mother tongue newsletter 4 (november 1987)

7/27/2019 Mother Tongue Newsletter 4 (November 1987)

1/41

THE

T

GE

N E W S ~ E T T E R O F TH E ~ O N GRANGE COMPARXSON C ~ U B

NOVEMBER : 1 9 8 7


2/41

Tongue 4. November , 1987 -:- .>>>> Contents of Circular 4 of MOTHER TONGUE


3/41


4/41

+ IN MEMORIAM +KLAUS BAER,1930-1987

SATURDAY, MAY 16, 19872:00 P.M.

CHRIST THE MEDIATOR LUTHERAN CHURCH3100 S. Calumet AvenueChicago, Illinois 60616

KLAUS BAERJune 22, 1930 - May 14, 1987

Klaus Baer t ~ a s born in Halle, Germany, the sonof Marianne and Reinhold Baer. In 1933, the Baersemigrated to the United States, where the son remainedbut the parents eventually returned to Europe.

Mr. Baer received a B.A. in classical Greekfrom the University of Illinois in 1948. Immediatelythereafter, at the age of 17, he entered theUniversity of Chicago as a graduate student inEgyptology, having already taught himself classicalEgyptian. rrom 1952 to 1954 he was a rulbrightrellow in Egypt working on excavation projects atSaqqara and Giza. He received a Ph.D. from theUniversity of Chicago in 1958.Subsequently, Mr. Baer spent six years at the

University of California at Berkeley. He returnedto the University of Chicago in 1965 where he becamean Associate Professor at the Oriental Institute andin the Department of Near Eastern Language andCivilizations. He was named Professor in 1970 andserved as Department Chairman from 1972 to 1976.Klaus Baer was an internationally known Egyptologist,especially known as an expert on ancient Egyptianlanguages.On July 20, 1985 Klaus Baer was married toMiriam Reitz, who survives him. They have beenmembers of Christ the Mediator Lutheran Church since

September, 1986 and in January, 1987, he was electedto the church council. t4r. Baer served for manyyears on the board of the Rocky Ridge Music Camp inEstes Park, Colorado.


5/41

_10 Section 2 Chicago Tribune. Friday, May ~ ! l l ' / . ; . , ; ; ! 7 ~ - - ~ - -. Obituaries

Klaus- Baer, 56, an expert on EgyptBy Kenan Heise

Klaus Baer, 56, an Egyptologist atthe Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, was president of theAmerican Research Center in Egypt. from 1981 to 1984.A memorial service for Mr. Baer,of Hyde Park. will be held at 2 p.m.Saturday in ChriSt the Mediator Lutheran Church, 3100 S. CalumetAve. He died Thursday in BernardMitchell Hospital at the UniversityofChicago. "He knew classical E ~ t i a n whenhe came to the university as a grad

uate student at the age of 17 in1948," a university spokesman said."He had his bachelor's degree from

the University of' Illinois in c l a s s i ~Greek. but also knew Egyptian."Mr. Baer, a native of Halle, Germany, i m m i ~ a t e d to the UnitedStates with his family at the age of3. His father, Reinhold, became aUniversity of Illinois professor.Though he was only 17 when hewas ~ u a t e d from the Universityof Illinois, Mr. Baer was co-salutatorian of his class.-From 1952 to 1954, he was aFulbright Scholar in Egypt andworked on excavations at Giza andSaqqara. He received his doctoratefrom the U. of C. in 1958.He became a lecturer and professor of Near Eastern languages at

.CHICAGO SUN-TIM_ES, Frida}", Maw 15, 1887..Klaus Baer I

the University of California atBerkeley.In 1965 he returned to the Oriental Institute as an assistant professor, and in 1970 he became professor of Near Eastern languages. In1972 he was appointed chairman ofthe department.He wrote the book "Rank andTide in the Old Kingdom" and hadlargely completed a grammar of theCoptiC language and an in-depthancient Egyptian chronology. Thelatter fixes the dates of the reigns ofthe Pharaohs by comparing refer

ences in a number of ancient texts.Survivors include his wife, MiriamReitz.

OBITUARIESlaus Baer, 56, an internatiqnal Ily known E"yptologist and a pro ifessor at the Oriental I n s t ~ t u t e at '\the University of Chicago, dted yesterday the university's Mitchell \Hospital. \Mr. Baer, who taught himself 1 hp ns the herald. wednesday, may 20, 1987. ---:--.....=--_.:.:_--:." . - - ~ = - ~ - - - - -.. clas11ical Egyptian, was an expert \on ancient Egpyt and worked on several excavations at Saqqara audGiza. . r "{ 'Survivors include hts w11e, " triam Reit1.Services will be at 2 p.m. tomorrow at Christ the Mediator Church.3100 S. Calumet. Burial will be. private.

5..e-R. It1 () .NJLws do- N o ~ s No. IIo S'-if t.,. h.llf- Oc f o ~ f I "'cP=?TJu 0 ( I .Q Yl.+a. ..1 :r (\ s +. Tit f - ~ . I f f . ;).. - 3 . ,To lA ("(\().. ..R o / VD-rt S tdll w. BdO /r r vA ,:, {t t:t ; r ~ )' f I0 I - tfJ'IJ. @a. 5 C6 " ' t p . ~ -6 B b1'"rr r ' V

Services were held Saturday, May 16, at Christ theMediator Church for KlausBaer, who died of a heartattack at the age of 56 onThursday, May 16, at BernardMitchell Hospital.Baer was a professor ofNear Eastern languages andcivilizations at the Universityof Chicago and chainnan ofthat department at the Oriental Institute. An expen onancient Eyptian lan!:,ruages,Baer came to the Universityof Chicago in 1948. He wasa Fulbright Fellow from 1952to 1954, when he worked onexcavation projects atSaqquara and Giza. Egypt.Baer is survived by hiswife, Miriam Reitz.


6/41

September 4, 1097

Mr. Harold FlemingMother Tongue Newslet ter69 High St r e e tRockport, Mass. 01966Re Klaus BaerDear Mr. Fleming,Thank you fo r your kind l e t t e r of a few weeks ago expressingsympathy over our loss of Klaus. While I am acutely aware ofhaving l o s t a good and generous human being, to judge byresponses such as yours, the academic world has l o s t a f inescholar .I would be very pleased to have him recognized in yourNewslet ter . Enclosed are several pieces t ha t wil l give you someinformation about him: the funeral fo lder , the newspaperobi tuar ies , and an a r t i c le t ha t has j u s t come out in the OrientalIn s t i tu te ' s newsle t te r .You wi l l not ice t ha t each of th e pieces adds some di f fe ren tpersonal note . There i s one such n o t ~ not mentioned in the otherpieces but which wil l be of i n t e re s t to you. My husband'sin te res t s were indeed very broad but ion the academic sphere,r i gh t a f t e r Egyptology came languages and l inguis t i c s . In h isvery extensive profess ional l ibrary, (which wi l l be given to theDepartment of Near Eastern Studies a t Berkeley), there i s a wholesect ion on l ingui s t i cs plus a couple hundred grammars. A l i t t l eknown fac t about my husband was t ha t he enjoyed reading grammarbooks and considered them l i gh t bed-time reading. His col lec t ionincludes a range from Pawnee to Islandic to Gothic to Japanese.I hope t ha t t h i s information reaches you in t ime fo r your nextnewsle t ter . Would you be so kind as to send me a copy? Thankyou so much fo r your in te res t .Sincerely ,

Miriam Reitz

~ - ~ - - - - - - - - ~ - ~ - - ---- - - - - - - - - - -


7/41

Boston UniversityDepartment of Archaeology675 Commonwealth AvenueBoston, Massachusetts 02215617/353-3415, 3417

Dear Hal,

Nov. 19, 1987

I hope th e following is the kind of thing you had in mind. In some ways Ifeel a l i t t l e awkward writing this , since my memories of Klaus Baer largelycenter around my f i r s t years in graduate school and many people have told methat he underwent a complete personality change after his f i rs t heart attackseveral years ago. I never met this 'new' Klaus, any many of your readersmay not have known th e guy I remember. But anyway The loss of Klaus Baer will profoundly change Chicago's Oriental Inst i tuteand, I assume, American Egyptology, although in ways that might not teimmediately apparent to remote observers. Certainly his publications--few innumber and a ll bril l iant--are inadequate indicators of his influence. Klauswas above a l l a presence. He was generally the f i rs t professor students gotto know when they began doing graduate work and he was one to whom theyfrequently talked and listened for the res t of their careers. I t didn'tmatter i f your were studying Hit t i te or Mesopotamian archaeology or Coptic,and i t didn't matter i f Klaus happened to be the departmental advisor orChairman or whatever; his door was always open and he was always there.And what a source of information he was! I don't believe I have ever metanyone who was so widely read, Loth in his own field and in everyone else 's .I remember an encounter with him in a bookstore one evening. We were bothbrowsing largely for entertainment, pulling various used books off theshelves and thumbing through them as we talked. After about fifteen minutesof this , during which I had teen looking at some very obscure things, i tdawned on me that Klaus had actually read every took I handled. His personall ibrary was probably one of the best Egyptological collections in thecountry, and he made i t available to his students. But i f you wanted to knowsomething quickly, i t was easier just to as k him. He'd read a l l his books,remembered everything, and I don't remember him ever being wrong about asource or a quotation; he was, in short, a bibliographical marvel.Klaus was also a wonderful teacher and ra n one of th e t es t seminars I haveever taken. He had a way of challenging students, of drawing on theircreative abi l i t ies and welding these to accurate scholarship, that I havenever seen equalled. His talents for organization were apparent both in hiscourses and in the overall s tructure of Chicago's Egyptology program. Onecannot help feeling that whole field has now teen wounded, having los t one ofi t s quintessential professors.

Sincerely yours,

Paul Zimansky


8/41

Nenf smrt1, zllst4v4 v ~ ~ n ~ !lvt,kdo spravedltvt byl a dobrotlvf.F. Halas

Hluboce zarmouceni oznamujeme vsem pi'citeh1m a znamym, nas navMyopustil nas drahy a milovany manzel, taUnek, tchan, bratr, svagr, stryc

pan

PhDr. Karel PetrciCek, CSc.UNIVERZITNI PROFESOR

Jeho srdce dotlouklo 1. cervence 1987 ve v ~ k u 61 let.

Posledni rozlouceni s nasim zesnulym se kanave stredu 8. cervence 1987 v 10 hodin

ve velke obradni sini krematoria v Praze-Strasnicfch.

Letohradskil 20, Praha 7

Jmenem rodiny:Eva P e t r a ~ k o v a

mamelkaVojtAcb P e t r a ~ e k

synMarketa P e t r a ~ k o v asnacha

Milena Z : f m o v a - D a v i d o v i ~ o v asestra

Vladimir D a v i d o v i ~ s manielkousynovec

Vytiskly Tiskafskll z4vocly, n. p Praha, zll.vocll, provoz 14, Praha 2. Llpovll 6. telefon 29 tit '1


9/41

.AFROEURAsiAN FLEl"'IING' S NET\'iORKHello Harold,

P E T M ~ /PRAGUE/ SJ?E .v.I:TLt

This i s Carl cal l ing !'rom Prague using Your AFROEUR.A.SI.AN. net-work.

The idea i s excellent and the results of' our future conversa-t iona / in A F R O E U R A S I A ~ N ~ v S L E T T E R / could be useful !'or us as wellas !'or the next generation of' l inguists and cul tural anthropologis ts .

You appreciate highly the Soviet in i t ia t ive in this f ie ld of'studies and You are r ight .

~ n our land where Slavonic languages are widely understood, weare good acquinted with a l l works by I l l ic-Svityc, Dolgopol 'ski j ,Dybo, Palmaitis , e tc . , not to speak about A!'roasian writings byDiakono!'!', Militarev, Stolbova, Porkhomovskij, etc.We could alsoadd some annotations and cri t icism to the i r theses /c!'. my ar t i -cles 11;. Really, they do not sometimes mention works from abroad/e .g . American studies about North-Eastern Africa, Fleming, Ehret/ .

We also have a good bibliography of' Nostrat ic studies in Slovoand slovesnost 21 tha t could be useful for You but it is in Czech.The N o s t ~ a t i c these has found in my land some open minded l inguistswho seem to accept the general idea and apply i t in IE studies/esp. in phonology/ 3/.

As !'or me, l am rather c r i t i c ~ l but my position i s / l ike Yourposit ion I not negative. I would l ike to l imi t my speculat ionsonly to the re la t ions of' AA to N; I have written some pages on th isproblem 4 /. ~ h e African hypothesis of' the AA origins /from Reinisch,Lepsius,Noldeke to u i a k o n o ! ' ! ' , ~ e n d e r and Your works; makesit diff icul t to connect the AA . !'amil.y, . ! ~ ~ ! 1 l with other f&mi-l ie s of' N /of' Asian origins/ . Your idea of' t reat ing both parts of'N, i .e .AA < : ~ n d the other. families in one ~ ~ ! : ~ l ! ! ! ! could .helpus to understand bet te r the re la t ions among AA and other families.


10/41

-1-The Soviet position indicated in Your l e t t e r /two coordinatebranches, one o t h e ~ is AA/ seems to support Your conception.

l would l ike to study in the future and in coordination withAE.A NEWSLErTER and Your tasks the relat ions o .A.A to other African families, especially to Saharan and then perhaps Benue-uongo/Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan. I am also interested in the r e l ~ -t ions between .AA and IE.

My l as t ~ d i e s concerning the Saharan and .A.A 5/ have some posi t ive resul ts / in the.verbal sys tem- the verbal extension; inthe reconstruction o some roots 6/ / . ~ ~ seems to be merely t iedwith the African so i l and with the l inguis t ic s i ~ a t i o n there inprehis tor ical t imes. I am very happy tha t l can use Your c..ndother American works for the anthropological and prehis tor icalin terpretat ion o tha t s i ~ a t i o n .

You are also r ight when stat ing tha t our colleagues who \ ~ i t ein J:tussian have some gaps in the western l i terature and currenttheories. This i s also my case because i t i s sometimes diff icul tto gain the \'ihole p:toduction /say of American l inguists andanthropologists working at our problems/. AE.A ~ ~ b ~ T E R couldhelp us to overbridge our gaps. l t could real ize 2 ! ! ! ~ . ! ~ e.mongdi fferen t groups o l inguis ts , anthropologists and archaeologists/c. Your network/, 1 ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ 2 ! ! about ~ ! ~ ! ! ! S Z and ! h ~ 2 ~ Z of our

~ o m p l e x problem, ~ ~ ~ ! ! E ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 ! ! of per t inent resul ts of our progress in research and perhaps bibliographical notes. I t couldenable us the ! ~ a ~ S ! of written and printed material .

I am ready to join the group and to collaborate in the f ieldsketched above 1 AA: Nilo-Saharan,Benue-vongo,Higer-Congo; A . . . ~ :IE / and perhaps in some general or theoret ical problems.

J:he annotations to th is l e t t e r c.ontain the whole Czech l i te ra -ture about the Mostratic problem.

I am sending some of my papers on tour address /publications andmanuscripts/ .

- - - - - - - - - - -


11/41

- ~ -I necessary , I could also send

which interest You.copies o the 6oviet works

Yours sincereKarel P e t r ~ c e k J//{ / f-::----/ 1 1 / M ' ( u ~

Prague 7.1.1987.Address: Department o Asian and African StudiesCharles University, Prague 1 120 00Celetna 20t:zechoslovakia/ the lnsti t4r 'on in Czech: Katedra ved o zemich .Asie

a Afriky/my home address:

P.S.

Prague 7 1?u 00Letohradska 20Czechoslovakia

X X X

Your question concerning Slavonic dialects and mutual understanding o them i s to be answered that they are ~ p ~ a g e s /perhaps with the esception o t:zech and Slovak, both in t:zechoslovakia - but Slovak i s oicially a language in our vonederation/.Linguists, say ~ a b o r s k i and myself, can easi ly understand the otherlanguage when speaking IUs own language. : ~ : h i s we.s the case o ourconversation with ~ a b o r s k i in Polish and Gzech in Vienna.

The problem o Russian i s another problem because there weremany his tor ica l , cultural and l inguist ic contacts between Polishand Czech that make conversation between two learned l inguistquite easy. This i s not possible with Czech ~ n d other Blavoniclanguages /Russian e tc . / .

But I must add tha t e.g. my son, \tithout any special l inguist ict ra ining /he studies electronics at Universi ty/ also understands Po-

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


12/41

...

l ish quite well. That's all .

Annotations----------1/ ~ P e t ~ , K problematice nostraticke teorie/z hlediska fonologie semitohamitsqch jazykU/, olovo a slovesnost37,19?6,60-61 ;Indoevropsky a semitohamitsq koren a perspektivyjej ich srovnavani, Slovo a slovesnost 42,1981,216-218 : in frenchLa racine en indoeuropean et en chamitosemitique et leurs perspect ives comparatives, AIOUN 42,1982,381-402; Semitohamitske jazykya nostraticka hypoteza, Slovo a slovesnost 44,1983,57-63; K teor i ilaryngal, Slovo a slovesnost 42,1981,262-268.2/ V ~ l a z e k , l::ioucasny stav nostrs.ticke hypotezy /.f'onologie a gra.-~ -matika/, Slovo a slovesnost 4 4 , 1 9 ~ 3 2 3 5 - 2 4 7 rThe contemporarysituation in the ~ o s t r a t i c hypothese, 91 bibliographical items I3/ cf . in the ~ i b l i o g r a p h y of v.Blazek, Ann.2 the following cuthor-Cejka ,.l".l., Erhart ,A., Lamprecht ,A., Lamprecht A . - ~ e j k a , r , 1 . , Petrace- ---.... - -- ----..... ......_..._ - -----K., l:3kalicka,Vl., vacek ,J., and the author of t h e ~ ~ l i o g r a p h y ,....._ -----........ - - ~ - - - - - - - - ~ - - = -together 18 items of Czech authors.4 / c:r. ann. 1.5/ Saharisch und die Nilo-oaharanische Sprachfamilie,. into pressfor Acta Universitatis Carolinae; Saharisch und hamitosemitisch,

,.l:'aperpresented to the XXIII Deutscher Orientalistentag, Wurzburg~ 9 8 5 , into press; AltSgyptisca, Hamitosemitisch und ihre Beziehungen zu einigen Sprachfamilien in Afrika und ASien, Monograph ,Charles University into press /Ch. 3.2 Hamitosemitisch in Asien /

"l n ~ o e u r o p a i s c h , Afroasiatisch ~ d ~ o s t r a t i s c h . RandbemerkungenZU A.R.Bomhard, ~ w a r d P r o t o - ~ o s t r a t : i c. A r ~ e w Approach, into press~ . . , _ . ,ArchOP; Leo ~ i n i s c h : Der einheitliche Ursprung der Sprachen der~Alten Welt und die-afrikanische Urheimat der Semitohamitischen undder semitischen Sprachen, Leo-Reinisch Symposium Wien ,1982, intopress /1987,p.309-332/.


13/41

{ I ~

6/ One of them shows what danger i s in the long range comparisonl ike Your reconstruction of the root for NOSE,SMELL etc . : +SN,of. here also Saharan forms in ~ h a w a sine., ~ i sano, *deZ!_tsena / a l l Eastern languages/, b u t the common Saharan rootis to be reconstruote4 clearly as +KINA /of . forms with k,o,c in

T e d a , D a z a , ~ r ~ + K ~ palatal isat ion/ . I feel we need a new theoryof phonological Super-Ehylum reconstruction.P.S.Now 1 am preparing two studies of our problem: Die vele.reLokalisierungsserie im Saharisohen, and Saharan and :t-Tilo-SahsranPhonological ~ e o o n s t r u o t i o n I discussion of the caharan items inthe r e c a ~ s t r u o t i o n of ~ ' in Nilo-Saharan l i , e d . ~ . T h e l w a l l .My conclusion is negative: Saharan is not a part of Nilo-Saharan,of. also my elder studies. I have also finished my Berti or oagato-aVocabulary / to appear in Afrika und Ubersee/ and The BER-uroupof Saharan Languages / to appear in ArohOr in Prague/ and at las t acomparative vocabulary of the BER I Eastern group of I Saharanlanguages /with phonological correspondences/.

tf .s. P. s. c.f. /){t/tv:Y, &fllEt; G e / 1 / e n a ~ K t . ~ t f ? ' P / K ! t C G ?lf t f / J


14/41

I 9.V.198? Victory DeyKarel Petracek, PragueAfroasiatic and Nostratic (IE) in Geographical Viewe ote on Hother Tongue 3,p.VII{

H.FleminS o_uotes in MT 3,VII: " I. f AA i s r ~ l a t e d to IE orN o s t r ~ t i c , it means that they (IE and N o s t r a t i ~ carne from Africa origine.lly. And I am positive that is what Carl Hodge andKarl ietr-.>rek thihk."

This i s e l l r ight b u t there i s a difference b e t w e e ~ h e pc-~ i t ion of Carl and Karl / = K ~ , r e l ) . Carl Hodge vould l ike to deriveIE from k'"'rica ( l ike i':erlfugen; c1-. the pc..per of Cerl reHd on LeoReinisch Symposium , \'lien 1922}, I am re&dy to s u p p o ~ e (::d th Gaokrlidze,IvEnov,198-4 e.o. , c f. esp. G a r b i n i - c f ~ erticl 'e in Jlovoa slovesnost 44,198.3, 5?-63 :Hamitosemitske jezyky a nostrr t\cke_h;ypoteza = Hamitosemitic Languages and the Hostrctic H3rpothesis )tha t the similari t ies ( in the lexicon) of both f a m i l i e ~ {3S andIE} are due to specific areal contacts in the North of the AA

" S n r ~ . c h w e 1t" .The las t posit ion of SOJTiet colleagues (AA is a coordina.tebranch to a l l ot te r nostrat ic fcmil ies ,cf .also Fleming MT Circula2,p.2) and the resul ts of GreenbP.rg' s study of EUROASIAN {cf . f.1T3: AA+Kartvelian and Dravidian o u t of Euroasian} seem to pointa t the direction o.f our hyPothesis t h ~ AA has a special stC


15/41

In th is respects we can also note tha t the supposed presenceof Cushi es {some of proto-Cushi ic brHnches) in the Peninsula isnot out of poss ibi l i ty (c f . e lder views of Diakonoff and Dolgopolsky end now the arsumentetion of Militarev in suppojrt of ~Asian home of AA).The l as t ouoted model reduces the ~ geographical dynamics ofAA suDrosing i t s ear l ier presence in the large area and admitsaJso possib i l i t ies of contacts with IE (and Kartvelian ?) in theNorth o f th is area. Archaeological evidence (rock paintings fromAraba,Ethiopia and Egypt) supports the hypothesis of a largeorie inc l area (saharo-Arabian) of AA. In th i s respect c f . thestudies by P . ~ e r v i c e k .(!Teue Felsbildsti ..t ion im s ~ d l i c h e n HidschazFeideume XVII,19?1,21-31; Rock Fainting of Lago Oda (Ethiopia) ,iJid.121-126; Rock Engrcvngs from the Hamasen ~ e g i o n , E r i t r e a ,ibid.22,19?6,237-56; P . ~ e r v i c e k , U . B r a u k ~ m p e r , Rock Feintingsof Lego Gafra fEthiopiaJ , ibid. 21,19?5,4?-60;prehistorical documentation fo r the presence of the Cushites in the Peninsul.:::. cf.E.Ansti , Rock-Art in Centrol Are.bia, Louvoin 1968,2 vols. - b u tth is evidence seems not to be conclusive)


16/41

LThis View of Lif

Bushes All the Way Downwe are all products ofarecent African twigby Stephen Jay Gould

An old English rhyme captures,quaintly but succinctly, a central truth ofnature's dilemma:Pale Ebeneezer thought itwrong to fightPuffing Bill who killed himthought it right.

Or, in American translation, ''There ain'troom enough here for the both of us."The tale of Ebeneezer and Bill e p i t ~mizes a rule of thumb in ecological andevolutionary theory called the principle of"competitive exclusion." This doctrineholds that if two coexisting species are"too close" in their ecologies and mode oflife, they cannot both persist in the samearea. We cannot imagine that both willpursue their common modes of life withan absolutely equal efficiency; one mustperform at least ever so slightly better,and this species will, in course of time,eventually supplant the other (so long asspace and resources are limited, as theyalways are in our finite world).Yet, manifestly, species of similar formand relationship do often coexist in stability. In these cases, biologists argue thatthe domain of ecological difference islarge enough to permit joint survival. (Theprinciple can become meaningless if weuse the fact of coexistence as a priori evidence for sufficient difference, and evolutionists have often so erred. But if wesearch for such cases of coexistence inorder to test the principle by a subSequentstudy of ecological disparity, then competitive exclusion may have scientific value.)In anycase, the principle of competitiveexclusion became the centerpiece of anexplicithypothesis about human evolutionthat enjoyed a great vogue in the 1960sand 1970s but has now been disprovedthe "single species hypothesis," the lastbastion for the metaphor of the ladder instudies of human evolution.In the classic statement of the singlespecies hypothesis ("Competitive Exclusion Among Lower Pleistocene Hominids:12 NATURAL HISTORY 6/87

The Single Species Hypothesis," Man,vol. 6, 1971, pp. 601-14), M.H. Wolpoffquoted Ernst Mayr, our greatest livingevolutionary theorist, on the interpretation of competitive exclusion:The logical consequence of competition isthat the potential coexistence of two ecologically similar species allows three alternatives: ( l) the two species are sufficientlysimilar in their needs and abilities to fulfillthese needs so that one of the two speciesbecomes extinct, either (a) because it is"competitively inferior" or has a smallercapacity to increase or (b) because it has aninitial numerical disadvantage; (2) there isa sufficiently large zone of ecologicalnonoverlap (area of reduced or absent competition) to permit the two species to coexistindefinitely.

The single species hypothesis held thatno two human species ever coexisted andthat our evolution has progressed as a se-ries of successive stages on a single pathway leading to modem Homo sapiens.Wolpoff and his colleague C.L. Brace applied their single species hypothesis particularly to the record of early humanlution in Africa-arguing that the twoclassic lineages of australopithecines, theso-called graciles and robusts, must be-long to a single species, with pronouncedgeographic and sexual variation previously misinterpreted as evidence for multiple lineages.But why did Wolpoff and Brace hold sostrongly to this view of competitive exclusion, especially since the principle permitscoexistence of two species if their domainofecological overlap is small enough? Thesingle species hypothesis rested upon thespecific argument that the uniqueness ofhuman life styles precluded such smalloverlap between coexisting species.Wolpoff identified culture as the reasonfor necessary competition to the point ofexclusion. Other animals can become narrow specialists on a particular type of foodor within a limited space in a rich environment. Such specializations can minimiZe

competition with relatives committeddifferent foods and spaces-and perclose evolutionary cousins to dwellgether in stability.But culture defines human uniquenand culture is, by definition, expansWe become learning animals and deveways to exploit more kinds of foodsplaces. Our evolution must proceedward greater generality-that is, towthe domain of overlap, where competitexclusion must operate if two human scies inhabit the same area. Even thouaustralopithecine culture scarcely rivaour own, Wolpoff deemed it rich enoto build an ecological niche so broad tonly one hominid species could inhaAfrica at any time. Wolpoff wrote:Culture acts to multiply, rather than tostrict, the number of usable environmeresources. Because of this hominid adapcharacteristic implemented by cultureunlikely that different hominid specould have been maintained . . . . Comtition would most likely cause each homispecies to develop the ability to utilizwider range of resources and thus increthe amount of competition. One surmust succeed at the expense of the othAs an extension of the single spechypothesis, Wolpoff and Brace soughinterpret other supposed cases of apparinteraction between two differing peopas evolutionary sequences of direct traformation-in particular, Neandertevolving into modem humans, rather th

Neanderthal interacting with, andplaced by, a discrete group of invad( C ~ M a g n o n s of modem type), as dramtized in the popular novels of Jean Au(I f Brace is right, then Ayla's strugglefiction in more ways than one.)In fact, Brace often derided hyPOtheof interaction and replacemer.:, labelall such ideas as " h o ~ r j n i d cattrophism"-a reversion to the bad,preevolutionary habits ofspecial pleadito avoid an interpretation of direct evotionary transformation, we suppose tha


17/41

new species migrates in from elsewhereand wipes the "primitives" out.If he single species hypothesis be valid,then Brace's ridicule is justified-for noother species can exist to form the phalanxofan invasion, and all temporal sequencesshould be interpreted as cases of evolutionary transformation. But if the singlespecies hypothesis is wrong, and if humanevolution follows nature's conventional to

pology of the bush (rather than our culturally bound hope for a ladder of progress),then "hominid catastrophism" should bean anticipated consequence of evolution,not a term of reproach. If splitting andtwigginess are primary themes of humanevolution, then different species may existto meet and interact.As the single species hypothesis had setits roots in a claim about our long Africanprehistory (from our split with the chimpanzee lineage some five to eight millionyears ago to the exodus of Homo erectusfrom Africa about a million years ago), sotoo did it fall in Africa. By 1976, thehypothesis had already faded, since mostpaleontologists had concluded that gracileand robust australopithecines representedseparate lineages, not males and femalesof a single species. In that year RichardLeakey and Alan Walker described twohominids from the same geological formation (about 1.5 million years old) so different in appearance that no one could dispute their separate status ("Australopithecus, Homo erectus, and the SingleSpecies Hypothesis," Nature, vol. 261,pp. 572-74). Fortunately (for clarity inconclusion, but not for the single specieshypothesis), these two skulls displayed extremes of gracile and robust tendenciesthus accentuating differences to the pointof resolution.One skull represents the so-calledhyperrobust form Austra/opithecus boi-sei, a small-brained creature with a protruding face and massive brow ridges. Theother, quite modem in appearance, hasbeen placed in Homo erectus, the speciessupposedly ancestral to modem humans.Thus, much ofhuman prehistory in Africaincluded at least two coexisting lineagesour own and the surviving robust australopithecines. (Richard Leakey sees evenmore bushiness in our African story, for heargues that three hominid species coexisted just before this time-H. habilis,presumed ancestor of H. erectus; the robust lineage; and surviving populations ofthe gracile lineage, A. africanus. As withthe apes of last month's column, ourknowledge may not be near the asymptoteof hominid bushiness.) So Africa hasfallen to bushiness, but how far can weextend this favored metaphor? Surely, at14 NATURAL HISTORY 6/87

some point we must reach a twig thatgrows straight out without further branching to modem Homo sapiens. Where isthe teeny ladder of this ultimate twig?About a million years ago, after ourlong and exclusively African prehistory,some populations of H. erectus migratedout of Africa (while others stayed) to colonize parts of Europe and Asia. (As Javaman and Peking man, we knew aboutthese Asian H. erectus even before we haddiscovered their australopithecine forebears in Africa.) Some paleontologistshave identified H. erectus as a bottomrung of the ultimate ladder, arguing thatthis ancestral species transformed itself, intoto and in various places, into modemhumans (H. erectus and H. sapiens become, in this interpretation, grades ofstructural improvement within a singleevolving lineage, not proper species by theusual criterion of branching). CarletonCoon advanced the extreme form of thisargument when he claimed, in his popularbook The Origin of Races (1962), thatfive separate groups of H. erectus hadindependently evolved in parallel, in Africa, Europe, and Asia, to H. sapiens.The alternative viewpoint, following themetaphor of the bush, still interprets H.erectus as our ancestral species but seeks alater and local point of origin for modernhumans. After all, H. erectus thrived onthree continents. Why insist that all itspopulations moved upward and onward toour current glory? Why not argue that H.sapiens, like most species, branched fromone of these populations and then spreadout, eventually to displace H. erectuspopulations (or their descendants) in otherparts of the world-a classic case of"hominid catastrophism" as a legitimatepattern of evolution?The hints have been with us for a decade, but strong evidence has justemerged for a radical version of bushinessto this bitter end. To summarize the conclusions baldly (the evidence follows in amoment): all modem humans are products of a very recent twig that lived exclusively in Africa until 90,000 to 180,000years ago. We therefore branched from H.erectus in Africa, the center of origin forall hominid species discovered so far.Modem H. sapiens migrated from Africato the rest of the world (reaching Europeand Asia quickly, Australia some 40,000years ago, and the Americas some I0,000to 20,000 years ago). All modem humansare a product of this split and migration;the previous emigration of H. erectus toAsia left no descendants. (Lest this seemimprobable or complex, consider the storyof horses, told in this forum two monthsago in the first column of this trilogy.

f.Remember that T.H. Huxley mistakconcocted a European ladder of hofrom four separate lineages that migrsequentially to Europe, where eachcame extinct without issue.) Fossil hnids older than this date of splitting fosapiens in Africa-including the Asiaerectus and probably the famous Nderthals of Europe-are separate lineon the hominid bush and played no roour ancestry. For African H. sapiensforebears of us all-as for JudahMaccabee:

See the conquering hero comes!Sound the trumpet, beat the drum(although we have no evidence for mareplacement by African invaders; thedigenous people of Europe and Asia have disappeared earlier or for othersons).The hints are in stone and bone. Sopticated blade tools appeared in Anearly 1 0,000 years ago, long beforereplaced simpler flake tools in EuropAsia. Concomitantly, the oldest mohumans have been found in Africanments some 1 0,000 to 140,000 yearsMoreover, some paleontologists arearguing that the Asian populations oerectus developed a suite of anatomspecializations absent both from mohumans and from African fossils usucalled H. erectus. I f his tentative claiaffirmed, then Asian H. erectus wouldebarred from the ancestry of mohumans, while African forms remainmissible. (I leave for another time thteresting implication for taxonomicalignment-that African populationsplaced in H. erectus may require reignation as a separate species. The nHomo erectus must, by rules of nomenture, remain with the Asian formsfirst received this label.)The firmer evidence lies in molecfor we all carry genetic tracers of ourcestry. During the past decade, molecevolutionists have recognized the powmitochondrial DNA for unravelinghistories of recently evolved groups. Mchondria are the energy factories ocomplex (eukaryotic) cells. They presably originated, more than a billion yago, as entire cells of primitive (prokotic) type that began living as symbiwithin the ancestors of eukaryotic cAs a heritage of their independent ormitochondria have their own DNAranged as a short, circular molecule.Mitochondrial DNA has two favorfeatures for the reconstruction of evtionary histories. First, it evolves abouttimes faster, on average, than nucDNA-thus permitting sufficient res


18/41

tion for such recent and rapid events as theorigin and spread of modern humans. Second, compared with nuclear DNA, its pattern of inheritance is simple and directSince the business end of a sperm is allnucleus, mitochondrial DNA is strictlymaternally inherited. We can thereforetrace lineal paths of descent, rather thanthe complex crisscrossing of family linesfor nuclear genes that may come fromeither parent. Moreover, the entire mitochondrial genome is inherited as a unit.Prokaryotic cells (like modern bacteriaand the precursors of mitochondria) donot have paired chromosomes; DNA isarranged instead as a single continuousmolecule. When chromosomes pair, as inall nuclear DNA of eukaryotic cells, exchanges occur between the two membersin each generation. Nuclear chromosomesare, therefore, continually fractured andreconstituted. But the mitochondrial genome is a stable entity, passed intact frommother to offspring and altered only bymutation. It is therefore an ideal tracer forgenealogical histories.Rebecca L. Cann, Mark Stoneking,and Allan C. Wilson have just publishedour most extensive data on variation inhuman mitochondrial DNA ("Mitochondrial DNA and Human Evolution," Na-ture, January 1987, pp. 31-36). Theystudied 147 people drawn from five geographic populations (Africans, Asians,Caucasians, aboriginal Australians, andNew Guineans) and succeeded in surveying about 9 percent of the entire mitochondrial genome of 16,569 base pairs.Cann and her colleagues found 133variants among the 147 subjects (mostpeople are unique, but very little differentfrom many others). As the next (and crucial) step, they arranged these 133 mitochondrial types into an evolutionary tree.We now encounter an important propertyof such molecular information: the datathemselves are abundant and "hard"; butinterpretations rest upon assumptionsthat, although reasonable and proper,must be stated and evaluated. In principle, a vast number of evolutionary treesmay be constructed from 133 variants.How shall we decide which to prefer?

In such cases, we generally invoke theassumption of parsimony-that is, webuild the evolutionary tree that requiresthe minimal number of mutationalchanges to link the 133 variants. (Thisprocedure matches our intuitions: confronted with mouse, rat, and human, wewould assume a closer tie between mouseand rat rather than the unparsimonioussolution that mouse evolved to human andhuman back to rat-for this second,unparsimonious tree would require a

much longer pathway of linkages, namely,a double run both up and down the longrodent-to-human road, rather than a singleexcursion, as in the first solution. But parsimony is a procedural assumption thatmight be wrong in any particular case, notan a priori truth of nature.) In the mitochondrial example, we may worry Jessabout the parsimony assumption becauseconclusions are, in the profession's jargon,so "robust"-that is, a large family ofmost parsimonious and nearly parsimonious alternative trees all yield the samebasic solution.The minimal length tree for 147humans has a simple and striking topology. It includes two major branches joining at the base. One contains only Africans, the second includes other Africansplus everybody else. Cann and colleaguescompared this most parsimonious treewith several alternatives. The conceptually opposite tree for example-one thatlinks each of the five geographic groups toan independent root and corresponds toCoon's old theory about separate originsfrom different stocks of H. erectus-would require fifty-one more mutations tomake all the linkages.These data provide two strong reasonsfor viewing Africa as the unique source ofmodem humans: first, of course, the formof the tree itself, with its African root;second, the greater mitochondrial diversity maintained by peoples of African descent. The older a group, the longer thetime available for generating diversity.Cann found as much variation within theAfrican populations as between Africansand any other geographic group.The tree's form tells us "where," but not"when." Since mitochondrial trees saynothing about the anatomy of our common African ancestor, we need subsidiaryinformation from paleontology-and thisrequires knowledge of timing. If the twogreat branches of the mitochondrial treejoined in Africa more than a million yearsago, then our most recent common ancestor would presumably have looked like H.erectus. If the joining occurred muchlater, then our common roots are muchmore shallow-and we all probablybranched from a subset of a populationthat had already become H. sapiens.To derive such an estimate of timing,we must make an additional assumption,more tenuous than the previous statementabout parsimony. We assume that mitochondrial DNA changes by mutation at aconstant average rate over considerablestretches of time. Such an assumption isnot required by evolutionary theory, andalternative ideas of greatly variable rates(due to differing intensities of natural se-

( I ":IJection) can easily be defended. The justifications for this assumption are primarily twofold: first, the presupposition ofconstancy, though initially derided bymany evolutionary theorists, has workedin many cases where we can check a molecular tree against known dates ofbranching from the fossil record. Second,the tree derived under this assumption isalso robust; large departures from constancy would be required to change itsform or its timings substantially. In anycase, the figures reached under the principle of constancy must be viewed asballpark numbers tied to their assumptions, not as established facts.Many studies of diverse animal groupsyield the same estimate of 2 to 4 percentchange in mitochondrial DNA per millionyears. Combining this figure with measured distances among the 147 people, wederive a time scale for diversification andspread of modern humans. This exercisesuggests a conclusion surprising to many(though not to me and other devotees ofthe bush) and stunning in its implicationsabout human unity: despite our externaldifferences of skin color, hair form, andsize, all modem humans have a remarkably recent, or "shallow," common ancestry, occurring well after our anatomicaltransformation to H. sapiens in Africa.The assumption of constancy at 2 to 4percent suggests that the common ancestor for all existing human mitochondrialDNAs lived in Africa between 140,000and 290,000 years ago. This branch thensplit into the two main limbs of Cann'stree, and members of the second limb leftAfrica later-only 90,000 to 180,000years ago. All non-African racial diversityarose within this geological millisecond,and the underlying unity of all humans is,as I have argued before (November1984), a "contingent fact of history," not ahope of liberal ideology.

If these dates are right, we must alsoaccept the conclusion that older inhabitants of Europe and Asia died out withoutcontributing anything to our genetic heritage. European Neanderthals, for example, predate this time of migration fromAfrica. If the invading Cro-Magnons hadhybridized with Neanderthals or ifNeanderthals had simply evolved tohumans of modem form (both hypotheseshave been popular), then the mitochondrial tree would not have its unique andshallow African root-forolder mitochondria from Neanderthals would be found inEuropean populations. Of course, a largersample of humans might yield differentmitochondrial variants of greater distinction, but the data as now known suggest nosuch heterogeneity in human ancestry.


19/41

Before leaving this subject, I must cor-rect one striking misinterpretation thathas begun to ftood popular accounts ofthis discovery. Noting that all human mitochondrial DNA can be traced to a singleAfrican type, some have dubbed this conclusion the "Eve hypothesis" and haveactually claimed an implication that weallowe our ancestry to a single female wholived about a quarter of a million yearsago. The data do mean that all modernhumans maycontain, in their genealogicalancestry, one African female (or a fewwith the same mitochondrial type), butsuch a perfectly orthodox, almost necessary conclusion says little about the size ofour ancestral population at this time oforigin. To say that we all include onewoman in our ancestry is not to claim thatonly a single woman existed at that t ime-although this is the ludicrous misinterpretation that has spawned some lurid pressaccounts. After all, the ancestral humanpopulation may always have included,say, 50,000 people during the time of itsAfrican origin, but all modern humansmay still trace a mitochondrial genealogyto just one female among these 50,000.In fact, such a pattern of boom for oneand bust for everyone else is not at allsurprising but an expected and predictedresult in our tough and random world,exposing each and every one of us to thecontinuous slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. Most genealogical processes work this way. Consider human family lines, for example. I f we started with apopulation of twenty family names, withtwenty people per name, and maintainedthe population at constant size for manygenerations under uncertain conditions ofhuman life (disease, conquest, infertility),most names would eventually die out andwe would all be Smiths or Goldsteins (ifwe didn't confound the process by adopting new names as the old lines expired).Yet this later uniformity would permit noconclusion that a certain Ms. Goldsteinhad lived alone in Eden way backwhen-for the population had always numbered400.This principle rests upon a well-established mathematics beyond the scope ofthis column and its author. Its conclusionsare firm, though surprising to those (mostof us, alas) who do not understand thenature and power of random processes.For example, in a purely random systemeven for a large population begun with15,000 unrelated females, we can calculate a 50 percent probability that, 18,000generations later, all members of thepopulation would be descendants of butone female among these 15,000.This stunning demonstration of the

temporal shallowness of our roots has aprecious property shared by very few ofthe new discoveries that inundate us daily.It provides one of those rare items of information that might make us think in afundamentally different way about a subject of great importance--ur own originsand the nature of evolution. First, the generality: no matter how high we tune thepower of our microscope, we cannot es-cape an evolutionary topology of branching and bushiness. We are all products of arecent African twig, not termini of a general evolutionary advance. The metaphorof the bush (and the falsity of the ladder)permeates evolution at all genealogicalscales, from the history of a species to theunfolding of life's entire tree. Bushiness isa pattern of'self-similarity that emergeswhenever we magnify successively smaller segments of life's tree.We might have anticipated a differentconclusion-a change from bushes to ladders once we looked at sufficiently smallsegments of life's history. We might havesupposed that while life, in toto, must be abush, each little twig might grow straight.Since the human lineage is a tiny twig,why not hold that H. sapiens might be thetop rung of a tiny ladder, even while thehistory of all primates forms a bush. Butlife's tree is a fractal, and tiny parts, whenmagnified, look much like the whole.This shallowness of ancestry alsoteaches a more particular lesson for us as aspecies. Modern H. sapiens is an entity,not an evolutionary tendency. We have adefinite point of recent origin and a historyof later spread. We are not a grade ofstructural advance in mentality, the expected termination of the hope ofages; weare a discrete historical thing, a fragilelittle twig of recent origin and unparalleled subsequent success. Our unities ofmythology, of what we call human "essence" or "nature," perhaps even of language (if the Indo-European branch canbe connected, as some schotars maintain,with other families of language to a singlerooted tree), need not reftect mysteriousimmanences of the soul or deep archetypes of the psyche, but need only record arecent history of common origin. We areclose enough to our African origins tohope for the preservation of unity in bothaction and artifact. We are used to thinking of ourselves as an essence, or a type-one, moreover, that holds hegemony overnature by virtue of evolved superiority.We are no such thing; we are an item ofhistory-an entity, not a tendency.Stephen Jay Gould teaches biology, geol-ogy, and the history of cience at HarvardUniversity.

f JA S R SM ~ a..R..J b

' I V ~ a. v... d.tl -r-fk(ro U-J.W\' ~

~ - 8 o s s t ~ - bQse ~ . . Q \

r 0"-' 3


20/41

THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN ANN ARBORD E P A R T M E N T OF SLAVI C L A N G U A G E S A N D L I T E R A T U R E SMay IS, I987

Dear Hal,I 'd l ike to comment on Merri t t ' s l e t te r (see recent Circular):

i t ' s sad to realize how much the Nostratic reconstruction, and the necessi ty of preci ,se reconstruction i s underestimated in the Yest.But firsG the language grouping. Merritt thinks that I l l i ~ - S v i t ydid not include Korean and Jap. into Nostr.; no, he did, and he regularlused Korean data in his Nostr. Diet. As !o r Chukchi-Kamchatkan, Dolgopolsky star ted to use i t as a Nostr. daughter language !rom the very beginning (see his studies published in I964). He also thaught (already atthat time) that EskAleutian i s Nostr . ; this was proved l a te r ( las t workI know about i s O.Mudrak's comparison in the materials of the !984 conference in Moscow). In a recent le t te r to me Greenberg writes that I . -S . ' s9 ~ e t ~ o n a r y has persuaded him tha t Afro-As. belongs to the big Phylumhe cal ls Eurasiatic: i t ' s almost ident ical to Nostr. (as !o r Dravid.,Greenberg compares i t with Nilo-Sah.; Ivanov writes about genetic unityof Nilo-Sah., Niger-Kordof. and Afro-As., and Starostin, a few years agomade a report about Nostr. character of Niger-Kordo!. I see no seriousobjection against including o f a l l these languages into Nostr. , especil ly in the l ight o f I . -S . ' s good sets [he includes Drav. into East-Nostralongside with Alt. and Uralic] , Tyler 's Uralo-Drav. sets , etc .) As forIE-Uralic grouping (Greenberg, and ear l ier scholars): i t seems, Uralicis archaic and transparent; I . - s . gives very many Ur.-Drav.-Alt. isoglosses showing closer relations o f these three languages; what disturbs mesomewhat, i s the lack of the I s t pers. *mV in Drav. And now about alleglack o f close relations betw. IE and Kartv.: i f we look through the preliminary l i s t o f Nostr. comparisons (found in I - S ~ s f i les: ~ s t vol. ofthe Diet . , pp. 5-37) we already find many stablest Kartv. forms as havinclosest connections with IE: K. mej*mi ' I ' : IE me; K. se - ; s i - ' thouoblique s tem: IE *-sending o f the 2nd pers. sg. ; K. m- I s t ~ 1 . inclus(obj. marker) : I E me-s 'we'; K. naj 'we' : IE ne-/*nO- 'we' ( in oblicases); K.,IE te - ' t h i s ' ; K. *{h)e : IE *He- demonstr.; Kartv. *maj :IE mo- interrog. (note :parallelism of the forms: maj : mo- naj 'we' :nO ,e tc , betw. K. and IE);K. *mA/0: IE me prohib. , etc. K.-IE parallelism in stem structures (ablaut, e tc . ) which Gamkrelidze explains as substratum or adstratum i s , in real i ty , common inheri ted !eauture typical fWest Nostr. languages. Many, allegedely borrowed from IE, Xartv. words(see Gamkr. and Ivanov's IE and IE-s) i s , no doubt, Nostr. inheritance iboth K. and IE: these words do not become subject to borrowing, they aresable, and the i r phonetic correspondences f i t Nostratic.Now about precision o f Nostr. reconstructions; even confrontedwith new data they are precise (because I-S and D made them on real correspondences betw. languages they analysed): see excellent pro-Nostr. art ic le by Xelimskij in VJa I986 (should be translated into Engl.; he showhow clumsy the cr i t ics of Nostr. are: his ar t ic le i s directed against

S ~ e r b a k ' s objections concerning the Altaic unity, etc . ) . Dybo wrote severa l methodically important ar t ic le showing precision of I -S ' s reconstruct ions; he showed, e.g . , that I-S correct ly explained the origin o f IEt r iad of the type k : ~ : k w (velar : palat . : l a b i o v e l a r ~ on the basis o fNostr.: when compared with East Nostr. languages, IE words beginning wit*k,*g,'gh correspond to Ur.-Drav.-Alt. words in Ka-; IE i-, *g- *ghcorrespond to East-Nostr. words i n ~ (E front vowel); IE *kw-, *gw-,*gWb- - to East KU- (U lab. vDwel). This i s because East-Nostr. languages (more archaic in this respect) show the underlying Nostr. structureKa-, KE-, Ktr- accordingly. IE had this change: Ka- >Ke-; KE- >fe, KU->Kw- ~ - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - - ~ - - ~ - - - - - ~ - - - ---


21/41

Not less important was the realization that IE voiceless consonantscorrespond to Kartv. and Afro-As. (Sem. etc . ) g lot ta l stops (s ic! ) ; IEvoiced - to Kartv. and Afro-As. voiceless stops, and IE voiced aspiratedstops - to Kartv. and Afro-As. plain voiced (cr. the corresponding tr iadin reconstructed Altaic: Tq- T- D- in anlaut}. This i s one of the Nostr.theses of paramount importance, supported by hundreds of excellent setsof correspondences (and one "'"Y propose bet ter reconstructions for IE,e.g. T [tense] : T [lax] : D instead of T : D : Dh, but the correspondences will stay as they are: Nostr. T' > Kartv./Atro-As. T' : IE T [or T,!o r that matter] :A l t . Tq-, etc . ; see M . ~ a i s e r ' s and mine paper in tnel a s t issue of General Linsm[stics. I -invite anybody to discussion on thissubject (one must have in nd I -S 's and D's statements about deglottal ization in certain cases in Atro-As., as well as the known rule aboutimpossibility of T-Dh, Dh-T in one root in IE : htnce. Wc5i:r. J


22/41

VtJ.W-WORKSHOP ON LINGUISTIC CHANGE AND RECONSTRUCTION

METHODOLOGYJu l y 28. 1987 . to August 1 . 1987S ta n f o r d U n ive r s i t y . S t a n f o r d . CAL i n g u i s t i c Soc i e t y o f America 1987 Summer I n s t i t u t e

The Workshop on L i n g u i s t i c Change and R e c o n s t r u c t i o nMethodology organ ized by P r o f e s s o r P h i l i p B a l d i and he lda t S ta n f o r d Uni ve r s i t y from Ju l y 28 . 1987, t h rough August1 . 1987. br ough t t oge t he r ne a r l y 40 s c h o l a r s r e p r e s e n t ingth e fo l lowing language f a m i l i e s : Indo-European . Af r o a s i a t i c . A l t a i c . Nat ive American. Aust rones i an . andA u s t r a l i a n . These s c h o l a r s were asked to d i s c u s simpor t an t i s s u e s i n t he r e c ons t r uc t i on o f th e l i n g u i s t i ch i s t o r y of th e p a r t i c u l a r l anguage f ami ly in which t h e ys p e c i a l i z e d . focus ing on th e fo l lowing i s s u e s :

1. What a r e t he p a t t e r n s o f l i n g u i s t i c change and th ef a c t o r s i n f l ue nc i ng l i n g u i s t i c change in each l a n guage f ami ly?2. How use f u l a re such no t ions a s p h o n e t i c r e g u l a r i t y .

morphologica l c o n d i t i o n i n g of sound change . ana logy .bor rowing . a r e a l i n f l ue nc e s . e t c . ?

3. What t e c hn ique s o f r e c ons t r uc t i on ( compar a t ive .mor pho log ica l . i n t e r n a l . e t c . ) a re most us e f u l orno t u s e f u l a t a l l ?

4. How f a r back can one r easonab ly exPec t r e c ons t r uc t i onto r each?5. What abou t d i s t a n t l i n g u i s t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p ? Can itbe e s t a b l i s h e d fo r p a r t i c u l a r language f a m i l i e s . andwi th what t e c hn ique s ?The fo l lowing is a l i s t i n g o f th e i n v i t e d s p e c i a l i s t sbroken down by language f ami ly :1. Indo-European:

A l f r e d Bammesberger . E i c h s t a e t t . West GermanyE r i c Hamp. Uni ve r s i t y o f Chicago. USARober t Beekes . Uni ve r s i t y o f Leiden . The Nether l andsAl lan Bomhard. Bos ton . USAHenry Hoenigswald. Uni ve r s i t y o f Pennsy lvan ia . USAWil l iam S c h ma l s t i e g . The Pennsy lvan ia S t a t e

Unive r s i t y . USAC a lve r t Watkins . Harvard Unive r s i t y . USA


23/41

- 2 -2. Af r oa s i a t i c :

Lione l Bender . Sou thern I l l i n o i s Unive r s i t y . USAAl ice Faber . Uni ve r s i t y of F l o r i d a . USARober t Hetzron . Uni ve r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a . San ta

Bar ba r a . USAC a r l e ton Hodge. I n d i a n a Unive r s i t y . USAStephen Lieberman. Ph i l a de l ph i a . USAPau l Newman. I nd i a na Un ive r s i t y . USAR u s s e l l Schuh. Uni ve r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a . USA

3. Al t a i c :Rober t A u s t e r l i t z . Columbia U n i v e r s i t y . USAL a r r y C l a r k . Sacramento . CA. USASamuel Mar t in . Yale Unive r s i t y . USAMarsha l l Unger. Uni ve r s i t y of Hawai i a t Manoa. USAJohn Whitman. Harva rd Unive r s i t y . USA

4. Nat ive American:Lyle Campbel l . SUNY. Albany. USAI ve s Goddard. Smi thson ian I n s t i t u t i o n . USAMichael Krauss . Alaska Na t ive Language C e n t e r . USAMarga re t Langdon. U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a . SanDiego , USAJ e f f r e y Lee r . Uni ve r s i t y o f Alaska , USAMarianne Mithune, U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , S a n t a

Bar ba r a . USAPamela Munro. Uni ve r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , Los Angeles ,USA

5. Aust rones i an :Rober t Bl us t . Un i ve r s i t y o f Hawai i a t Manoa. USAJames Col l i n s , Un i ve r s i t y of Hawai i a t Manoa, USAI s i d o r e Dyen. Uni ve r s i t y o f Hawaii a t Manoa, USAGeorge Grace , Uni ve r s i t y o f Hawai i a t Manoa. USADavid Zorc . Washington . DC, USA

6. Aus t r a l i a n :Bar r y B lake , Monash Unive r s i t y . A u s t r a l i aRober t Dixon. The Aus t r a l i a n N a t i o n a l Unive r s i t y ,A u s t r a l i aJ e f f r e y Heath . E xe te r . NH. USASteve Johnson, Uni ve r s i t y of New England , A u s t r a l i aGeof f rey O'Grady . Uni ve r s i t y o f V i c t o r i a , Canada

The workshop s e s s i o n s l a s t e d t h r e e f u l l daya : Tuesdayt h rough Thursday . A ge ne r a l s e s s i o n was t he n he ld all daySatu rday . du r ing which t i m e th e s e c t i o n l e a d e r s summarizedth e s a l i e n t p o i n t s br ough t u p by th e s pe a ke r s . r e l a t i n ghow e a c h of th e p a p e r s a d d r e s s e d th e main i s s u e s around


24/41

- 3 -which th e workshop was or gan ized . The g e n e r a l consensuswas t h a t t h e t ime - honor ed methodo log ie s o r Diach r on icL i n g u i s t i c s ( t h a t i s . t h e Compara t ive Method and I n t e r n a lR e c o n s t r u c t i o n ) . e s t a b l i s h e d rirst in th e Indo-Europeandomain. were n o t r a m i l y - s p e c i r i c bu t . r a t h e r . werea pp l i c a b l e t o all l anguage r a m i l i e s .There were . it a lmos t goes w i t h o u t s a y i n g . many p o i n t s o rd i s p u t e a s w e l l . F or i n s t a n c e . w i t h i n Indo-European . ah e a t e d d i s c u s s i o n deve loped a round th e G l o t t a l i c Theory .w i t h va r ious p a r t i c i p a n t s t a k ing a s t r o n g l y r a v o r a b l ep o s i t i o n and o t h e r s t a k i n g an e q u a l l y s t r o n g oppos i ngp o s i t i o n . The N a t i v e American gr ouP . on th e o t h e r hand .devo ted c ons ide r a b l e a t t e n t i o n t o Joseph G r e e n b e r g ' s newbook Language i n t h e Aaericas. w i t h a l m o s t all o r th egr oup t a k ing a r a t h e r n e g a t i v e view o r G r e e n b e r g ' sp r o p o s a l s . Then t h e r e was a sha r p ly - wor ded c l a s h betweentwo members o r th e A u s t r o n e s i a n gr oup on how th esubgroup ing o r th e A u s t r o n e s i a n languages shou ld beapproached . The A l t a i c group . i n c o n t r a s t . was a l m o s tb l a n d i n its u n a n i m i t y o r o p i n i o n -- t o a pe r son . each o rth e Al t a i c s p e c i a l i s t s argued a g a i n s t s e t t i n g up an Al t a i cl anguage f ami ly .


25/41

THE STANFORD CONFERENCE: As seen by Hal Flaming.I t i s an "ambush" when one blunders in to a s i t u a t i o n through ignoranor whatever and ana ga t s a t t ack ed . Of course , t he re i s no ambush withoutsomeone s e t t i n g it up s ec r e t l y . I f ana i s cau ; h t in an ambush and one ' s groupi s s laugh tered , then one uses th e word "massacre .. So it was a t Stanford . Whmost of th e other scho lars were t end in ; to th e t ask a t hand, th e evalua t ion oIndo-European h i s to r i c a l methodology as it app l ied to t h e i r respec t ive phyla ,th e Americanis ts had an ambush in mind. They came to a t t ack Greenberg and theo th e r Lumpars and to es tab l i sh -- a t t h i s f a i r l y pre s t ig ious conference -- t hd i s t an t genet i c r e l a t i o n s could no t be a t t a ined and ought not be sought a f t e rI reg re t t h a t t h i s i s not a f lo r id or inaccura te descr ip t ion of f ive days ont h a t love ly campus. I t i s an ethnographic conc lus ion , from p a r t i c ip an tobserva t ion .Thera seam to be tw o under ly ing reasons fo r the massacre . F i r s t , th eAmerind Border P a t r o l , espec ia l ly Campbel l , Goddard and Mithun, were wellorganized in advance, co-ord ina ted t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s , worked hard,a t tacked very aggress ive ly , and found t h e i r oppos i t ion v i r t u a l l y speech less aunprepared . Campbel l ' s a t t a c k s on Greenberg became personal and v i l e . Forexample, I heard a quote something l i ke t h i s . . . . . Greenberg i s lucky t h a t he hStanford Univers i ty Press to publ i sh h is Amerind book because no one e l se wohave touched i t ! 11 This was not sa id in th e cor r idors between formal sess ions ,or over c o c k t a i l s a f t e r hours ; it was sa id dur ing a formal sess ion and i tshocked th e audience.Secondly , th e a t t ack had two primary s c i e n t i f i c face t s t o it and botof them could have been rebu t t ed . However, Greenberg would no t defend himse lHe's no t a conference brawler and does no t l i ke confron ta t ions . Hf r i en d s could not defend him, o r indeed co u n t e r - a t t ack , because of i n t e l l e c tuconfus ion and s imple s o c i a l fea r .


26/41

ANOTHER "TOO ANCIENT" SITE FROM SOUTH AMERICA.There i s more archeology to r ep o r t -- from th e remarkable se r i e s on"The F i r s t Americans" which has been running fo r tw o years now in NATURALHISTORY, publ ished by th e American Museum of Natura l His to ry , New York City .This i s another s i t e from South America, and qui t e fa r sou th , in a re l a t ive lyuntouched region (a rcheo log ica l ly ) . I t too sugges t s t h a t th e MacNeish cumGorman hypothesis of over 30,000 y ea r s of human res idence in th e New World i st rue or t h a t th e "rece ived" or "conserva t ive 11 or "orthodox" archeo log ica l f i ren t ry da tes of 13,000 years a re f a l s e .While t he re has been good and useful input from archeo log ica l LongRangers


27/41

Plzysica!AnthrojJo!ogi - -- --What Is Lost with SkeletalReburial? II . AffinityAssessment.By Christy G. Turner IIPrchisturil HumcrGathcrcrs in .Japan.:"ew R , - , . , ; u ~ - h :O.k1hcKis. (l!JIIti) T,\l:kl ~ m n g"""" ' I.e' >k up agicuhurc lx.-cauliC lhcliCregion had more lime lor popula1iongrowlh lhan did 1hosc: in lhe New World.Omi!i.ee"-< lhm doesn'tctlrcmly exist in intnxluctury anthnJJ>OI"!.'Y lcxllxx>ks, and ah50lulcly nolhinglhal hdps our under.landin!,' of lhcinilialion of agricullun: in Japan oranywhere else: in 1he world. Finally, Ilind i1 misleading, if nol worse, 10 condude . .Japanese ami nm1h European

M C K ~ i e a i c . ~ ! ( went un tn I..."Vcn higlu:r levels of:ru.Kieta.l lumplcxity, uhinmtcly tn dc..-vclJJ I L ~ u i : U statt.-s m1c.l cttiiJrat:c agricultural


28/41

IZ----------------- -IU:BURIALOmtinutd from I I

ongoing d i a i ' ~ " ' . .Dludio.'S,I L"llllllUI 1hink of a beuer paper 10 rccommend !han 1his extremely WiiJ') froTtarll tJ.JSilltlllrl'.

. REFt:RENCI::S CITW:Ammennan. A., ;uKI l . l . C ; m d l i S ~ " " " " (I!HH"'/M NJJiJAic 7;, . ; , ; , Gn d 1M ( ~ i c J of I U n J /~ l'rint'C'IUn U n i t n i c ~ Jlrinnlun.llemk'llic:k, 11.K. (IYHb) ./"/IU"'vl..lwltl'liu. K.aNIM Puhli.hcn. Ann Arhur.Huwt..U., \V.W. ( l ~ l h b ) ( : m n i i N I I l ' t l ' ) ' .uKI Muhl\,aria&c Anodyais. "11ae .Jumun l''ll"'dO&IIllfl uf ;IJOU1. 'Scudy by Oi.crimiruam AnaJrslli ul JaJ,..nt."lll." .uuAinu Cr.uoioa. l'npm nf N I...W../r "'"""'" u{ .-lnlw. - , .w EIA"""'c, 1/un...J u.;,.,.,., 57(1).Hulae, f.S. (1967) S.kuifN1 Ji,. n,.ur amumdu: japanc:te". Alfltl'ic'all./,.,.} 11( f t r u c a / A r t t l r r o f l l l l ' ~27(2): 143156.Miller, R.,\. ( l ~ t 7 1 ) . / " f * * , . , . . . , """ Otlll'f ..111,,. l . ~ ~ n ~ . :~ UniVtniy ui'Chi,;lfr,'U l'n""' c:hinucu.O..:nhcry:, N.S. (1!17h) \\'ithin ;u1d l11..1..,..,,..n r;M.dUitOUk.1:i in pupululifNI !ii\Kiic.-1 llrOIM'CI Ull d i ~ ~ & ' n ' 1tr.UU uf the humou1 :JluJI . ..Jmnw./tiUntnlttl l ~ n u t ~ ~ ~ 4 5 ( ~ ) : 7 0 l i l 6 .M.iquct; R. ( 1970) AlllllrofMIUi.,. ,Jr .\'nJill'w , "lltulut ,a,..;,. Tcxkor. l'uicicn.Slmpin1. li.L . oaud F. lhaiJC ( i ! f : l ~ f J . u , , . . , , ~ ~ ~ ~ , nN, . ; , . , ; , . , . , . Ox&unl Uniwr"ily ll1"!rt.!o. l.nndun.Suzuki, II. ( ! I ~ J f 1 ) C : h ; m , ; ~ ~ o in 1111 )ro"llllluu"" udat .JiittoiiM'M"I,t*' hu111 OIIM Kru lu llllllk'llllllllt')r,'Wnlt'f/ I"M/11'" ,, ,,.. 1-i'lth IHin11411HH,J (.illft:'''" .. ,, ,

1 / J H I J ~ t J , , , , f,"tlt,Joi(IUIJ ,\,,,.,,,., l'luJ,MhltJIUo, ... 7177:!-1.TunM'I ( :.Ci., II. (l!fHh) 1-:mlhum Jl,..,,,,_, 1-'iuan . .. . tu N : ~ c i u u o d S.HtMt" htllltti


29/41

GUESSING GAME or What i s STAROSTIN's ROOT DATING a l l about ANYWAY?Here i s a s h o r t summary of what I th ink S t a ro s t i n ' s dat ing method i sa l l about , mostly because I am t i r e d of wai t ing fo r Sta ros t in and Mil i t a r i ev tsend me a summary or anything. My hunch i s t h a t they want to publ ish th e wholebook a t once and g et f u l l c r ed i t fo r it. Perhaps my vers ion of t h e i r RootDating wil l be so d i s t o r t e d t h a t they wil l fee l a press ing need to co r rec t myer ro r s -- by wri t ing to me!Root Dat ing , as I c a l l it, seems to be based on count ing t rue cogna teins tead of count ing how many an ces t r a l forms have been re ta ined in the 100-200a r b i t r a r y meaning s l o t s se t up by Swadesh. Morris himself did not in tend t h a th is system would evolve as it did , such t h a t one held h is 100 bas ic words as100 bas ic meanings aga ins t which change was measured. As h is title impl ied, hewas i n t e re s t ed in "archa ic res idues" as well as "d i f fus iona l cumulat ions" . Bubecause h is method got involved i n g lo t tochronology and f ixed formulas ande f fo r t s to s t andard ize h is list, so t h a t comparisons could be more exac t , h isl i s t got to be f rozen and i tems such as "Al l , ashes , bark , b e l l y , " becamef ixed meanings and not j u s t th e cu r ren t American words fo r t hose m e a n i r ~ g s . So,i f a cur ren t American word became d i f f e r en t from th e or ig ina l on Swadesh 's

list, one could a l so d esc r ib e change l e x i c os t a t i s t i c a l l y in American Engl ish .For example, one could argue t h a t {guy>, {a lo t of> , {rock} had replaced thee a r l i e r {person}, {many}, {stone} on Swadesh ' s list in th e f rozen meanings af"person, many, s to n e" . i t s e l f i s becoming feminized in Amer1c ..\nEngl ish and may y e t disp lace {woman} in th e meaning of "woman". The key po1nti s t h a t we were forced t o d i s t ingu i sh between a f ixed meaning l i k e "s tone" andthe ac tua l morpheme in use fo r it, l i k e {rock}. And hence we would have to sayt h a t "re ten t ion" i s negat ive or zero in the case of


30/41

Engl ish en its bas ic vocabulary list has 64 Germanic words, 16 Engl i sh words,and 20 innova t ions o r replacements which we can c a l l American. At 3100 AD curlanguage wi l l have l e s t ano ther 20 words bu t only 12 .8 of them wil l beGermanic, whi le 3 .2 wi l l be Engl i sh and 4 American. So a f t e r 3000 years we wistill have 51.2 Germanic words. Everyone agrees to t ha t . And we wil l have l o s48.8 Germanic words, n ' e s t - ce pas?

Wrong! I t wil l have l e s t 48.8 words FROM SWADESH's LIST. Most or manof those wi l l still e x i s t in the Engl i sh language but OFF SWADESH's LIST. I tseems t ha t th e problem arose because of th e use of words l i ke " loss" or" re t en t ion" . When a word i s l e s t from th e Swadesh list, it may have died cu tth e language a l toge the r , bu t it may have only moved s l i gh t l y away frcm th epos i t ion of dominant form in the f rozen meaning. Thus, i f {reck} becomes morecommon or popular fo r th e meaning "s tone" , then


31/41

(_ 3whose German cognate i s d i f f i c u l t to unmask, e . g . , {bi rd , b lack , dog, c loud ,k i l l , meat, road , snake , t a i l , t r e e , walk ,woman


32/41

R. pwdicl w t/r fJ t ' l t l l r r D ! f"l Yf'l / ' 1 1 a ~ ru Jlll Da/bOlDe To rOSSIL MI}-NI JtfJ, ..Adttion, 1 ' 1 ~ 6 . TM Un.II/J(St'fyo9 eli' ~ a- o Pr .1 ss ,

The Neandertal Problem

From the first recognition of Neandertal man in I 856 his precise evolutionary positionhas been a source of debate. and the discussion still continues. One of the long-standingpuzzles has been their supposed sudden disappearance from the fossil record: theirorigins and their relationship to a group that has come to be known as anatomicallymodern man (a.m. Homo sapiens sapiens) have been equally difficult problems.So called 'classic' Neandertalers were first known from European sites and were:-.associated with the Mousterian culture. Their sudden or 'catastrophic' disappearance..has been variously attributed to epidemics. conflicts with more advanced peoples.changes in the climate. or to their absorption into the gene pool of incoming migratorypeoples. If the Neandertalers did disappear suddenly. and the idea has been seriouslyquestioned (Brace. I 964). there seems no imperative reason to look for a single cause:a combination of circumstances seems possible. even reasonable.The number of Neandertal fossils from Europe and the Near East has grown remarkably and now includes several hundred specimens. Sites such as Krapina (q.v.). Amud(q.v.) and Shanidar (q.v.) have added enormously to the sample known from the classicsites such as Neandertal (q.v.). La Chapelle-aux-Saints (q.v.). and La Ferrassie (q.v.). Thenew site of St Cesaire (q.v.) has revealed a Neandertal burial with a Chatelperronianindustry that seems to be of the most recent Neandertaler yet known. at about 30.ooo-35.000 years B.P.Clearly the question of the use and definition of terms is of crucial importance whena group such as Neandertal man is being discussed. Hrdlicka (1930) took a culturalview stating that Neandertal man and his period was 'the man and period of theNeandertal culture'. Brace (I 964) added a morphological dimension to this later bystating that Neandertalers were 'the men of the Mousterian culture prior to the reduction in size and form of the Middle Pleistocene face'. The dangers of associating hominidcategories with cultural traditions. however. have now been exposed by finds such asSt Cesaire and Jebel Qafzeh (q.v.).

Morphological definitions given in the past by Boule and Vallo is (I 957). Thoma(I965). LeGros Clark (I966), and Vandermeersch (I972) would limit the term Neandertal to Western European examples of 'classic' morphology. Brose and Wolpoff(I97I). however. gave a temporal and morphological definition that included 'all hominid specimens from the end of the Riss to the appearance of a.m. Homo sapiens.' Thisview has been criticized by Howells (I974) and Stringer (I974). Howells used the term'Neandertal' to include only European 'classic' Neandertal sites plus Tabiin. Shanidarand Amud. He excluded Skhiil (q.v.). Jebel Qafzeh (q.v.). Jebel Ighoud (q.v.) and Petralona(q.v.) as well as sub-Saharan finds such as Kabwe (q.v.) and those from the Far Eastsuch as Ngandong (q.v.). In general this view was shared by Stringer (I974) and hasbecome widely accepted.Trinkaus (I983) defined the Neandertals in general terms as 'a group of ArchaicHomo sapiens from Europe and western Asia who lived from the end of the last inter-

- ~ - - - - ~ - - - - - -


33/41

414 The Neandertal Problemglacial to the middle of the last glacial and shared a set of morphological characteristicsthat have traditionally been called "classic Neandertal" . Lists of these morphologicalcharacteristics have been given by Vandermeersch (1972), Heim (1978), LeGros Clarkand Campbell (1978) and Stringer, Hublin and Vandermeersch (1984). These can beepitomized as follows:I . An inflated skull form with its maximum transverse diameter mid-parietal. a lowfrontal bone, a suprainiac fossa as well as an occipitomastoid crest. The face is largewith voluminous orbits and nasal cavities: the skull is also extensively pneumatized.The mid-face is prognathic showing a retromolar space and the supraorbital torus isdivided centrally. There is no chin and the teeth are frequently taurodont. Postcraniallythe distal limb segments are short with large extremities. the scapula has a dorsalaxillary groove and the superior pubic ramus is flat and elongate. In general theskeleton provides evidence of a short. thick-set, muscular individual with large handsand feet and a body form not unlike that of cold-adapted modern man.2. Some of the features mentioned above share a common inheritance with earlierforms such as Homo erectus; others are new characters that are shared between contemporary hominids which. on this basis. can be defined as Neandertal. In the interpretation of Neandertal body form in relation to the environment. however. all of theinformation is of importance and its combination of features is of taxonomic significance.3. The history of the Neandertals and their evolutionary position has been given recently (Spencer. 1984). The story is revealing in showing how discoveries and eventshave influenced the views of scholars over the years. In general terms the phylogeny?f Neandertal man can be summarized in three ways at present. the Neandertal Phaseof Man Hypothesis. the Preneandertal Hypothesis and the Presapiens Hypothesis. Thefirst two of these are widely held whilst the third is less well supported and is losingground.

The Neandertal Phase of Man HypothesisThis view is unilinear and gradualist. It sees the Neandertalers as arising from a MiddlePleistocene predecessor by successive evolution and passing through a Neandertalphase to become modern man. This suggestion was first made by Schwalbe (1904)who saw the Neandertalers as a separate species intermediate between ape and man.Later supporters of this hypothesis (although not quite in the same terms) includedHrdlicka (1930) and Weidenreich (1943. 1949). After a period when other views prevailed. a new impetus was given to this theory. Brace (1964 et seq. to Brace et al..r 984) suggested that dental and masticatory evolutionary changes were brought aboutby tool use which led in turn to cranial morphological changes from Neandertal tomodern sapient forms. Others who accept this general hypothesis include Brose andWolpoff (1971). Wolpoff, (1980), Frayer (1978, 1984) and Smith and Ranyard (1980).In central and eastern Europe Smith also sees local continuity and change betweenNeandertal and later modern sapients (Smith. 1982. 1984): he discounts the other twocurrent hypotheses and regards the Neandertalers as reasonable candidates for theancestors of modern Europeans.

liI


34/41

The Neandertal Problem 415The Preneandertal HypothesisThis view suggests that the Neandertals arose from a 'Preneandertal' stock that becameprogressively specialized for resisting cold. underwent severe natural selection and restricted gene flow that led to 'classic' Neandertal isolates exemplified by LaChapelle. LaFerrassie, Neandertal and many others. This specialized Neandertal offshoot representsa group sharing new traits of subspecific taxonomic value. Supporters of this approachinclude Sergi (1953). Howell (1957), Breitinger (1957), LeGros Clark (1966), Howells(1975). Hublin (1978), Santa Luca (1978), Stringer (1974. 1978), Trinkaus and Howells (1979), Stringer and Trinkaus (1981). The most recent supporters of the bilinearapproach often see that the 'parent' line may have developed outside Europe. and atpresent Africa is the best candidate for the origin of the Preneandertal line on the basisof early examples of Homo sapiens known from Omo (q.v.), Laetoli (q.v.) and BorderCave (q.v.) (Brauer, 1984a & b, Stringer, Hublin and Vandenneersch, 1984).

"rqe Presapiens HypotheSisThis view holds that a European modem sapient lineage, as exemplified by Swanscombe(q.v.) and Steinheim (q.v.), existed quite separately from the Neandertals and ultimatelygave rise to modem Europeans. The Neandertals then became extinct at the end of theEarly Wiirm Glaciation. The hypothesis originated with Boule (19 II/I 3. 1923) and wastaken on by his successor Vallois (1954) as well as others including Weiner (1958),Thoma (1965). Leakey (1972), Vlcek (1978) and Saban (1982). Gradually it has becomeapparent. however. that the Swanscombe and Steinheim skulls also possess Neandertaltraits and are no longer widely acceptable as 'anatomically modem' and separate as alineage (Stringer. 1974: Hublin. 1982: Brauer. 1984a: Smith. 1984).Tqese three views of the origins of a.m. Homo sapiens sapiens are clearly a simplification-perhaps an oversimplification (Spencer. 1984)--of the various theoreticalapproaches that have been put forward by the authors cited, but they rrovide aframework withii;J. which to consider the phylogeny of this phase of human evolution.Additional ReferencesSchwalbe. G. (1904) Die Vorgeschichte des Menschen. Braunschweig: Friedrich Vieweg und Sohn.Boule. M. (1923) 'Les Hommes Fossiles: Elements de Paliontologie Humaine', 2nd ed. Paris: Massonet Cie.Weidenrich. F. (1943) The 'Neanderthal Man' and the ancestors of 'Homo sapiens'. Am. Anthrop.

42. 375-383. .Weidenrich. F. (I 949) Interpretations of the fossil material. In Ideas on Human Evolution. Ed.W. W. Howells I962. Cambridge. Mass.: Harvard University Press.Sergi. S. (I953) Morphological position of the 'Prophaneranthropi' (Swanscombe andFontechevade). R. C. Acad. Lincei I4 . 6or-6o8.Breitinger. E. (I 9 57) On the phyletic evolution of Homo sapiens. In Ideas on Human Evolution. Ed.W. W. Howells I962. Cambridge. Mass.: Harvard University Press.Howell. F. C. (I 9 57) The evolutionary significance of variations and varieties of 'Neanderthal'man. Quart. Rev. Bioi. 32. 33D-347Brace. C. L. (I 964) The fate of the 'Classic' Neanderthals: a consideration of hominid catastrophism. Curr. Anthrop. 5. 3-43.

-- -

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


35/41


36/41

-;.......

AFRO-ASIA

AFRICA

HOMO SAPIENS SAPIENS

SAP lENTS

AFARINES _ ___:;,-

The Neandertal Problem 4 I 7MILLIONSOF YEARSAGO

0

6

34

36Fig. 133 A phylogenetic representation of the hominid groups of the Plio-Pleistocene period and their likelyevolutionary relationships.


37/41

LIST OF NEW MEMBERS INVITADO & OLD LISTEES DROP OFFupon the recommendations of Long Rangers, some new people were invi tedjo in . At th e moment they are a l l l i s t e d , although some have not ye t accepteThey have received th e f i r s t th ree i s s u e s , except fo r a few whosestill have not been loca ted .

Arvani tes . UCLA. Cush i t i c , espec ia l ly Eas te rn , espec ia l ly Oromo.Baldi . Pennsylvania Sta te U. IE, h i s t . l i n g . Organized Stanford ConfereBender-Samuel . SIL, Dal las , Texas. N-K. Has new book on N-C com1ng out .Blafek . P r i b ~ m , Czech. His to r ica l l i n g u i s t i c s . The world i s h is oys te rBlench. Oxford U. N-K and most of Afr ica . Econ. development, h i s t . l1ng.Soisson. U/Lyon. Sumerian, Dravid ian , es p ec i a l l y . H1st . l ing .Bole-Richard . Cote d ' Ivo i r e . N-K, N-Cde Grol i e r . Par i s . LANGUAGE ORIGINS SOCIETY. Primus i n t e r p a r t e s .Dwyer. Michigan Sta te U. N-K, N-C.Ebert . U/Marburg. IE, Chadic & Sino-TibetanR1vers ide, Cal i fo rn ia . M.D. Gynecology.U/Flor ida. Semit ic , Afroas ia t i c . Hist .Gerhardt . U/Hamburg. Chadic and N-C.Hist . l lng .R e n a . i s s a n c ~l ing .

Jay Gould. Harvard U. History of sc i ence , b1ology, geology.Hi l l . Mitochondria l DNA. We want to i nv i t e hirn! Anyone ~ n o w lib.> dddr>:?';:Isaac. Pr inceton U. Semit1c , Afroas ia t i c .G5tt ingen. Egyptology and Koptology.Lisa Kazmierczak. Boston U. Anthropological l 1 n g u i s t i c s . Car tbbean , USA.Lieberman. U/Pennsylvania. Semi t i c , Afroas ia t i c .Loprieno. G5tt ingen. Egyptian e t a l . Descr ip t ive , t heore t i ca l l111g.Manessy. N-K and N-C. Temporari ly l o s t address .Count de Lalanne, Mirr lees . I s le of Lewis, Scot land. R e n . : ~ . l S S i \ f i C . : f ~ md;l.O'Grady. U/Bri t i sh Columbia. Aust ra l ian . His to r ica l l1ngu1st1cs .Raczyn'ski . Praha. His t . l i ng . probably . . Descr ip t ive / theore t i ca l , h i s t . l i n g . Mlao-Yao.Zorc. Washington, D.C. Austrones ian .OLD LISTEEs, who have been asked to send back a Hal-addressed post


38/41

and who have not sen t it back a f t e r seve ra l months , are presumed NOT toin s tay ing on the list. However, some took longer than the severa lI al lowed and some may be in th e f i e ld , so a few people on t h i s nega t iare in f a c t pos i t i ve .


39/41

American Engl ish>. There are r ea l i d i o t s out t he re , doing global ore tymologies , and our c r i t i c s love to poin t them out . So it i s good toa new and competent co l l eague . He wi l l not genera te garbage!NEXT ISSUE. MUCH MORE OF MEMBERS' COMMENTS. MUCH MUCH MORE. There i s anumber o ~ good meaty l e t t e r s which have not been repor ted . Also l e

o ~ you please ~ a r g i v e me ~ o r not answering your l e t t e r s or even notcon t r ibu t ions of money. I am a lousy, nay shameful ,but in d e ~ e n s e l e t me say it i s hab i tua l !TIDBITSVITALIJ SHEVOROSHKIN. Vi t a l i j i s making se r ious e ~ ~ o r t s to r a i se funds fo rur c o l l e c t i v e pursu i t s and to popular i ze th e genera l t op ic of languageHis fund i s not connected to th e Long Range Comparison Club but r a thes ca l led LANGUAGE AND PREHISTORY. I t i s poss ib l e to send money to Language ~ nDepartment , Univers i ty of Michigan, Ann Arbor , Michigan,Vi t a l i j says t h a t " I t now has over $300 ($200 from our wellwisher andMr. J . Parkinson, Glendale, C al i f o r n i a , $100 from myself , some moref r i ends and col leagues>; th e money i s used fo r some, most urgent , needs;fo r t r a n s l a t i o n of an exce l len t a r t i c l e by Xelemskij Xel imski j , wishes th eof h is Russian name in English to have th e form of EugeneOkay, Gene! Helimsky you sha l l be!


40/41

Tt/E WORLD CULTURES OFANCIENT AMERICA

An International Conference

o Bpigraphic Evidence froa the Old and Rev Worldao Borsa ~ i f i n a g aDd Runic %Dacriptionso C e l ~ i b e r i c and Arabic Inacriptionao Pacific Voyages and Linguistics.o A r c b e o a a ~ n o a yo Rativa American Ethnology and Medicineo Jly'thic: n-es aDd Rev World Petroglypbll

This ia a prliminary notice to aembers of theEpi9rapbic Societv. The aeetin9 is tentativelyscheduled for the Spring . ~ 1988 in San Francisco.Please write to have your name placed on theconference aai l in ; l i s t , and to receive furtherdetai ls .Dr. Jon R. Polansky, Room U-53&Conference Organizing Co.aitteeUniversity of California, San FranciscoSan Fr!!Dciaco, CA. 94143---------------------------------

~ ~ - =Street::City/State:

Zip Country


41/41

COMPUTER QUESTIONNAIRE.We have a small sub-commit tee which i s i n t e r e s t ed in computers andcomputer shar ing o ~ da ta and mutual i n t e r ac t i o n or conversa t ion byTwo members, Stanley Cushingham and Joe Pia , have devoted qu i te a bf t ime to wr i t ing up some ideas on th e sub jec t . They wil l have a discuss ionwith comments a l so by Allan Bomhard, Sherwin Feinhandler , and perhaps GeTo s t a r t with , the re i s a s e r i o u s i n ~ o r m a t i o n gap. We do no t know veryabout you-a l l in te rms of computers. De you use them? Do you l i ke them?ou want to sha re da ta by computer? And so f o r t h . Some people th ink t h a t mostespec ia l ly l i n g u i s t s , l i k e computers and t h a t t he i r m1nds a reatuned to them. Others , l i k e me, th ink o ~ computers as bas1ca l ly aand nothing to be i n t e r e s t ed in fo r its own sake . I f it d o e s n ' t g eh e job done eas i ly fe r you, why bother with i t ? Others ac tu a l l y ha te or fea rRoughly we have Computer Freaks , Pla in Users , and Computerphobes.

Will you please be kind enough t o r e ac t d i r e c t l y to the se quest1onsnd send it back to me PRONTO ? No doubt , a lack of response shows a Pla in IJsr a Computerphobe but th e two a re d i f f e r e n t . Most impor tan t ly , however , youexc i t ed by a computer network, shar ing da ta and ideas with othe r LonI f you d o n ' t answer, your i n t e r e s t wil l no t be known. And t h a t wil lhelp to ABORT a network or othe r coopera t ion Favore

OWN A COMPUTERHATE COMPUTERS____

COMPUTER I OWN ISMINI: TYPE

DETACH AND MAIL PORTION BELOW TO >>> Mother for1gu6 9 High S t r eeRockpor t , Mass. 0196

I USE SOMEONE ELSE'S COMPUTER I DON'T USE ANYI LOVE THEM I JUST USE THEM

IBM PC IBM P/S ___ , IBM CLONEMACINTOSH APPLE____ , OTHER _______________

MIGHT USE MY UNIVERSITY/INSTITUTION'S COMPUTER ________ IT IS ADO USE MY UNIVERSITY/INSTITUTION'S COMPUTER IT IS AOWN A MODEM I DON'T OWN ONE I HAVE ACCESS TO A MODEM

IS A MODEM?______ I KNOW ALMOST NOTHING ABOUT COMPUTERSWOULD LIKE TO JOIN A COMPUTER NETWORK OF LRC CLUB I WOULD NOT LIKE __WOULD BE WILLING TO SHARE DATA, VIA: COMPUTER NETWORK ORDINARY WAYSDO NOT WANT TO SHARE DATA: VIA COMPUTER NETWORK IN ANY WAY AT ALL

GENERAL OPINION ON THIS COMPUTER SUBJECT IS

The Way: I AM Will ing To Copy & Mail : To 6 Long Rangers in My Country ___

mother tongue newsletter 4 (november 1987)

Documents