World Families Forums - An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 14, 2014, 11:35:29 PM
Home Help Search Login Register

+  World Families Forums
|-+  General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  R1b General (Moderator: rms2)
| | |-+  An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 12 Go Down Print
Author Topic: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012  (Read 13460 times)
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #50 on: April 05, 2012, 02:54:12 PM »

The places where we find the earliest records of languages are simply the places with literate societies. PIE was not the language of a literate society of the Near East or Anatolia. We know this first because it wasn't written down, and second because it doesn't have vocabulary for complex urban life. I tried to explain this on the other thread, but possibly I was too oblique. 

Jean, I use that argument all the time. The earliest (uncontested) written proof of the Celtic language is in the form of the Lepontic language of northern Italy (~600 BC). And yet, nobody can deny that Celtic was being spoken loooong before 600 BC in places like the British Isles.
Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #51 on: April 05, 2012, 03:03:06 PM »

Another example is that the first written form of Slavic was 9th-century AD translations of the Bible etc by Byzantine Greek missionaries from Macedonia. :)
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #52 on: April 05, 2012, 05:41:36 PM »

I dont really see a huge problem with a revised Renfrew type model of pre-PIE arising south of the Black Sea and then sending an offshoot into the farming area just west of the Black Sea and PIE slowly arising there.  That places it adjacent to the steppes but actually among the farming groups there.  There are cultures that do appear to potentially be offshoots of Antaolian ones on the west of the Black Sea in the 5th millenium.  The exact same route and same period saw the movement of dairying also from Anatolia to the west shore of the Black Sea.  If PIE arose from an Anatolian offshoot into the west Black Sea area (Bulgaria/east Romania/fringes of the Ukraine) and evolved there from say 5000BC to 4000BC and beyond then I think much falls into place.  Clearly this would make R1b the likely original IE speakers with (perhaps) R1a steppe hunters being the recieivers rather than the doners of IE along with all the other aspects like dairying, farming etc.  It has never seemed likely to me that steppes hunters morphing into nomadic pastoralists could ever exert anything other than a peripheral impact on Europe.  In later times steppes peoples seem to rarely get past the steppe-like fringes of eastern Europe.

Indeed, I am not even convinced that R1a was a steppe haplogroup.  It has higher diversity in the Balkans and perhaps it was simply in the farming mix in SE Europe along with R1b and penetrated into the steppes.  I see the Yamnaya thrust as a limited reflux caused by climatic deterioration than badly weakened the C-Trypole culture and forced them into the fringes of the farming zone.
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #53 on: April 05, 2012, 06:45:12 PM »

We don't know what kind of language was spoken on the Pontic-Caspian steppe in the 5th or 4th millennium BC. ... For Anatolia, however, we know from inscriptions that at least one IE language, Hittite, was being spoken there by 1900 BC.

The places where we find the earliest records of languages are simply the places with literate societies. PIE was not the language of a literate society of the Near East or Anatolia. We know this first because it wasn't written down, and second because it doesn't have vocabulary for complex urban life. I tried to explain this on the other thread, but possibly I was too oblique.  


You missed the point, although I'm pretty sure I mentioned it. I don't think I was unclear about that, but subsequent posts by both you and Rich Rocca make it clear neither of you got it. I wasn't trying to assert that IE arose in Anatolia circa 1900 BC because there are inscriptions there dated to that period. I mentioned the fact that the oldest written evidence for IE occurs in Anatolia because it is hard evidence for the fact that IE was actually spoken in Anatolia, and hard evidence is what we do NOT have for whatever language was spoken on the Pontic-Caspian steppe during the 5th and 4th millenniums BC.

What of the archaic nature of Anatolian and the opinion of some linguists that it indicates the descent of IE from Indo-Hittite, regarded as the precursor of Anatolian and of PIE? Anthony himself acknowledges that.

The oldest known form of Indo-European came from Anatolia. To maintain the Kurgan Theory, one must argue it originally came from the Pontic-Caspian steppe, probably by way of the Balkan peninsula. It had to have come to Anatolia very early, leaving the P-C Urheimat before PIE itself had time to develop.

That strikes me as a very strained argument - special pleading, as Alan characterized it.

It makes more sense to me to think that the oldest form of Indo-European is found in the place where the earliest Indo-Europeans themselves probably lived, and that some of them moved north, into the Balkan peninsula, where they encountered non-IE peoples and the language developed further, into PIE.



« Last Edit: April 05, 2012, 07:00:36 PM by rms2 » Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #54 on: April 05, 2012, 07:22:53 PM »

The places where we find the earliest records of languages are simply the places with literate societies. PIE was not the language of a literate society of the Near East or Anatolia. We know this first because it wasn't written down, and second because it doesn't have vocabulary for complex urban life. I tried to explain this on the other thread, but possibly I was too oblique.  

Jean, I use that argument all the time. The earliest (uncontested) written proof of the Celtic language is in the form of the Lepontic language of northern Italy (~600 BC). And yet, nobody can deny that Celtic was being spoken loooong before 600 BC in places like the British Isles.

We have other kinds of actual evidence - place names, names of topographical features, etc. - for Celtic.

Do we have that sort of thing to connect the Pontic-Caspian steppe with Proto-Indo-European?

Not that I know of.

All the place names and topographical features there now have Slavic names. I don't know; some of those may even have roots in non-IE languages spoken by the various peoples who have resided in or moved through that region.

The idea that PIE originated on the Pontic-Caspian steppe is the product of deductive reasoning. It is a hypothesis ultimately based on the fact that the Pontic-Caspian steppe is roughly halfway between the eastern and western limits of the primary zone in which IE languages are spoken. Once that spot was selected, its advocates began to assemble evidence to support it. That's fine, but let's recognize it for what it is.

There is no hard evidence that PIE was actually spoken by anyone on the Pontic-Caspian steppe during the 5th and 4th millenniums BC. There are arguments from linguistics, yes, but they are somewhat attenuated.

The oldest form of Indo-European was found in Anatolia.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2012, 07:23:57 PM by rms2 » Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #55 on: April 05, 2012, 07:41:12 PM »

I dont really see a huge problem with a revised Renfrew type model of pre-PIE arising south of the Black Sea and then sending an offshoot into the farming area just west of the Black Sea and PIE slowly arising there. That places it adjacent to the steppes but actually among the farming groups there.  There are cultures that do appear to potentially be offshoots of Antaolian ones on the west of the Black Sea in the 5th millenium.  The exact same route and same period saw the movement of dairying also from Anatolia to the west shore of the Black Sea.  If PIE arose from an Anatolian offshoot into the west Black Sea area (Bulgaria/east Romania/fringes of the Ukraine) and evolved there from say 5000BC to 4000BC and beyond then I think much falls into place.  Clearly this would make R1b the likely original IE speakers with (perhaps) R1a steppe hunters being the recieivers rather than the doners of IE along with all the other aspects like dairying, farming etc.  It has never seemed likely to me that steppes hunters morphing into nomadic pastoralists could ever exert anything other than a peripheral impact on Europe.  In later times steppes peoples seem to rarely get past the steppe-like fringes of eastern Europe.

Indeed, I am not even convinced that R1a was a steppe haplogroup.  It has higher diversity in the Balkans and perhaps it was simply in the farming mix in SE Europe along with R1b and penetrated into the steppes.  I see the Yamnaya thrust as a limited reflux caused by climatic deterioration than badly weakened the C-Trypole culture and forced them into the fringes of the farming zone.


I agree with that, and it makes sense of the archaic nature of the Anatolian branch of the Indo-European languages, a thing that cannot be adequately explained by the Kurgan Theory.

It also might make sense of Euphratic, if in fact it did exist and was an early Indo-European language.

And, finally, it also makes sense of the spread of IE to the west, a thing pretty clearly not accomplished by predominantly R1a peoples or even peoples with a kurganized culture.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2012, 07:47:30 PM by rms2 » Logged

NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #56 on: April 05, 2012, 08:02:34 PM »

I dont really see a huge problem with a revised Renfrew type model of pre-PIE arising south of the Black Sea and then sending an offshoot into the farming area just west of the Black Sea and PIE slowly arising there. That places it adjacent to the steppes but actually among the farming groups there.  There are cultures that do appear to potentially be offshoots of Antaolian ones on the west of the Black Sea in the 5th millenium.  The exact same route and same period saw the movement of dairying also from Anatolia to the west shore of the Black Sea.  If PIE arose from an Anatolian offshoot into the west Black Sea area (Bulgaria/east Romania/fringes of the Ukraine) and evolved there from say 5000BC to 4000BC and beyond then I think much falls into place.  Clearly this would make R1b the likely original IE speakers with (perhaps) R1a steppe hunters being the recieivers rather than the doners of IE along with all the other aspects like dairying, farming etc.  It has never seemed likely to me that steppes hunters morphing into nomadic pastoralists could ever exert anything other than a peripheral impact on Europe.  In later times steppes peoples seem to rarely get past the steppe-like fringes of eastern Europe.

Indeed, I am not even convinced that R1a was a steppe haplogroup.  It has higher diversity in the Balkans and perhaps it was simply in the farming mix in SE Europe along with R1b and penetrated into the steppes.  I see the Yamnaya thrust as a limited reflux caused by climatic deterioration than badly weakened the C-Trypole culture and forced them into the fringes of the farming zone.


I agree with that, and it makes sense of the archaic nature of the Anatolian branch of the Indo-European languages, a thing that cannot be adequately explained by the Kurgan Theory.

It also might make sense of Euphratic, if in fact it did exist and was an early Indo-European language.

And, finally, it also makes sense of the spread of IE to the west, a thing pretty clearly not accomplished by predominantly R1a peoples or even peoples with a kurganized culture.

I don't see why the two theories cannot complement one another, say an ancestral PIE homeland in Anatolia or in the vicinity of the Armenian Highlands, and a secondary urheimat just west of the Black Sea.

If R1a tribes are in the Balkans during the Mesolithic period, this would enable them to pick up PIE and carry the innovations east across the steppe. R1a was clearly not associated with carrying IE languages west, possibly correlated with a pastoralist/hunter-gatherer split that underscored their suitability to the steppe lifestyle.
Logged

Y-DNA: R-Z255 (L159.2+) - Downing (Irish Sea)


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #57 on: April 05, 2012, 08:12:10 PM »

Has anyone here read Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: A Reconstruction and Historical Analysis of a Proto-Language and a Proto-Culture, by Gamkrelidze and Ivanov?

Gamkrelidze and Ivanov are Russian linguists who famously place the IE Urheimat in eastern Anatolia.

Here is Amazon's description of the book:

Quote

The authors propse [sic] a revision of views on a number of central issues of Indo-European studies. Based on findings of typology, they suggest an analysis of the phonological system of Proto-Indo-European (the "glottalic" theory); they offer novel assumptions about the relative chronology of changes in PIE vowels and laryngeals. Their conclusions are compared with data from Paroto-Kartvelian [I think "Proto-Kartvelian" is meant]. In the second part of the book, a semantically organized presentation of material from the lexicon is combined with analyses of the use of forms and formulae in a broadly defined cultural context. Again similarities with properties of primarily Kartvelian and Semitic are described, and extended close contacts with these language families are postulated. This necessarily leads to a proposal to place the hypothetical Urheimat of the Indo-Europeans in the region south of the Caucasus. Volume I and II of the original Russian edition have been combined in the English version as Part I; the bibliography and indexes are published as Part II.

The book is a little too pricey for me. Otherwise, I would order it.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2012, 08:14:02 PM by rms2 » Logged

NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #58 on: April 05, 2012, 08:40:17 PM »

Has anyone here read Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: A Reconstruction and Historical Analysis of a Proto-Language and a Proto-Culture, by Gamkrelidze and Ivanov?

Gamkrelidze and Ivanov are Russian linguists who famously place the IE Urheimat in eastern Anatolia.

Here is Amazon's description of the book:

Quote

The authors propse [sic] a revision of views on a number of central issues of Indo-European studies. Based on findings of typology, they suggest an analysis of the phonological system of Proto-Indo-European (the "glottalic" theory); they offer novel assumptions about the relative chronology of changes in PIE vowels and laryngeals. Their conclusions are compared with data from Paroto-Kartvelian [I think "Proto-Kartvelian" is meant]. In the second part of the book, a semantically organized presentation of material from the lexicon is combined with analyses of the use of forms and formulae in a broadly defined cultural context. Again similarities with properties of primarily Kartvelian and Semitic are described, and extended close contacts with these language families are postulated. This necessarily leads to a proposal to place the hypothetical Urheimat of the Indo-Europeans in the region south of the Caucasus. Volume I and II of the original Russian edition have been combined in the English version as Part I; the bibliography and indexes are published as Part II.

The book is a little too pricey for me. Otherwise, I would order it.

Yeah, I remember reading an article about Ivanov and Gamkrelidze's theory; it was not the book though. It talks about the area south of the Caucasus, more specifically around Lake Urmia.

This would help explain why no R1a leaked through the Caucasus either. On the other hand, maybe they weren't interested in going there?
Logged

Y-DNA: R-Z255 (L159.2+) - Downing (Irish Sea)


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



Arwunbee
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 47


« Reply #59 on: April 06, 2012, 01:00:54 AM »

How long ago are we talking here?  The Black Sea was half its size in 5000 BC.
Logged

Map of L44 subclade (of U106): http://g.co/maps/9xswy
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #60 on: April 06, 2012, 02:27:49 AM »

Has anyone here read Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: A Reconstruction and Historical Analysis of a Proto-Language and a Proto-Culture, by Gamkrelidze and Ivanov?

Gamkrelidze and Ivanov are Russian linguists who famously place the IE Urheimat in eastern Anatolia.

Here is Amazon's description of the book:
Quote
Again similarities with properties of primarily Kartvelian and Semitic are described, and extended close contacts with these language families are postulated. This necessarily leads to a proposal to place the hypothetical Urheimat of the Indo-Europeans in the region south of the Caucasus.... 
The book is a little too pricey for me. Otherwise, I would order it.
I've never heard of these similarities with Kartvelian and Semitic. What are they?
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #61 on: April 06, 2012, 02:38:52 AM »

I dont really see a huge problem with a revised Renfrew type model of pre-PIE arising south of the Black Sea and then sending an offshoot into the farming area just west of the Black Sea and PIE slowly arising there. That places it adjacent to the steppes but actually among the farming groups there.  There are cultures that do appear to potentially be offshoots of Antaolian ones on the west of the Black Sea in the 5th millenium.  The exact same route and same period saw the movement of dairying also from Anatolia to the west shore of the Black Sea.  If PIE arose from an Anatolian offshoot into the west Black Sea area (Bulgaria/east Romania/fringes of the Ukraine) and evolved there from say 5000BC to 4000BC and beyond then I think much falls into place.  Clearly this would make R1b the likely original IE speakers with (perhaps) R1a steppe hunters being the recieivers rather than the doners of IE along with all the other aspects like dairying, farming etc.  It has never seemed likely to me that steppes hunters morphing into nomadic pastoralists could ever exert anything other than a peripheral impact on Europe.  In later times steppes peoples seem to rarely get past the steppe-like fringes of eastern Europe.

Indeed, I am not even convinced that R1a was a steppe haplogroup.  It has higher diversity in the Balkans and perhaps it was simply in the farming mix in SE Europe along with R1b and penetrated into the steppes.  I see the Yamnaya thrust as a limited reflux caused by climatic deterioration than badly weakened the C-Trypole culture and forced them into the fringes of the farming zone.


I agree with that, and it makes sense of the archaic nature of the Anatolian branch of the Indo-European languages, a thing that cannot be adequately explained by the Kurgan Theory.

It also might make sense of Euphratic, if in fact it did exist and was an early Indo-European language.

And, finally, it also makes sense of the spread of IE to the west, a thing pretty clearly not accomplished by predominantly R1a peoples or even peoples with a kurganized culture.
If we could establish one thing related to this discussion it would  be beneficial to identify the PIE home land. As long as that is not understood, alternatives for the spread of IE languages will be quite varied.

I'll go back and re-read the PIE homeland stuff that I have, but I am not aware of anything that defeats the basic concept ---   The Germanic, Italic, Celtic, Balto-Slavic IE languages, etc., all have a common set of words that can be reconstructed.  They don't all appear in Anatolian.   If so, it matters little what Anatolian was, whatever it was.... The IE languages of Europe that we are speaking of all descended from full PIE and full PIE could only have originated from essentially the steppes.  

There may have been pre-PIE in Anatolia or PIE like in the Near East but they are not the "most recent common ancestor" of the IE languages as we know them as long as a later version has a fuller common denominator word set.... and that seems to be from the steppes.

I'll re-read the PIE homeland stuff for defects.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2012, 02:43:14 AM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #62 on: April 06, 2012, 02:48:02 AM »

I agree with that, and it makes sense of the archaic nature of the Anatolian branch of the Indo-European languages, a thing that cannot be adequately explained by the Kurgan Theory....
Why?
There is no need for the Kurgan Theory of the expansion of IE languages into Europe to have to explain Anatolian.....  at least not if Anatolian was pre-PIE or not full PIE (as David Anthony says.)  Having a predecessor or a sister language doesn't diminish the concept of the IE expansion from full PIE in the steppes.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2012, 02:48:54 AM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #63 on: April 06, 2012, 04:58:54 AM »

Quote from: Mikewww link=topic=10436.msg128523#msg128523

I've never heard of these similarities with Kartvelian and Semitic. What are they?

Word borrowings, not common origin. Anthony covers the various linguistic contacts with PIE on pages 93-98 of The Horse, The Wheel and Language. See particularly page 98, where he summarises Johanna Nichols, who has shown from the phonology of the loans that the contact between PIE and Proto-Kartvelian and Proto-Semitic was indirect (via another language). Proto-Kartvelian is later than PIE. So the loan words passed through a pre-Kartvelian language that had intermediary languages between PIE on the one hand and Proto-Semitic on the other.

The exact number of these borrowed words is disputed, as usual with linguistics. One borrowing from Semitic that is accepted by all is the word for "ox". As Anthony says, that could have been borrowed from the Cris Culture along with cattle.

The links between Proto-Uralic and PIE go deeper. They share some basic vocabulary that probably goes back to an ancient  common ancestor among hunter-gatherers roaming between the Carpathians and the Urals in the early Holocene.



« Last Edit: April 06, 2012, 05:28:52 AM by Jean M » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #64 on: April 06, 2012, 05:20:35 AM »

I ... it makes sense of the archaic nature of the Anatolian branch of the Indo-European languages, a thing that cannot be adequately explained by the Kurgan Theory....

The consensus view of the PIE homeland has no problem with the archaic nature of the Anatolian branch, any more than it has problems with the archaic nature of Tocharian. (In both cases "archaic" = retaining some evidence of an early split from the developing mother-tongue, rather than "closest to PIE". These languages had developed independently after that split for millennia before they were recorded.)

The place(s) that the most archaic version of a language is recorded might be its origin point, but might equally well be early offshoots from the speech community, which travelled so far from it that they were no longer in communication and therefore did not participate in the subsequent development of the mother-tongue. Where archaic forms crop up thousands of miles apart, the latter looks more likely.

This problem has been raised again and again within Indo-European studies. For example the archaic nature of Lithuanian and Latvian led to arguments that the PIE homeland was on the Baltic shore. In fact they are part of the Baltic branch of Proto-Balto-Slavic, but it is quite possible that there were earlier waves of IE wanderers in that direction, elements of whose dialect was absorbed into Proto-Baltic.

Currently Prof. John Koch is pressing the idea that the most archaic written forms of Celtic are in Iberia and therefore Celtic spread from the West. But as a good linguist, he recognises the alternative that they were archaic because they were early departures from the Proto-Celtic or Proto-Italo-Celtic mother community.


« Last Edit: April 06, 2012, 07:22:07 AM by Jean M » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #65 on: April 06, 2012, 05:40:35 AM »

Bill J. Darden, On the question of the Anatolian origin of Indo-Hittite,  in Robert Drews (ed.), Greater Anatolia and the Indo-Hittite Language Family (2001) provides an excellent, thorough, detailed discussion of the issue of the relationship between the Anatolian branch and the rest of IE and how Proto-Anatolian reached Anatolia.

He discusses the views of Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, as well as those of Mallory.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2012, 06:13:11 AM by Jean M » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #66 on: April 06, 2012, 08:11:38 AM »


If we could establish one thing related to this discussion it would  be beneficial to identify the PIE home land. As long as that is not understood, alternatives for the spread of IE languages will be quite varied.

I'll go back and re-read the PIE homeland stuff that I have, but I am not aware of anything that defeats the basic concept ---   The Germanic, Italic, Celtic, Balto-Slavic IE languages, etc., all have a common set of words that can be reconstructed.  They don't all appear in Anatolian.   If so, it matters little what Anatolian was, whatever it was.... The IE languages of Europe that we are speaking of all descended from full PIE and full PIE could only have originated from essentially the steppes.

"[F]ull PIE could only have originated from essentially the steppes"? Why is that?

Why couldn't it be true that early Indo-European, call it Indo-Hittite or Pre-Proto-Indo-European, moved into the Balkans from Anatolia, where contact with people with a horse riding culture contributed that vocabulary at a very early stage?

It can't be argued that the horse riding vocabulary shows no signs of having come from foreign, non-IE input. We don't know what it was the steppe folk were speaking at that point, and that vocabulary entered PIE at the onset of what we can deduce PIE to have been, based on the descendant Indo-European languages we do know about.

We do know that the Anatolian branch is older and did not contain some of the features of PIE.

There may have been pre-PIE in Anatolia or PIE like in the Near East but they are not the "most recent common ancestor" of the IE languages as we know them as long as a later version has a fuller common denominator word set.... and that seems to be from the steppes.

I'll re-read the PIE homeland stuff for defects.

If we are searching for "the most recent common ancestor" of the modern Indo-European languages, then it is PIE.

If, on the other hand, we are looking for the original homeland of the Indo-Europeans, then the Anatolian branch must be considered, since it is apparently older than PIE.

Sure, Jean and the other kurganists could be right. Anatolian may be archaic because it split from the mother tongue early and traveled far from the Urheimat, where it preserved those archaic features. Which seems more likely, though? That Anatolian is archaic because it split early and traveled far, or it is archaic because it is closer to the original and stayed close to home? Consider also that the "traveled far" scenario only becomes necessary if one needs to justify a homeland other than Anatolia, e.g., the Pontic-Caspian steppe.

Remember too that Euphratic is supposed to have been an Indo-European language. If Whittaker is right about it, it is the oldest for which there is documentary evidence, with texts containing evidence of Euphratic dating to the 4th millennium BC. Is it likely that an IE language appearing in Mesopotamia in the 4th millennium BC was derived from the Pontic-Caspian steppe?

Quote from: Gordon Whittaker
Traces of this language can be found preserved primarily
in the technical and elite vocabulary of Sumerian
and, to a lesser extent, Akkadian, and attest to a prolonged
period of intensive contact. It is worth noting that
two of the three leading theories on the location of the
Indo-European ‘homeland,’ those of Gamkrelidze and
Ivanov (1995 [1984]) and of Renfrew (1987), envision
Indo-Europeans in a zone flanking the northern and western
reaches of Northern Mesopotamia, namely Transcaucasia
and Eastern Anatolia respectively.


The Kurgan Theory makes sense for most of the eastern expansion of Indo-European. It really looks good when one looks at the level of R1a in India, for example.

But it breaks down in a big way to the west, where R1a fizzles despite repeated eastern input, e.g., the Cimmerians, the Huns, and the Slavs, and where R1b predominates.

The Kurgan Theory really becomes attenuated for the spread of IE to the west. It depends on a kind of "domino effect" of one culture and people after another adopting IE and passing it on, all the way from the Pontic-Caspian steppe to the Atlantic. Mostly missing in action are the R1a "elites" who somehow managed to change the speech of almost all of western Europe despite their rather primitive level of civilization.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2012, 08:25:19 AM by rms2 » Logged

Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #67 on: April 06, 2012, 08:24:33 AM »

Mostly missing in action are the R1a "elites" who somehow managed to change the speech of almost all of western Europe despite their rather primitive level of civilization.

Who is suggesting that R1a1a elites changed the speech of all western Europe? What idiot would buy into that? This sounds like some garbled mish-mash of the old elite transfer of language concept and the aDNA evidence of continuity of R1a1a from Andronovo to Scythian (Iranian-speaking) graves. If IE languages spread east by mass migration, why try to hang onto the old idea that they spread by elite transfer, but only in the west. You yourself came up with the brilliant deduction years ago that R1b was the other half of the IE story. It was mass migration east and west.

What has changed since then, apart from you getting driven up the wall by Rah-Rah-R1a1a silliness?

« Last Edit: April 06, 2012, 08:40:00 AM by Jean M » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #68 on: April 06, 2012, 08:36:23 AM »

Mostly missing in action are the R1a "elites" who somehow managed to change the speech of almost all of western Europe despite their rather primitive level of civilization.

Who is suggesting that R1a1a elites changed the speech of all western Europe? What idiot would buy into that? This sounds like some garbled mish-mash of the old elite transfer of language concept and the aDNA evidence of continuity of R1a1a from Andronovo to Scythian (Iranian-speaking) graves. If IE languages spread east by mass migration, why try to hang onto the old idea that they spread by elite transfer, but only in the west. You yourself came up with the brilliant deduction years ago that R1b was the other half of the IE story. It was mass migration east and west.

What has changed since then, apart from you getting driven up the wall by Rah-Rah-R1a1a silliness?  

I still think R1b is the IE story to the west, but I don't think the R1bs were first "kurganized" by R1a language donors from the steppe. I think it was the other way around, with R1a steppe folk acquiring their Indo-European from R1b folk who probably arrived in the Balkans from Anatolia.

Aside from that, believe me, there are plenty of idiots (your word) out there who believe Indo-European was propagated in every direction  by R1a elites. Witness Klyosov's recent Rootsweb declarations about R1a "Celts", for example. The main reason I quit posting at the Eupedia y-dna forum was that very sort of thing. I don't mind arguing - I enjoy it, actually - but I don't like being the Lone Ranger.

I realize I am an R1b partisan. I admit it, without shame. But I really don't find the Kurgan Theory as compelling as you apparently do, and I see some gaping holes in it, at least from my perspective.

I don't want to re-post what I wrote in my last post above. What of it? Is Euphratic just Whittaker's silliness, or is it real? If so, would you derive it from the Pontic-Caspian steppe or from nearby eastern Anatolia? He says the textual evidence for it dates from the 4th millennium BC. That's pretty early.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2012, 08:37:13 AM by rms2 » Logged

Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #69 on: April 06, 2012, 08:39:02 AM »

Aside from that, believe me, there are plenty of idiots (your word) out there who believe Indo-European was propagated in every direction  by R1a elites. Witness Klyosov's recent Rootsweb declarations about R1a "Celts", for example.

You can afford to rise above this biased amateurish nonsense.

The IE homeland issue is completely separate from the issue of whether IE spread chiefly by mass migration or by elite transfer or traders or whatever else anti-migrationists can dream up. Mallory and Anthony did not argue the case for mass migration (except up the Danube) because of the dominance of anti-migrationism in archaeology and the political sensitivities involved. The genetic evidence has gradually been changing perceptions. We don't have to go along with ideas of elites or traders or linga franca or anything else unless that is actually suggested by the DNA and/or linguistic evidence.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2012, 09:07:04 AM by Jean M » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #70 on: April 06, 2012, 09:06:56 AM »

You're still not dealing with the questions I raised in my last couple of posts.

What of Euphratic? Real? Or Whittaker's folly?

He says it can be found in cuneiform texts dating from the 4th millennium BC in Mesopotamia. That makes it, if real, the oldest known form of Indo-European for which there is hard, textual evidence.

Mesopotamia is a long way from the Pontic-Caspian steppe but a neighbor to Anatolia. R1b is found in a pretty big way among the Armenians and, to a lesser extent, modern Assyrians.
Logged

NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #71 on: April 06, 2012, 09:23:29 AM »

Mostly missing in action are the R1a "elites" who somehow managed to change the speech of almost all of western Europe despite their rather primitive level of civilization.

Who is suggesting that R1a1a elites changed the speech of all western Europe? What idiot would buy into that? This sounds like some garbled mish-mash of the old elite transfer of language concept and the aDNA evidence of continuity of R1a1a from Andronovo to Scythian (Iranian-speaking) graves.

What has changed since then, apart from you getting driven up the wall by Rah-Rah-R1a1a silliness?



The inherent problem here is connecting graves in Krasnoyarsk, Siberia with PIE, when it is clear that R1a is connected with spreading Iranian languages. I believe Haplogroup C is also found at the grave site.

Nothing is particularly offensive or bothersome about early R1a tribes spreading PIE, but the problem is finding some way to explain the lack of this haplogroup among western/Centum IE speakers. It is much simpler to assume that R1a tribes receive IE from an R1b-rich population, and carry later innovations east.

Logged

Y-DNA: R-Z255 (L159.2+) - Downing (Irish Sea)


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #72 on: April 06, 2012, 09:25:09 AM »

Euphratic (sigh). Seems like a load of wishful thinking to me.
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #73 on: April 06, 2012, 09:37:12 AM »


The inherent problem here is connecting graves in Krasnoyarsk, Siberia with PIE, when it is clear that R1a is connected with spreading Iranian languages.

No problem. Proto-Indo-Iranian is a descendant of PIE. Andronovo is a descendent (via intermediary cultures) of Yamnaya. It represents a movement east of the Urals by people previously west of the Urals. However for greater clarity on the issue, studies are under way which will try to get DNA from sites west of the Urals.  
http://www.uni-mainz.de/FB/Biologie/Anthropologie/MolA/English/Research/CentralAsia.html
« Last Edit: April 06, 2012, 09:45:26 AM by Jean M » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #74 on: April 06, 2012, 09:46:24 AM »

Euphratic (sigh). Seems like a load of wishful thinking to me.

Not good enough, Jean.

That just means you don't have a good answer. Whittaker could be wrong, but his work deserves better than that.

Let's see: Anatolian actually came from the steppe, despite its archaic nature and the fact that it is, well, Anatolian, and Euphratic, found in cuneiform tablets in Mesopotamia that date from the 4th millennium BC, can be dismissed with a wave of the hand as "wishful thinking".

Got it.

Logged

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 12 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


SEO light theme by © Mustang forums. Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC

Page created in 0.104 seconds with 18 queries.