spread, trade in metals, horses for rapid mobility, and larger nation states spreading, unifying and extinguishing others. And writing. More material for conquerers to work with IOW. It's also being found out that the old assimiliation process wasn't quite as complete as was once thought.
IN the last ten years these little known groups have been found to nolonger be so easily subsumed into the traditional language stocks (and the language stocks themselves are constantly being redefined and debated) recognised for the past fifty-hundred plus years.
*Engannese -language native to small isolated island off southern Sumatra, traditionally thought to be divergent form of Austronesian (Malay, Indonesian, Philipino, Oceanic, Madagasy, Formosan) but apparently showing on reexamination little in common but borrowing.
*Shompen -hunters of South Nicobar island off Burmese coast, assumed to be related to Mon-Khmer Nicobarese but new material shows two very different languages used, although possibly a deeper independent relationship.
*Kusunda -nearly extinct dialect spoken by tiny group of sub-Himalayan hunters, once assumed to be related to other Tibeto-Burman neighbours but possibly showing distant relationship to unique Andaman island languages -the last aboriginal languages spoken by the first settlers of SE Asia -possibly the first out of Africa.
*Tofalar -small Turkic speaking group of Siberians but with unusual substrate vocabulary which show no similiarity to any other known.
*Kett -long known "Paleo-Siberian" isolate but more and more evidence indicating distant relationship with Northern American Na-Dene(Athapaskan-Tlingit) family. Probably relatively recent migrants to Siberia but long established in Asia -possibly related to some of the founding tribes of Huns/Xiongu.
*Nahali/Kalto -Perhaps one of the worlds only true isolates, not even distant relationships likely. (except proto-world) Possibly last surviving members of India's aboriginal tribal people, closest relatives apparently now speak Indo-Aryan Bhili dialects. Heavily influenced by neighbouring languages but retains original core.
*Shelta -as mentioned. Gaellic-English but with substrata some now believe related to pre-Celtic populations of Northern Europe. If so could be distant relatives to any one of the aboriginal Basques, extinct Iberians, Scottish Picts or proto-IE 'Belgic' speakers.
*Saami -definitely related to Uralic Finns and others, but not as closely perhaps as once thought and showing strong lexical substrata from possibly more than one source. People now believed to be largely derived from early post-glacial expansion from Mesolithic 'Franco-Iberian' refuge, with later migrants.
*Bangyme -villagers once thought to be minor members of Dogon nation, part of wider Niger-Congo family covering most of Africa South of equater, but definitely unique. More remote relationship possible, but be diffucult to prove.
*Laal- traditionally thought to be Anamawan(Ubangi -Niger-Congo branch) or Chaddic (Afro-Asiatic) but core vocabulary hints at some other survival, pssibly some otherwise extinct Central African family.
*Centuum -another small group only recently 'found'' in NE Nigeria, but definitely no close relationship with others.
*Hadzape -long known East African group, assumed to be distantly related to Sandawe and SW Africa Khoisan languages because of 'clicks' used as consonants, but now accepted as independent language isolate. Maybe ethnically related to Rwanda and Burundi 'Twa'.
*Irimba Twa -small group of hunter-gathers in Gabon, with some still speaking a unique NW Bantu dialect with unknown substrata. Old question is what languages did the so-called 'Pygmies' speak before they partly assmilated with Ba-ntu farmers (if they were in fact separate to begin with -always complicated) and this group may still have some of the answers.
These are just the fairly recent discoveries -at least in their uniqueness and what they could tell us about our collective prehistory of settlement- oters no doubt will be found. If anyones interested I can link to sources for all these and some but I'm not going to all that trouble right now.
I don't really post here anymore but I do lurk quite a bit. Posting is just too much effort due to the ease of getting a hostile reaction due to a poor or hasty choice of words.
However, I was quite interested in the two books mentioned by Glenl: Before the Dawn and Cro-Magnon.
I checked with my local bookstore, and they did not have either, so I ordered them from Amazon and got both the next day.
I have already read parts of Before the Dawn. It is very interesting stuff. I'm looking forward to reading Cro-Magnon.
So, many thanks to drawing my attention to these two.
PS: Merry Christmas.