tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post2936731437569575775..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: Indo-European origins: Neolithic Anatolia still the best hypothesisDienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger87125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-59878053079533825152012-08-26T04:18:10.186+03:002012-08-26T04:18:10.186+03:00It's interesting to see how David Anthony resp...It's interesting to see how David Anthony responded to this study in the times quote below ("I see the wheeled-vehicle evidence as a trump card over any evolutionary tree..") Because the wheel arrives so late in the archaeology -- compared to the domesticated horses he used to endorse -- this sets a later date for a unified IE language than Steppes advocates like Mallory have recently been taking -- usually about 4500BC. <br /><br />I'd agree that it makes no sense to think these "wheeled vehicle" words were all neologisms that had no pre-existing meaning in IE. And therefore they don't have much use in matching linguistic to the archaeological data. A pertinent example are the earliest potter wheels, tournettes, were already in use in the Near East around 4500BC<br /><br />What does surprise me a bit is how invested the Steppes theory is. It's a little ironic that V. Gordon Childe, who first originated the theory, ended up rejecting it and favoring Anatolia as well. <br /><br /><br />"A key piece of their evidence is that proto-Indo-European had a vocabulary for chariots and wagons that included words for “wheel,” “axle,” “harness-pole” and “to go or convey in a vehicle.” These words have numerous descendants in the Indo-European daughter languages. So Indo-European itself cannot have fragmented into those daughter languages, historical linguists argue, before the invention of chariots and wagons, the earliest known examples of which date to 3500 B.C...<br />'I see the wheeled-vehicle evidence as a trump card over any evolutionary tree,' said David Anthony, an archaeologist at Hartwick College who studies Indo-European origins."<br />www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/science/indo-european-languages-originated-in-anatolia-analysis-suggests.html LivoniaGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05589404219598229067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-3576409947165785122011-09-09T23:25:53.737+03:002011-09-09T23:25:53.737+03:00G2a3 6000 years ago was in Germany.
I think that
...G2a3 6000 years ago was in Germany.<br />I think that <br />The G2a3b1a2 is the European-IE haplogroup.<br />The G2a3b(XG2a3b1a2) are the "Indo-Albanians".<br />The G2a3a are the "Greko-Armenians". <br />G2a3*(XG2a3a,G2a3b) are the pre-Tocharians.<br />And G2a(XG2a3) are the Hittites. <br /><br />http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-UK6uv6RZBlw/TZr4U1kHkKI/AAAAAAAADbY/jvqITDejMG0/s1600/nature.jpgGeorgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11539198765353016467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-51260073195113075252011-07-25T16:59:08.098+03:002011-07-25T16:59:08.098+03:00I'm going with Anatolian Neolithic PIE as the ...I'm going with Anatolian Neolithic PIE as the primary source (9kbp), with a later dialet north of the black sea (5-6kbp) giving rise to the Tocharian and later Balkan dialect branches.<br /><br />Also places Anatolian Neolithic PIE close enough to share words with very early Afro Asiatic languages like Proto Semitic. Other later/northerly scenarios can't do that.mathildahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06682429587184048584noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-78365954408869835982011-04-20T18:18:47.689+03:002011-04-20T18:18:47.689+03:00@terry
"To me C has all the appearance of be...@terry<br /><br />"To me C has all the appearance of being a later arrival than Q."<br /><br />This used to be the case with mtDNA hg B. Originally it also had "all the appearance of a late arrival." Coastal arrival in its case. But all the publications from 1995 on pretty much consider it part of the original Amerindian gene pool. Appearances are deceptive, Terry, as they are not based on anything.<br />The spread of hg C is broad enough (Na-Dene, Eskimo, Southeast, South America) to treat it's antiquity in the Americas as a null hypothesis. Compare hg B is very infrequent in the North - but not because it was never there but because it was either replaced by later haplogroups or drifted out in small populations. Y-DNA hg Q is very rare in Siberia but very frequent in the Americas; hg C is frequent in Siberia and rare in the Americas. It's just an artifact of demography and not a straightforward indication of age.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-534102915638582972011-04-19T16:11:26.581+03:002011-04-19T16:11:26.581+03:00Ashraf : "the ones that remained in the altai...Ashraf : <i>"the ones that remained in the altaic homeland (manchuria) turkic homeland (lena river) and uralic homeland (ob river) are lacking caucasoid input."</i> <br /><br />For the records, some caucasoid input is found in north Siberia up to the Yakuts! (the latter have some Y-DNA R1a * they also have 8.4% haplotypes Caucasoid mtDNA haplogroups ** (H, HV1, J, T, W and U (I remember there was a U51b1b for instance)) (they also have a little north European component in their autosomal profile). Puzyrev et al 2003 had found 6% of caucasoid mtDNA hgs. <br /><br />* http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12942782<br /><br />** http://evolutsioon.ut.ee/publications/Fedorova2003.pdf <br /><br />And of course the Uralic/Ugric population east of the Ural mountains have got some Caucasoid input as well. <br />example : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC379094/<br /><br />I'm not saying it has anything to do with the raised linguistic considerations though.Waggghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07290153600827942469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-72513208108879701782011-04-18T12:34:41.223+03:002011-04-18T12:34:41.223+03:00"It seems that the steppe populations are qui..."It seems that the steppe populations are quick to grab a new language, which can then spread easily among them". <br /><br />Of course that means that people through the region may have spoken early dialects of Proto-Indo-European at some early period. I tend to be in agreement with Eurologist here. <br /><br />"hg C is widely distributed in the New World, albeit at low frequencies". <br /><br />But it's far more common in the north, unlike Q which is spread completely through both North and South America. <br /><br />"It's very easy to imagine that hg Q simply began to recently dominate what once was a more evenly distributed genetic landscape". <br /><br />To me C has all the appearance of being a later arrival than Q. <br /><br />"Q is also found in West Asia and northern Europe". <br /><br />So presumably it also went west from Central Asia once its ancestor P had reached that region. As did its brother haplogroup R1b. <br /><br />"Exactly. This is the pre-NO stratum". <br /><br />We agree on this then. C3 and Q passed to the north of NO, then N and some O moved north. We just disagree as to whether C3 and Q moved east together or separately. <br /><br />"I can't accept this fantastical scenario". <br /><br />I can't see at all why you would call it a 'fantastical scenario'. To me it's the only solution that makes sense.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-26911859606809620402011-04-16T16:55:31.862+03:002011-04-16T16:55:31.862+03:00@ashraf
"I think by the time of nostratic ex...@ashraf<br /><br />"I think by the time of nostratic expansion the ancestor of proto uralo-siberian and proto altaic speakers were inhabiting eastern areas of northern asia and did not come in interaction with the nostratic peoples, otherwise we ,nowadays, would have seen a caucasoid inpuut widespread on all altaic and uralo-siberian (and eskimo-aleut) speaking populations, probably it's when those populations begin to migrate westward into central asia , that they did take loanwords+pronouns from a nostratic/para IE and this is shown by the fact that while the altaic and uralic folks that expanded westward do have some caucasoid input, the ones that remained in the altaic homeland (manchuria) turkic homeland (lena river) and uralic homeland (ob river) are lacking caucasoid input."<br /><br />This is a good point, although Ugric populations have a variable "European" and "Asian" components in both mtDNA and Y-DNA. Also, Uralic and Mongoloid physical types seem to be less than 10,000 years ago, which is well within the range of the hypothetical Nostratic timeline. And once again, your idea of pronoun and verb ending borrowing is interesting but it contradicts Nostratic theory. <br /><br />"Allan Bomhard and Colin Renfrew are in broad agreement with the earlier conclusions of Illich-Svitych and Dolgopolsky in seeking the Nostratic Urheimat (original homeland) within the Mesolithic (or Epipaleolithic) in the Fertile Crescent, the stage which directly preceded the Neolithic and was transitional to it."<br /><br />Thanks for the quote from Wiki. I got a god picture of the way Nostraticists see the world. I know Allan Bomhard, and I even arranged a publication for him in a journal devoted to kinship studies. See here we're part of the same volume (http://www.libex.ru/detail/book444543.html). But I wasn't familiar with the details of how Nostraticists map their hypothesis onto archaeology. BTW, what's your take on high frequency of such a "Mongoloid/Amerindian" marker as shavel shaped incisors in Catalhouyuk (etd.ohiolink.edu/send-pdf.cgi/Pilloud%20Marin%20Anna.pdf?...dl=y)? Shovel shaped incisors are also frequent in India but the they slowly peter away as one moves into Europe and Africa? I wondered if this signifies a major expansion from east to west.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-46368954080468186942011-04-15T22:58:48.990+03:002011-04-15T22:58:48.990+03:00from wikipedia about the possible nostratic homela...from wikipedia about the possible nostratic homeland<br /><br />"Allan Bomhard and Colin Renfrew are in broad agreement with the earlier conclusions of Illich-Svitych and Dolgopolsky in seeking the Nostratic Urheimat (original homeland) within the Mesolithic (or Epipaleolithic) in the Fertile Crescent, the stage which directly preceded the Neolithic and was transitional to it.<br /><br />Looking at the cultural assemblages of this period, two sequences in particular stand out as possible archeological correlates of the earliest Nostratians or their immediate precursors. Both hypotheses place Proto-Nostratic within the Fertile Crescent at around the end of the last glacial period.<br /><br />The first of these is focused on the Levant. The Kebaran culture (18,000–10,500 BCE) not only introduced the microlithic assemblage into the region, it also has African affinity, specifically with the Ouchtata retouch technique associated with the microlithic Halfan culture of Egypt (24,000–17,000 BCE).[23] The Kebarans in their turn were directly ancestral to the succeeding Natufian culture (10,500–8500 BCE), which has enormous significance for prehistorians as the clearest evidence of hunters and gatherers in actual transition to Neolithic food production. Both cultures extended their influence outside the region into southern Anatolia. For example, in Cilicia the Belbaşı culture (13,000–10,000 BCE) shows Kebaran influence, while the Beldibi culture (10,000–8500 BCE) shows clear Natufian influence.<br />The second possibility as a culture associated with the Nostratic family is the Zarzian (12,400–8500 BCE) culture of the Zagros mountains, stretching northwards into Kobistan in the Caucasus and eastwards into Iran. In western Iran, the M’lefatian culture (10,500–9000 BCE) was ancestral to the assemblages of Ali Tappah (9000–5000 BCE) and Jeitun (6000–4000 BCE). Still further east, the Hissar culture has been seen as the Mesolithic precursor to the Keltiminar culture (5500–3500 BCE) of the Kyrgyz steppe.<br />It has been proposed that the broad spectrum revolution[24] of Kent Flannery (1969),[25] associated with microliths, the use of the bow and arrow, and the domestication of the dog, all of which are associated with these cultures, may have been the cultural "motor" that led to their expansion. Certainly cultures which appeared at Franchthi Cave in the Aegean and Lepenski Vir in the Balkans, and the Murzak-Koba (9100–8000 BCE) and Grebenki (8500–7000 BCE) cultures of the Ukrainian steppe, all displayed these adaptations.<br /><br />Bomhard (2008) suggests a differentiation of Proto-Nostratic by 8,000 BCE, the beginning of the Neolithic Revolution in the Levant, over a territory spanning the entire Fertile Crescent and beyond into the Caucasus (Proto-Kartvelian), Egypt and along the Red Sea to the Horn of Africa (Proto-Afroasiatic), the Iranian Plateau (Proto-Elamo-Dravidian) and into Central Asia (Proto-Eurasiatic, to be further subdivided by 5,000 BCE into Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Uralic and Proto-Altaic)."<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nostratic_languagesashrafhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02590059778590185827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-7883977216715951642011-04-15T22:41:16.473+03:002011-04-15T22:41:16.473+03:00I think by the time of nostratic expansion the anc...I think by the time of nostratic expansion the ancestor of proto uralo-siberian and proto altaic speakers were inhabiting eastern areas of northern asia and did not come in interaction with the nostratic peoples, otherwise we ,nowadays, would have seen a caucasoid inpuut widespread on all altaic and uralo-siberian (and eskimo-aleut) speaking populations, probably it's when those populations begin to migrate westward into central asia , that they did take loanwords+pronouns from a nostratic/para IE and this is shown by the fact that while the altaic and uralic folks that expanded westward do have some caucasoid input, the ones that remained in the altaic homeland (manchuria) turkic homeland (lena river) and uralic homeland (ob river) are lacking caucasoid input.<br />However in eastern and northern africa all afrasan speakers do sahre from 20 to 40% west asian input (somalis and ethiopians included)<br />We know that there is an important iranian influence on uralic and it could be very well that an earlier para IE or nostratic branch did provide uralic and altaic with pronouns[especially when they do have a nostratic IE etymology as "man" (I) to be connected with "mannus" (man)]ashrafhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02590059778590185827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-19438174689676820472011-04-15T14:37:17.116+03:002011-04-15T14:37:17.116+03:00@ashraf
"I think the nostratic tongue is con...@ashraf<br /><br />"I think the nostratic tongue is connected with the caucasoid type (especially the west asian component) the affinity of afrasan-kartvelian-IE with altaic-uralosiberian-eskimoaleut is the result of linguistic influences from the expanding indo and para-indohitties upon hunter gatherer societies of Siberia"<br /><br />I think what the Nostraticists you quoted mean is that Nostratic languages spoken by a generalized Caucasoids expanded from an area south of the Caucasus into Sub-Saharan Africa, Europe and Asia. As they expanded, they absorbed native elements on all three continents. That's why Sub-Saharan Afroasiatic speakers are black, Eskimos and Altaics are Mongoloid, Dravidians are South Asians in type, etc. So, the languages diverged through the natural process of linguistic differentiation from a single source, whereas the phenotypes on the fringes of the Nostratic expansion come from indigenous people. So, the Nostratic language possesses integrity throughout its range of distribution. This is very different from your earlier claim that Uralic and Altaic languages derive their pronouns and verbal endings from a Sprachbund.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-25955720655973986142011-04-14T20:49:49.127+03:002011-04-14T20:49:49.127+03:00"The basic pattern of the expansion of the Ho..."The basic pattern of the expansion of the Homo sapiens sapiens on the Eurasian continent, of “the peopling of Eurasia,” is of the “ripple” type, with the Near East in the center pumping waves after waves of immigrants to the east (East Asia), west (Europe), and somewhat later, namely after the retreat of the last ice-age, north and south (back to North Africa). The model of Eurasia-peopling is, that is to say, “Out of the Near East Again and Again.” The first wave has just been described and the linguistic vestiges of it identified. Around 40,000 years or so BP, a second wave of immigration<br /><br />We now come to the “third wave,” the third “Out of Near East.” Most of today’s linguistic and ethnic diversity on Eurasia continent in fact had its origin in this third, Nostratic focal expansion. Let me read to you from the excellent statement on this topic, Allan R. Bomhard and John C. Kern’s The Nostratic Macrofamily (Mouton de Gruyter, 1994). First, his concluding statement on the previous, second focal expansion, that of Dene-Caucasian. <br />“As always in hunter-gatherer societies, mobility was at a premium. Canoes were used for water travel and snow shoes and sleds were developed for overland travel in winter. The conditions were favorable for the rapid spread of tribes and their new linguistic family over immense distances. This expansion, which is called Mesolithic, is indicated archaeologically by microliths found all along Northern Eurasia and Southward through the Caucasus into the Near East, where it later developed smoothly into the Neolithic with its domestication of cereals and of animals suitable for food and fibers. <br />“The Mesolithic culture is aptly named, for it provided a gradual though rapid transition between the Upper Paleolithic and the agricultural Neolithic. There was, in fact, a steady advance in man’s ability to control and exploit his environment…” <br />the Mesolithic culture, with its Nostratic language, had its beginning in or near the Fertile Crescent just south of the Caucasus, with a slightly later northern extension into Southern Russia in intimate association with woods and fresh water in lakes and rivers. From these positions, it had ready access to the lower Danube and the Balkans (Indo-European), to the Caucasus (Kartvelian), south of the Caucasus into Mesopotamia, Palestine, Egypt, and the rest of North Africa (Sumerian and Afroasiatic), eastward into Central Siberia (Elamo-Dravidian), and northward and thence eastward along the Circumpolar fringe (Uralic-Yukaghir, Altaic, Chukchi-Kamchatkin, Gilyak, and Eskimo-Aleut [: these together with Indo-European constitute the Eurasiatic subgroup within Nostratic). In the process of its expansion, it undoubtedly effected a linguistic conversion of many tribes of Dene-Caucasian or other origins; this accounts for the fact that non-Nostratic languages in Eurasia in historic times have been found mostly as relics in mountainous regions. Exceptions are Chinese and the now moribund or extinct Ket, which, together with Hattic and Hurrian, probably represent post-Nostratic reemergences of Dene-Caucasian speakers from their relic areas"ashrafhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02590059778590185827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-70282237910609919652011-04-14T19:35:10.475+03:002011-04-14T19:35:10.475+03:00"then this language family would be old enoug..."then this language family would be old enough to transcend some of the racial divides."<br /><br />The Nostraticists I read their books(bomhard+bernal+renfrw) connect the developpement of nostratic out of "out of african" with the natufian bioculture of around 15.000 bc and I think the nostratic tongue is connected with the caucasoid type (especially the west asian component) the affinity of afrasan-kartvelian-IE with altaic-uralosiberian-eskimoaleut is the result of linguistic influences from the expanding indo and para-indohitties upon hunter gatherer societies of Siberia<br />Here below a link for a section taken from Bomhard's book.(please read the quoted section)<br /><br />http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/single/?p=552232&t=3812504ashrafhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02590059778590185827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-45932757066294426702011-04-14T16:31:01.451+03:002011-04-14T16:31:01.451+03:00@Terry
"And I don't accept for a moment ...@Terry<br /><br />"And I don't accept for a moment that they entered America together."<br /><br />All genetic publications claim that hg C and Q came to the New World as a single wave. And I can see one of their points: hg C is widely distributed in the New World, albeit at low frequencies. It's very easy to imagine that hg Q simply began to recently dominate what once was a more evenly distributed genetic landscape. <br /><br />"Q went east from Central Asia"<br /><br />Q is also found in West Asia and northern Europe.<br /><br />"That explains the gap between Q in the Ket/Selkup people and the Americans."<br /><br />Exactly. This is the pre-NO stratum.<br /><br />"And I'd guess that Y-hap Q first shot past Y-hap C3 on its way to America. Then Y-hap C3 followed on."<br /><br />I can't accept this fantastical scenario.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-5395724337960348742011-04-14T14:26:17.940+03:002011-04-14T14:26:17.940+03:001. If it were, you would expect a spread from ther...<i>1. If it were, you would expect a spread from there North, East, or South. Nothing of that sort happened for at least ~4,000 years.</i><br /><br />Not sure what empirical data on this you have. It's like saying IE speakers did not spread from Anatolia because they didn't spread from Anatolia/<br /><br /><br /><i>2. If it were, the immediate western impact would have been a (proto-) IE Greece, followed by a (proto-) IE spread into Italy and Spain, along the well-known Mediterranean path of the advance of agriculture. We know this did not happen - all of these countries by pretty much all accounts did not become IE until at least ~4,000 years later.</i><br /><br />Maritime pioneer colonization is not expected to have quite the same effect. We must also avoid the temptation of assuming that <i>only</i> IE groups were involved in all farming dispersals.<br /><br /><br /><i>3. All quantitative analyses put the "origin" of proto-IE later than the development of agriculture in Anatolia (even if as little as 1,000 - 2,000 years). Note, however, that dating around the origin can be misleading if the initial group was limited in size and localized and did not spread for a long interval. That is, the origin of proto-IE can go back millennia before we define what characterizes it, and when its children spread.</i><br /><br />Methods date the first split within the language family, that is what is meant by "origin". The first split is not expected to be contemporaneous with the invention of agriculture, but with the first separation of speakers of the language, and the dates are quite consistent with the Neolithic colonization of Europe.<br /><br /><i>4. If you accept from the data and datings that the Kurgan hypothesis can only apply late and to the East (Slavo-Baltic and Indo-Iranian), while these branches always appear downstream in quantitative measurements, you also must accept that there is a much earlier earlier source to the West - but one that is by no known route and timing connected to the South (Anatolia).</i><br /><br />Not sure what you are saying here. I don't see any reason to associate the Kurgan phenomenon with either Balto-Slavic or Indo-Iranian. <br /><br />What seems to have happened is that the steppe populations, whose early language is unknown, seem to have been Iranized, at least partially, by the 1st millennium BC. 1-2 thousand years later they were Turkicized. If the Soviet Empire had not collapsed, they'd been Russianized probably. It seems that the steppe populations are quick to grab a new language, which can then spread easily among them.<br /><br /><i>5. The single most well-documented early neolithic European population explosion was LBK. Clearly, anything after was just a modulation of theme, and did not reach this wide expanse from the Seine to the Ukraine. Occam's razor waves its hand.</i><br /><br />Not sure how you are invoking Occam's razor here. The LBK was probably IE-speaking, although we can't know for sure what languages they spoke. It's possible that later population movements in North-Central Europe established the dominant languages spoken there today. After all, Slavic grew to a huge size from an origin that wasn't even noticed by classical historians, so it's quite possible that there were episodes of language replacement after the LBK that we simply don't know about.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-4381605409998720932011-04-14T11:15:05.141+03:002011-04-14T11:15:05.141+03:00Top five reasons why Anatolia is not the homeland ...Top five reasons why Anatolia is <i>not</i> the homeland of proto-IE:<br /><br />1. If it were, you would expect a spread from there North, East, or South. Nothing of that sort happened for at least ~4,000 years.<br /><br />2. If it were, the immediate western impact would have been a (proto-) IE Greece, followed by a (proto-) IE spread into Italy and Spain, along the well-known Mediterranean path of the advance of agriculture. We know this did not happen - all of these countries by pretty much all accounts did not become IE until at least ~4,000 years later.<br /><br />3. All quantitative analyses put the "origin" of proto-IE <i>later</i> than the development of agriculture in Anatolia (even if as little as 1,000 - 2,000 years). Note, however, that dating around the origin can be misleading if the initial group was limited in size and localized and did <i>not</i> spread for a long interval. That is, the origin of proto-IE can go back millennia before we define what characterizes it, and when its children spread.<br /><br />4. If you accept from the data and datings that the Kurgan hypothesis can only apply late and to the East (Slavo-Baltic and Indo-Iranian), while these branches always appear downstream in quantitative measurements, you also must accept that there is a much earlier earlier source to the West - but one that is by no known route and timing connected to the South (Anatolia).<br /><br />5. The single most well-documented early neolithic European population explosion was LBK. Clearly, anything after was just a modulation of theme, and did not reach this wide expanse from the Seine to the Ukraine. Occam's razor waves its hand.eurologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440019181278830033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-16462077527380218102011-04-14T02:48:34.232+03:002011-04-14T02:48:34.232+03:00"Q and C are currently on the two opposite en..."Q and C are currently on the two opposite ends of the Y-DNA phylogeny. It doesn't make sense that they both ended up north of latitude 45 North, a region that has never been a 'magnet' for populations". <br /><br /><br />But some sort of humans have been there for a very long time. And I don't accept for a moment that they entered America together. <br /><br />"At the same time N and O that are presumably closer together with hg Q phylogenetically, hadn't been around it geographically when the New World was colonized but once it was settled they poured in and displaced it". <br /><br />I'm quite sure that is so. That explains the gap between Q in the Ket/Selkup people and the Americans. But NO and Q had taken completely different routes into North/Central Asia. <br /><br />"Plus Q is a sister clade of R and, together, they are spread across three continents (America, Eurasia and Africa) suggesting great antiquity". <br /><br />I don't accept that the last<br />comment automatically follows the first. To me it looks as though R1b went west from Central Asia, Q went east from Central Asia and R1a stayed put, although R1a had already coalesced in India by that time. <br /><br />"Ancient hgs such as C and D-E typically show a phenomenal geographic spread". <br /><br />Agreed. And I'd guess that Y-hap Q first shot past Y-hap C3 on its way to America. Then Y-hap C3 followed on.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-83741933393322359342011-04-14T00:05:01.410+03:002011-04-14T00:05:01.410+03:00The Myceneans whose Indo-European language becomes...<i>The Myceneans whose Indo-European language becomes ancient Greek around 1600 BCE upon their arrival and conquest of the Pelasgians and Minoans</i><br /><br />That sentence has so many fallacies in it. <br /><br />1. There is no evidence that the Mycenaeans "arrived" in 1600BC<br />2. There is no evidence that Greek "emerged" in 1600BC from Indo-European. On the contrary, Mycenaean Greek is already fully recognizable Greek, so it must've been Greek for quite some time before, not to mention that it was also dialectal Greek, so its divergence from Proto-Greek must be pushed into the past, certainly in the 3rd millennium BC at the latest.<br />3. There was no conquest of "Pelasgians", that's simply outdated philology.<br /><br /><i>The official language of the Hittite empire, that over time became the popular language of the empire prior to its collapse about 800 years later, was not an amalgam of different Anatolian languages.</i><br /><br /><br />If Hittite was the only Anatolian language in Anatolia, you'd have a point.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-56853615917690106972011-04-13T23:45:29.873+03:002011-04-13T23:45:29.873+03:00Continued:
"a millennium later the entirety...Continued:<br /><br /><br />"a millennium later the entirety of West Asia Minor spoke Anatolian languages (minus the Greeks and Phrygians)."<br /><br />A eight hundred years of rule of the entire region by the Hittite empire will do that. Successive waves of Celts and Romans had a similar impact in a similar time frame in all of non-Basque Iberia. This is about the same time frame in which Italic languages went from being non-existing minor colonies in Italy to wiping out Etruscan as the last vestigate of the Villanovian substrate there. Akkadian completely supplanted Sumerian outside religous texts in that time frame. Turkish became the language of Anatolia faster than that.<br /><br />The official language of the Hittite empire, that over time became the popular language of the empire prior to its collapse about 800 years later, was not an amalgam of different Anatolian languages. It is was the language of a single Anatolian city ca. 2200 BCE that bit by bit conquered a larger and larger empire until its sphere of influence extended to include almost all of Anatolia and reached down to the Northern Levant until it bumped up against the Egyptians. The story of Anatolian languages is a lot like the story of English which started as the language of a tiny Friscan dialect and came to be spoken all over the world, or of Arabic, or of Bantu, or of Roman, or of Han Chinese, each of which have similar histories.<br /><br />For the first few hundred years, first as a minority people in a foreign land and then as a thin superstrate ruling elite (transcribed in a writing system adapted from one previously used for Semitic languages), this Hittite dialect was subject to much greater outside influence than, for example, Tocharian. Moreover, the ruling class that set the standard was actively intermarrying and conducting diplomacy with Hattic, Hurrian, Mittani, Akkadian and Egyptian speaking peoples, to a greater extent than the Indo-Iranians or the Mycenians. They also borrowed a lot of metallurgical technology from the Caucasians. Little wonder then, that Hittite, in a linguistic cross roads had less lexical similarity to other IE languages and more borrowing from languages now lost.<br /><br />One also can generally expect that the rate of lexical change is going to be much slower once these languages are literary than it is when these are purely oral languages. The transition took place after these languages had already differentiated. The other examples given "Semitic, Austronesian, Melanesian, the languages of the Sahul, and Arawak" mostly didn't have this transition to seriously interfere with dating accuracy, and mostly didn't have strong competing language families to "fight back" and influence the measured language strongly and in a way that would impact different branches at a different rate from each other.Andrew Oh-Willekehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02537151821869153861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-22555703432728512992011-04-13T23:45:08.177+03:002011-04-13T23:45:08.177+03:00"Hittite is not the only Anatolian language t..."Hittite is not the only Anatolian language that is early attested in Anatolia. Luwian and Palaic are also attested, and a millennium later the entirety of West Asia Minor spoke Anatolian languages (minus the Greeks and Phrygians).<br /><br />Proponents of the Kurgan theory have a hard time explaining how Anatolian arrived in Anatolia. It takes a lot of weird migration routes and a lot of hide-and-seek to account for the fact that it is so distantly related to languages from which it supposedly branched out late in prehistory."<br /><br />Jaska has good points which I mostly won't repeat. But, the most important point is that the apparently distant relationships can be explained by varying degrees of pressure from competing languages in the region, both substrate influences and areal influences.<br /><br />The Norse v. Icelandic example is on point. A linguistically isolated community like Iceland is going to evolve very slowly, while a linguistic community like the Norse with all sorts of neighbors is going to evolve much more rapidly because of the substrate and areal influences that put pressure on it, and most of that divergence is going to happen sooner rather than later in punctuated linguistic evolution.<br /><br />The Myceneans whose Indo-European language becomes ancient Greek around 1600 BCE upon their arrival and conquest of the Pelasgians and Minoans are influenced by a non-Indo-European substrate strong enough to assert a continuation of the Minoan Linear A script into Linear B, to be incorporated into Indo-European polytheism rather than being replaced by it, and to exist as a subculture within ancient Greece for hundreds of years after the initial conquest.<br /><br />There is no good reason to assume that Luwian and Palaic had any longer history in Western Anatolia than Hittite. They could have been separate tribes that were part of the same Hittite migration, or could have been part of the same migration as the Myceneans (if indeed they were even separate), but evolved into Anatolian languages due to Hattic substrate influences and areal influences.Andrew Oh-Willekehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02537151821869153861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-16192876862709635662011-04-13T18:50:11.516+03:002011-04-13T18:50:11.516+03:00Dienekes:
“The age of the split corresponds exactl...Dienekes:<br />“The age of the split corresponds exactly to the foundation of the first Neolithic communities in Europe from Anatolia. So, if one accepts the age estimate, that's the simplest explanation, and there's no reason to invoke a separate one.”<br /><br />Yes there is: Anatolian homeland cannot explain the PIE vocabulary as well as Ukrainian homeland.<br /><br />Dienekes:<br />“This is not a reasonable argument, as Turkic speakers were highly mobile and expanded at a time when transportation technology was advanced and over a region that facilitated it. “<br /><br />Still there is no reason to assume that PIE was spoken in the Anatolia just because the Anatolian branch was the first to split off. It would also be more economical to locat the homeland closer to the centre of gravity of the language family.<br /><br />Jaska:<br />“The Anatolian branch can be also archaeologically satisfactorily explained from Europe.” <br />Dienekes:<br />“I see absolutely no evidence for that. The best counter-argument is the virtual non-existence of haplogroup I in Anatolia and West Asia in general. A movement out of the Balkans or Central Europe would have affected the West Asian populations by bringing this typical Central European haplogroup there.“<br /><br />If you would read the books of Mallory etc. you could see the archaeological explanations: there are very well fitting expansions to Anatolia. Absence of haplogroup I cannot be a counter-argument, as there is no reason to believe that there were any I in Ukraine at that time. <br /><br />Jaska:<br />“We also know that Anatolia was full of non-IE languages; there hardly was place for Proto-Indo-European.” <br />Dienekes:<br />“That is incorrect. Anatolia has, throughout its history, been home to several languages and language families. It's a big place. Moreover, from the earliest times for which there is a record there are Indo-Europeans there, and there are several well-differentiated Anatolian languages there in historical times, as well as several non-Anatolian Indo-European ones. If Anatolia was not the center of the Indo-European expansion, I find it extremely surprising that Greek, Phrygian, several Anatolian languages and Iranian were all represented in it. Either Anatolia had the "Indo-European magnet", drawing diverse Indo-European peoples from a distance, or it was actually the homeland.”<br /><br />We know very well that Greek came to Anatolia from the west and Indo-Aryan came to Anatolia from the east. Nobody believes that Greek or Aryan were born in Anatolia! <br /><br />The only languages, from which we have no firm evidence outside Anatolia, are the Anatolian languages. But even in these languages we see traits of massive substrate influence, which points to the conclusion that even the Anatolian languages are not original in Anatolia.<br /><br />If Anatolia was earlier Indo-European, there should not be so strong foreign influence in the Anatolian languages.Jaakko Häkkinenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03088022045546791438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-87051700447263941662011-04-13T17:30:46.661+03:002011-04-13T17:30:46.661+03:00Great research. It completely proves the kurgan th...Great research. It completely proves the kurgan theory and the fact that the Hittite is NOT EI language. This research is consistent with the theory of the Indo-Hittite language according to which the Anatolian evolved from the Indo-Hittite (Indo-Hittite->Pre-Anatolian->Anatolian). While IE evolved from the Indo-Hittite through PIE (the Indo-Hittite PIE->IE). That perfectly explains huge differences between the Hittite and other IE languages. So that we can conclude that in fact this research sets the timing of split between Pre-Anatolian and PIE and so the oldest attested IE language is the Tocharian.Azarov Dmitryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11487587188902490486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-46113102445469894092011-04-13T15:38:05.885+03:002011-04-13T15:38:05.885+03:00@Terry
"Perhaps N and O didn't begin to ...@Terry<br /><br />"Perhaps N and O didn't begin to move north of latitude 45 North until after Q and C had gone past through that region."<br /><br />Q and C are currently on the two opposite ends of the Y-DNA phylogeny. It doesn't make sense that they both ended up north of latitude 45 North, a region that has never been a "magnet" for populations. At the same time N and O that are presumably closer together with hg Q phylogenetically, hadn't been around it geographically when the New World was colonized but once it was settled they poured in and displaced it. Plus Q is a sister clade of R and, together, they are spread across three continents (America, Eurasia and Africa) suggesting great antiquity. Ancient hgs such as C and D-E typically show a phenomenal geographic spread. We see the same thing with "Neanderthal-derived" X chromosome hg B006. It's found in America, Australia and Europe. If we upgrade Y-DNA hg P to the level of CDE then everything will fall into places nicely. And I don't mean "out of America" but just the concordance between phylogeny and geography. Molecular clock just ticks faster for some clades and slower for others. And some nodes such as K and F are just artificial place-holders.<br /><br />@Dienekes<br /><br />"Proponents of the Kurgan theory have a hard time explaining how Anatolian arrived in Anatolia. It takes a lot of weird migration routes and a lot of hide-and-seek to account for the fact that it is so distantly related to languages from which it supposedly branched out late in prehistory."<br /><br />"Distantly related" is a tricky concept. First of all, Anatolian is an extinct branch, so we don't know what it descendant languages would've looked like if they survived. The only reason Armenian is part of the IE family is because of the Old Armenian attestation. Without it, modern Armenian and modern IE languages would be hardly recognizable as part of the same family. Consequently, other modern languages that aren't IE may not be IE because of the lack of a 3,500 year old attestation.<br /><br />On the other hand, as in the case of the IE term for 'wool' above (or let's take the word watar 'water'), Hittite matches other IE languages literally. If we take such part of the basic IE vocabulary as kinship terms, Anatolian deviates markedly from other IE languages in some ways (anna 'mother' next to IE *meHter) but in others it preserves the very exact morphology of typical IE terms (Lyk. cbatra [cb < dw], Luw duuttari 'daughter'). This suggests that Anatolian may have shifted away from the common IE heritage, rather than preserved the earlier stage of IE.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-85038708140232416922011-04-13T15:35:26.776+03:002011-04-13T15:35:26.776+03:00@ashraf
"No language family could be as old ...@ashraf<br /><br />"No language family could be as old as the caucasoid-mongoloid-kongoid shift"<br /><br />You quote Dolgopolsky all the time, and he believes in Nostratic as a genealogical grouping, not a Sprachbund. Dolgopolsky's Nostratic is a "family" that has Caucasoid, Black African, Uralic and Mongoloid components to it. Needless to say, of the theory proves right, then this language family would be old enough to transcend some of the racial divides. <br /><br />"in other words tongue affinity+genome affinity=>genetical link but tongue affinity without genome affinity=>sprachbund(both angolans and lusitanians are portuguesic)"<br /><br />There's a reverse process, too, namely language preserve old kinship but gene flow obscures the original genetic connection between pairs of language branches. Mon-Khmer and Munda are part of the same language family, but their mtDNAs are distinct because Munda absorbed lots of genes in India. Only Y-DNA preserves the original connection between MK and Munda as well as their languages. Ket and Na-Dene are related linguistically but genetically there's no similar link. It's likely that the Ket genetic makeup was changed through gene flow with neighbors. Burusho speak and isolated language but genetically they are just like their neighbors. This again means that they are saturated with later genes but speak an ancient language.<br /><br />We just tend to see prehistory in the light of population movements and language shifts that occurred as result of the most recent worldwide European colonization. But this is an exceptional event enabled by cultural and demographic factors that weren't in place in older times.<br /><br />"So it should not be difficult to imagine that they borrowed iranian pronouns and verb endings as well."<br /><br />I'm sympathetic with your approach to tease apart areal and genetic traces but I don't think we can attribute Uralic and Altaic pronouns and verb endings to Indo-Iranians. Same for Dravidians. Later borrowings are usually easy to detect, but all Nostraticists and Eurasiaticists would tell you that those grammatically features are genetically linked, not areally. That's the whole point of the Nostratic/Eurasiatic theory. Gene flow and linguistic borrowing can be attributed to the IE-Afroasiatic interface instead. That's why you get a West Asian component in some IE-speaking populations but not in others.<br /><br />Thanks for all the references, Ashraf.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-73746075238104789762011-04-13T14:47:08.676+03:002011-04-13T14:47:08.676+03:00Not only Hittite(nessili) and Luwili but dozens of...Not only Hittite(nessili) and Luwili but dozens of Anatolian Indo-European languages all over Anatolia (and very diversified) and according to own Hittite accounts they came from southeast near a big lake(van lake??), besides according to gamkrelidze and ivanonv the toponyms of the area around eastern anatolia are the only proto indo-european ones (i.e near to the constructed proto indo-european forms)<br />here below a non complete list of the indo-european languages of the anatolian branch:<br />nessili, luwian (2 dialects), palaic, lydian, lykian, pamphylian, likaonian, isaurian, psidian, carian...<br />Here below a map of some of those languages<br /> http://dnghu.org/anatolian-languages-map.jpg<br />As you can notice the Anatolic speaking folks were confined to south and eastern anatolia with no opening on the black sea nor the aegean sea wich is in line with the hittite account that they came to anatolia from the south-east from a land with a big lake (urmia, van??)ashrafhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02590059778590185827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-26429708128845390192011-04-13T14:08:45.416+03:002011-04-13T14:08:45.416+03:00The early attestation of Anatolian then suggest th...<i>The early attestation of Anatolian then suggest that Hittite was confined to a couple of cities and that that they were a decided minority in Anatolia at the time.</i><br /><br />Hittite is not the only Anatolian language that is early attested in Anatolia. Luwian and Palaic are also attested, and a millennium later the entirety of West Asia Minor spoke Anatolian languages (minus the Greeks and Phrygians).<br /><br />Proponents of the Kurgan theory have a hard time explaining how Anatolian arrived in Anatolia. It takes a lot of weird migration routes and a lot of hide-and-seek to account for the fact that it is so distantly related to languages from which it supposedly branched out late in prehistory.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.com