Quote:
Originally Posted by Engelbrecht
Interesting. I am not familiar with Renfrew and the Neolithic theory. Do you have a reference? Preferably in the form of a short introduction or summary.
|
Colin Renfrew's 1987 theory is, basically, the proposal that the Indo-European languages dispersion in Europe follows exactly the dispersion of agriculture. In that case, the first Indo-Europeans speakers would have been the first Greek farmers coming from Anatolia, some 8500 to 9000 years ago. These first farmers would have outnumbered the hunters-gatherers by 50 to 1, largely replacing Europe's population. But recent genetical research shows that only 20% of Europe's genepool is from Near-Eastern stock, telling us that it's more likely that the hunters-gatherers managed to assimilate the farmers by adopting their new technique. That's Renfrew's theory Achilles heel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Engelbrecht
Do you think that this was their intention? If not this is up to the interpretors of this theory to handle. Then maybe I see a risk.
|
I will not put all of them in the same bag but that's maybe the case for some. And even if it's the case, I'm not saying they are dishonest. After all, weren't we taught that
"ex oriente lux"? It's natural if some want to go against that. Their work is usefull, they showed that there is an archaelogical continuity between Mesolithic and Neolithic European settlements. The latter cultures evolving from the formers. But yes, you are right, the protochronist risk is maybe in the eye of the beholder.