World Families Forums - Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 01, 2014, 06:39:30 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)
| | |-+  Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 24 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family  (Read 35176 times)
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #50 on: August 25, 2012, 12:51:50 AM »

This is what Menk says about Yamnaya and Bell Beaker skulls...

http://www.u152.org/images/stories/Beaker_Yamnaya.png

. . .
 If R1b does show up in Yamnaya aDNA, I think it would likely be from absorbed farmers rather than steppe mesolithic ancestry.
. . .

Why? Because we have already assumed who played what roles?

The subject class would not get buried in a kurgan. Kurgan burials were reserved for the elite.

If R1b does not show up in western steppe kurgans, then I don't buy the PC steppe theory at all, because R1a did not spread IE all the way to the Atlantic, and I don't find the PIE extended domino theory compelling.
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #51 on: August 25, 2012, 01:06:22 AM »

... . We know that farming and animal husbandry spread through Europe and changed things mightily. We also know that somehow Europe became overwhelmingly Indo-European speaking. When you go through the archaeological record looking for something that had a big enough impact to change almost the entire linguistic landscape of Europe, it's hard not to think the Neolithic Revolution might have had something to do with it.

That's not to say that Renfrew is right. I am just pointing out the appeal of his position. .....

I agree, this is the appeal to Renfrew's position. There is a mighty weight to attaching something, be it IE languages or be it R1b expansion, to a big thing like the agricultural based Neolithic expansion into Europe.

However, weight doesn't always equate to correctness.

Sometimes factors that don't seem right, turn out to be correct in retrospect. I think we need to conceptually separate paternal lineages, as marked by Y chromosome mutations, from the populations in general.  We know Y DNA and mt DNA don't line up well so this should not be a difficult concept.

LOL. This is just the Irish contrariannism rising up from me.

As I mentioned a couple of posts back, this time they used 14 known, datable linguistic events to calibrate their work, and they tried alternatives. All of them pointed to Anatolia.

I'm not competent to judge their work . . . or anyone else's for that matter.

But remember that the Kurgan Theory has a certain appeal of its own: the warlike,  mounted steppe heroes swooping down on the poor, pedestrian farmers, as the latter babbled their inelegant, non-IE gibberish.

It's certainly more romantic than the idea that PIE was spread by Anatolian farmers trudging into Europe with plows and cows.

I don't know which idea is right.
Logged

Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Online Online

Posts: 2151


« Reply #52 on: August 25, 2012, 03:11:13 AM »

This has been written on “Dienekes’ Anthropology blog” by someone who has a better knowledge of English than me, but the ideas are the same, only I used more sarcasm as usual:

The map shown in the blog post here, and the podcast timeline evolving map both suffer from the defect of being ahistorical.
For example, neither indicates any presence if Celtic languages in Iberia or Gaul, which in fact, the Celtic languages of the British Isles are very likely derivatives of earlier Celtic language populations in Iberia and Gaul.
The map shows Tocharian languages in places where they were spoken from ca. 2000 BCE to 600 CE, but where they didn't even exist when the Romance languages were born from Latin.
Likewise, the podcast video map series fails to reflect the fact that while the Balkan languages may be relatively old, that Slavic language expansion mostly occurred in the middle of the first Millennium C.E.
The podcast video map seems to have the known direction of Indo-Iranian language expansion backward - West to East across Iran, rather than the other way around.
One of the whole points of using Bayesian statistical methods over Frequentist statistical approaches is to give weight to what you already know. We know quite a bit. We have fairly decent dates, source locations and paths of expansion for a variety of archaeological cultures. We know that languages change at a much more rapid pace at moments of language differentiation and language contact (e.g. via substrate influences and elements of creolization) than they do in "midlife" when they are in isolation. We have fairly good dates for moments like (1) the transition from Minoan (non-IE) to Mycenaean (IE) Greek in Crete, (2)decent dates for a similar earlier transition in mainland Greece, (3) the date of the Hattic (non-IE)-Hittite (IE) transition in Anatolia and more generally the dates of Hittite expansion, (4) the appearance of an Indo-Aryan Mittani dialect in far eastern Anatolia, (5) the presence and general location of group of non-IE Kassites east of Mespotamia, (6) the times and places where non-IE Sumerian and Akkadian and all subsequent Mesopotamian languages were spoken, (7) the time and places where Tocharian was spoken and the plausible possible origins of those peoples, and (8) the dates when Celtic cultures appear in various places. There is good reason to think that the pre-Bronze Age IE world was very small - regardless of where within that world the actual urheimat was located - large swaths of Europe and South Asia and Iran had never encountered an IE language at that point, and quite a bit of IE expansion in Western Europe was an Iron Age phenomena.
The study's methods seem to implicitly assume a slow gradualist diffusion model when the reality was probably much more dramatic and punctuated. The archaeological record shows long periods of continuity interrupted by disruption followed by rapid expansion of new cultures often lots of places at once.
There are also points we don't know and have to guess on, with some guesses being more certain than others. We don't have any direct evidence of the linguistic affiliations of Megalithic, Corded Ware, Urnfield, BMAC or Bell Beaker archaeological cultures - although we do have when information about the when, where and to some extent, the from whence of these cultures. We don't know to what extent relatively new IE language families (e.g. Romance and Slavic) replaced IE v. non-IE predecessors in particular places and that is particularly difficult to discern in Anatolia. A useful model would focus on assigning linguistic affiliation probabilities to particular archaeological cultures on the theory that an archaelogical culture is likely to share a linguistic family affinity. Usually, there are just two or three plausible first IE language in the region candidates in any given place, and often one or two of them are far more likely than any other.
Bottom line: this is a crude toy model not a serious effort to really get at the truth using all available data. Saturday, August 25, 2012 3:10:00 AM


Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Heber
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 448


« Reply #53 on: August 25, 2012, 09:00:09 AM »

Maliclavelli,

Thanks for posting this. These are exactly my concerns with the paper, but he/she has articulated them in a clear fashion. Regarding the Renfrew / Mallory debate, we are fortunate to have two giants in the field working on this problem. I do not confess to understand all the methodology or the science of linguistics used in the the study but welcome any new tools or approaches to help clarify this mighty question. My own slight preference is for the Anatolian model, perhaps due to the M269 hotspots found by Myres although I don't agree with Myres age estimates.  For sure we need more aDNA from Anatolia, The Steppes and the Balkens. I hope the B.E.A.N (Bridging the European and Anatolian Neolithic) project and will provide this.

https://sites.google.com/site/beanresearchnetwork/
Logged

Heber


 
R1b1a2a1a1b4  L459+ L21+ DF21+ DF13+ U198- U106- P66- P314.2- M37- M222- L96- L513- L48- L44- L4- L226- L2- L196- L195- L193- L192.1- L176.2- L165- L159.2- L148- L144- L130- L1-
Paternal L21* DF21


Maternal H1C1



Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Online Online

Posts: 2151


« Reply #54 on: August 25, 2012, 09:12:02 AM »

Maliclavelli,
Thanks for posting this. These are exactly my concerns with the paper, but he/she has articulated them in a clear fashion.

This is the author: Andrew Oh-Willeke

Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #55 on: August 25, 2012, 09:22:17 AM »


Exactly! I don't like this plead to numbers as if it were somehow inherently better, or more appropriate, than plain old analytic thinking.

Quantitative models are sometimes irrelevant but always dependent on a persons' design, input, and interpretation so...


Isn't this what linguists have been doing for 100 years, taking similarities/differences in languages, picking which they think are significant/insignificant and then drawing conclusions? If nothing else, a mathematical model takes away human bias. Of course, the model could have issues, but that is something different altogether.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2012, 09:23:01 AM by Richard Rocca » Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
princenuadha
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 115


« Reply #56 on: August 25, 2012, 09:35:55 AM »


Exactly! I don't like this plead to numbers as if it were somehow inherently better, or more appropriate, than plain old analytic thinking.

Quantitative models are sometimes irrelevant but always dependent on a persons' design, input, and interpretation so...


Isn't this what linguists have been doing for 100 years, taking similarities/differences in languages, picking which they think are significant/insignificant and then drawing conclusions? If nothing else, a mathematical model takes away human bias. Of course, the model could have issues, but that is something different altogether.

My point was that a mathematical model does not take away human bias as some have suggested. Also a mathematical model is no more inherently correct. Each mathematical model has to be evaluated for it's design, assumptions, and interpretations.

Logged
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #57 on: August 25, 2012, 09:42:56 AM »

This has been written on “Dienekes’ Anthropology blog” by someone who has a better knowledge of English than me, but the ideas are the same, only I used more sarcasm as usual:

The map shown in the blog post here, and the podcast timeline evolving map both suffer from the defect of being ahistorical.
For example, neither indicates any presence if Celtic languages in Iberia or Gaul, which in fact, the Celtic languages of the British Isles are very likely derivatives of earlier Celtic language populations in Iberia and Gaul....

...Bottom line: this is a crude toy model not a serious effort to really get at the truth using all available data. Saturday, August 25, 2012 3:10:00 AM


So this guy bashed the paper based on a video and a sound clip? Obviously he didn't read the supplementary data. For someone to come up with a "Bottom Line" statement without taking the data, running it through on their own and then pointing out the flaws in the model less two days after the study came out is grossly premature.
Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #58 on: August 25, 2012, 09:45:55 AM »


My point was that a mathematical model does not take away human bias as some have suggested. Also a mathematical model is no more inherently correct. Each mathematical model has to be evaluated for it's design, assumptions, and interpretations.


True, and my only point is that a mathematical formula applies logic for all to see. A linguist's 'gut feel' on what linguistic characteristics are/are not important are immeasurable.
Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #59 on: August 25, 2012, 10:01:11 AM »

... Kurgan folks may have introduced the horse into Eastern Europe, but they seem to have left very little of their Y-DNA legacy in Western Europe.

I think there are multiple decision points that are all floating to some extent. We are trying to align them with DNA. I absolutely agree that it is not clear how R1b-M269 became the dominant player in Western Europe in an apparently short time. It's not clearly what languages M269 people were speaking early on. I guess it is possible that some R-M269 folks were among original Kurgan building, PIE speaking Steppes folks, but they could very well have been Trypolye or some other SE European or Anatolian group that picked up IE speaking back there, or they could have been pre-PIE Anatolian that then picked up full PIE along with the horses and what have you from the Steppes folks.

However, that is a different decision point than the PIE homeland assessment. That is the Mallory/Renfrew argument. I just don't see Renfrew's side of it, after reading and listening to him. It's like he is putting together circumstantial evidence for an agricultural Anatolian expansion. If he can tie in enough grains/cereals and diminish the significance of wheels/horses he wins.  That kind of argument lacks the full logic of applying the linguistic and cultural practice evaluation.  I never thought of it like that, but seems to be why I find Mallory and Anthony more convincing, they tie it together better.

Weidly though there was also a big paper that argued the opposite and stated that there are too many shared IE words for a sophisticated agriculture that doesnt match steppe pastoralism.  Some may be absent in eastern IE languages but he suggested that was because they passed through a long period in environments where sophisticated settled agriculture was not possible.  I am not saying he was correct but it was a well know paper.  I once posted it but it escapes me now who wrote it.   I will have a google and see if I can find it again.  I dont really feel qualified to critique either the papers or the people who critiqued it.


EDIT-it was K.Krell

What is Krell stating? I don't want to distract Jean M from her work, but I respect her interpretation and my reading of Anthony and watching lectures of Renfrew, Mallory and Anthony lead me to conclude that PIE is hunter-gather based.

If that is wrong, I'd like to understand. Renfrew does not address this directly. He seems to like to use an "out-weigh" approach by piling up evidence on his side, but frankly, it does not all link together. He is just trying to using volumes to overcome logic.

If I'm wrong, so be it, but I'd like to hear someone truly logically link Renfrew's hypothesis and explain the early Uralic influence and the hunter-gatherer base for IE languages. I don't care one way or another.


The paper is
Krell, Kathrin S. 1998. “Gimbutas’ Kurgan-PIE Homeland Hypothesis: A Linguistic Critique”. In Roger Blench and Mathew Spriggs (eds.) Archaeology and Language, II:267-289. London: Routledge.

Cant see a free copy online.  All I found were some quotes:

According to Krell (1998), Gimbutas' homeland theory is completely incompatible with the linguistic evidence. Krell compiles lists of items of flora, fauna, economy, and technology that archaeology has accounted for in the Kurgan culture and compares it with lists of the same categories as reconstructed by traditional historical-Indo-European linguistics. Krell finds major discrepancies between the two, and underlines the fact that we cannot presume that the reconstructed term for 'horse', for example, referred to the domesticated equid in the protoperiod just because it did in later times. It could originally have referred to a wild equid, a possibility that would "undermine the mainstay of Gimbutas's arguments that the Kurgan culture first domesticated the horse and used this new technology to spread to surrounding areas,"
 
And
 
"Kathrin Krell (1998) finds that the terms found in the reconstructed Indo-European language are not compatible with the cultural level of the Kurgans. Krell holds that the Indo-Europeans had agriculture whereas the Kurgan people were "just at a pastoral stage" and hence might not have had sedentary agricultural terms in their language, despite the fact that such terms are part of a Proto-Indo-European core vocabulary.
 Krell (1998), "Gimbutas' Kurgans-PIE homeland hypothesis: a linguistic critique", points out that the Proto-Indo-European had an agricultural vocabulary and not merely a pastoral one. As for technology, there are plausible reconstructions suggesting knowledge of navigation, a technology quite atypical of Gimbutas' Kurgan society. Krell concludes that Gimbutas seems to first establish a Kurgan hypothesis, based on purely archaeological observations, and then proceeds to create a picture of the PIE homeland and subsequent dispersal which fits neatly over her archaeological findings. The problem is that in order to do this, she has had to be rather selective in her use of linguistic data, as well as in her interpretation of that data."
 
Second, like Krell hinted at, if you are a nomadic horseman how do you sustain civilization? You can't, unless you fully assimilate into native populations like how populations from Central Asia like Turks or Huns assimilated among the natives. The cultural links between these populations and Central Asians, today, are minuscule. Within a 1000 year period you have Turks and Huns fully assimilated into native populations. The only remnant is the language and notice, this is not the same as the IE expansion. I purposely highlight this example to show people like yourself that the Kurgen hypothesis if compared to later and more clear immigration patterns that are nomadic, clearly, the cultural legacy would not sustain a 6000 year excursion, as the original Turkic populations that penetrated into Anatolia are remotely related to populations in Central Asia, both genetically, culturally, and linguistically.


Clearly not having read it I cant comment.  However, there is always wriggle roon in the linguistic reconstruction approach.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2012, 10:05:40 AM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #60 on: August 25, 2012, 10:20:42 AM »

Dienekes hints at multiple waves entering Europe from the SE in the Neolithic.  This paper here indicates several very wide successive pottery horizons and suggests they either indicate movement or a large and sustained contact network that linked large areas of Asian Minor, SW Asia and SE Europe.  Either possibility is interesting in terms of languages.

http://ege.academia.edu/%C3%87iler%C3%87ilingiro%C4%9Flu/Papers/1003842/Neolithic_red_slipped_and_burnished_wares_Recognizing_their_widespread_distribution

Just to expand of this, the thrust of the pottery paper is that time and time again vast swathes of Asia Minor, SE Europe and parts of SW Asia changed in parallel in terms of pottery.  That at least suggests some mobility and interaction across this vast area.  It kind of suggests to me the possibility of a common linguistic zone in the Neolithic covering this area.  What the language was of course is unclear.  One thing that I find interesting is that it has been suggested by some scholars that the substrate in Greece and adjacent is an Anatolian language, not a pre-IE one.  I just wonder if this zone of interaction was the site of the development of Anatolian in the Neolithic.   If it is, then proto-IE could have developed from elements of this group located on its northern edge in contact with steppes groups.  It also suggests a large homeland zone rather than a compact one and also the possible fluidity of contact.  Its a bit obscure but there are other papers that suggest that places like Anatolia, the west of the Black Sea and the Crimea were interacting too in the Neolithic and copper age.  That suggests the possibility of a model that is intermediate between the first farmers idea and the Kurgan model with an early Anatolian and SE European zone of Anatolian languages and a secondary zone at the steppes-farming interface where PIE could have evolved and then spread in the copper age.  I personally dont find any of the linguistic arguements clinching and still feel its an open question. 
Logged
Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Online Online

Posts: 2151


« Reply #61 on: August 25, 2012, 10:45:19 AM »

This has been written on “Dienekes’ Anthropology blog” by someone who has a better knowledge of English than me, but the ideas are the same, only I used more sarcasm as usual:

The map shown in the blog post here, and the podcast timeline evolving map both suffer from the defect of being ahistorical.
For example, neither indicates any presence if Celtic languages in Iberia or Gaul, which in fact, the Celtic languages of the British Isles are very likely derivatives of earlier Celtic language populations in Iberia and Gaul....

...Bottom line: this is a crude toy model not a serious effort to really get at the truth using all available data. Saturday, August 25, 2012 3:10:00 AM


So this guy bashed the paper based on a video and a sound clip? Obviously he didn't read the supplementary data. For someone to come up with a "Bottom Line" statement without taking the data, running it through on their own and then pointing out the flaws in the model less two days after the study came out is grossly premature.

 Václav Hrdonka said...
I totally agree with Andrew Oh-Willeke. The map of languages is at least controversial, the tree as well. If we will summarize what we know:

Before 20th century BC - no traces of IE language in Anatolia or around.
20th century BC - the first traces of Hittite language started to appear in old Assyrian from 20th century BC, they highly probably came to Anatolia from outside.
18th century - Old Hittite language with non-IE substratun appears in Anatolia
15th century - Mittani came from the east the northern Mesopotamia
15th century - First record of Mycenaean Greek - I think we are pretty sure, they did not come from Anatolia
We can make a conclusion that the IE languages did not originated in Anatolia
Saturday, August 25, 2012 10:08:00 AM
There were few languages before Hittite in Anatolia and they were not IE (Hattians, Hurrians, Assyrian...). The reason why I think, IE does not originate in Anatolia is that there are no IE languages in the area very close to or even within Anatolia long time after hypothetical split of them. If the IE languages would originated in Anatolia before 8000 year, I guess, there should be some IE words in the records of northern Mesopotamia before 2000 BC, but there are none.
Saturday, August 25, 2012 1:52:00 PM

   
And Gray and Atkinson profess themselves as professional linguists!
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #62 on: August 25, 2012, 10:50:34 AM »

This has been written on “Dienekes’ Anthropology blog” by someone who has a better knowledge of English than me, but the ideas are the same, only I used more sarcasm as usual:

The map shown in the blog post here, and the podcast timeline evolving map both suffer from the defect of being ahistorical.
For example, neither indicates any presence if Celtic languages in Iberia or Gaul, which in fact, the Celtic languages of the British Isles are very likely derivatives of earlier Celtic language populations in Iberia and Gaul....

...Bottom line: this is a crude toy model not a serious effort to really get at the truth using all available data. Saturday, August 25, 2012 3:10:00 AM


So this guy bashed the paper based on a video and a sound clip? Obviously he didn't read the supplementary data. For someone to come up with a "Bottom Line" statement without taking the data, running it through on their own and then pointing out the flaws in the model less two days after the study came out is grossly premature.

I used to read the comments at Dienekes' blog. I don't so much anymore for those sorts of reasons. It's nearly a complete waste of time.

Logged

Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #63 on: August 25, 2012, 11:00:49 AM »


 Václav Hrdonka said...
I totally agree with Andrew Oh-Willeke. The map of languages is at least controversial, the tree as well. If we will summarize what we know:

Before 20th century BC - no traces of IE language in Anatolia or around.
20th century BC - the first traces of Hittite language started to appear in old Assyrian from 20th century BC, they highly probably came to Anatolia from outside.
18th century - Old Hittite language with non-IE substratun appears in Anatolia
15th century - Mittani came from the east the northern Mesopotamia
15th century - First record of Mycenaean Greek - I think we are pretty sure, they did not come from Anatolia
We can make a conclusion that the IE languages did not originated in Anatolia
Saturday, August 25, 2012 10:08:00 AM
There were few languages before Hittite in Anatolia and they were not IE (Hattians, Hurrians, Assyrian...). The reason why I think, IE does not originate in Anatolia is that there are no IE languages in the area very close to or even within Anatolia long time after hypothetical split of them. If the IE languages would originated in Anatolia before 8000 year, I guess, there should be some IE words in the records of northern Mesopotamia before 2000 BC, but there are none.
Saturday, August 25, 2012 1:52:00 PM

   
And Gray and Atkinson profess themselves as professional linguists!

How valid of an argument is this? It's like saying that Italic or Celtic didn't exist before 700 BC because there is no written evidence.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2012, 11:01:07 AM by Richard Rocca » Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #64 on: August 25, 2012, 11:04:07 AM »

This has been written on “Dienekes’ Anthropology blog” by someone who has a better knowledge of English than me, but the ideas are the same, only I used more sarcasm as usual:

The map shown in the blog post here, and the podcast timeline evolving map both suffer from the defect of being ahistorical.
For example, neither indicates any presence if Celtic languages in Iberia or Gaul, which in fact, the Celtic languages of the British Isles are very likely derivatives of earlier Celtic language populations in Iberia and Gaul....

...Bottom line: this is a crude toy model not a serious effort to really get at the truth using all available data. Saturday, August 25, 2012 3:10:00 AM


So this guy bashed the paper based on a video and a sound clip? Obviously he didn't read the supplementary data. For someone to come up with a "Bottom Line" statement without taking the data, running it through on their own and then pointing out the flaws in the model less two days after the study came out is grossly premature.

 Václav Hrdonka said...
I totally agree with Andrew Oh-Willeke. The map of languages is at least controversial, the tree as well. If we will summarize what we know:

Before 20th century BC - no traces of IE language in Anatolia or around.
20th century BC - the first traces of Hittite language started to appear in old Assyrian from 20th century BC, they highly probably came to Anatolia from outside.
18th century - Old Hittite language with non-IE substratun appears in Anatolia
15th century - Mittani came from the east the northern Mesopotamia
15th century - First record of Mycenaean Greek - I think we are pretty sure, they did not come from Anatolia
We can make a conclusion that the IE languages did not originated in Anatolia
Saturday, August 25, 2012 10:08:00 AM
There were few languages before Hittite in Anatolia and they were not IE (Hattians, Hurrians, Assyrian...). The reason why I think, IE does not originate in Anatolia is that there are no IE languages in the area very close to or even within Anatolia long time after hypothetical split of them. If the IE languages would originated in Anatolia before 8000 year, I guess, there should be some IE words in the records of northern Mesopotamia before 2000 BC, but there are none.
Saturday, August 25, 2012 1:52:00 PM

   
And Gray and Atkinson profess themselves as professional linguists!

Atkinson said, as I have mentioned here twice already, that this time they used to 14 known, datable linguistic events to calibrate their work. They tried alternatives to eliminate possible bias, but everything they did pointed to Anatolia.

I don't know whether or not they are right, but there are a few obvious reasons why Hrdonka is wrong or at least has not taken everything into consideration.

Anthony himself, in his book, The Horse The Wheel and Language, points out that the Anatolian branch of IE is uniquely archaic. I will go into more detail if it becomes necessary (and it probably will), but he supposes Anatolian must have left the steppe Urheimat very early, and that explains its unique position in the IE hierarchy. That only makes sense if one begins by assuming a PC steppe homeland for PIE, which forces one to derive all IE branches from there. It could be that the Anatolian branch is uniquely archaic because it was born in the uniquely archaic birthplace of IE itself and stayed there.

Then you have Whitaker's The Case for Euphratic, which, naturally, the internet kurgatrons have to dismiss out of hand as beneath consideration (an approach similar to the one they are taking with this paper).

I know it sounds like I am arguing for an Anatolian origin, but, actually, I'm not. I don't know who is right. What I am arguing for is some healthy respect for this work and at least some careful consideration of an alternative to the PC steppe.

« Last Edit: August 25, 2012, 11:08:13 AM by rms2 » Logged

Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Online Online

Posts: 2151


« Reply #65 on: August 25, 2012, 11:21:40 AM »

To Richard Rocca I’d say that Hrdonka has expressed what who has chewed a little of glottology knows from his first steps:

Before 20th century BC - no traces of IE language in Anatolia or around.
20th century BC - the first traces of Hittite language started to appear in old Assyrian from 20th century BC, they highly probably came to Anatolia from outside.
18th century - Old Hittite language with non-IE substratun appears in Anatolia
15th century - Mittani came from the east the northern Mesopotamia
15th century - First record of Mycenaean Greek - I think we are pretty sure, they did not come from Anatolia
We can make a conclusion that the IE languages did not originated in Anatolia
There were few languages before Hittite in Anatolia and they were not IE (Hattians, Hurrians, Assyrian...). The reason why I think, IE does not originate in Anatolia is that there are no IE languages in the area very close to or even within Anatolia long time after hypothetical split of them. If the IE languages would originated in Anatolia before 8000 year, I guess, there should be some IE words in the records of northern Mesopotamia before 2000 BC, but there are none”.

Then not the lack of written witnesses, but something deeper, as linguists usually do: Hittite language wasn’t born in Anatolia, but detached from the main IE languages first. My idea is that those languages were at that time in the Balkans (but you know that my idea is that before they were in Italy or around it).

To Richard Stevens I’d want to remember that I wrote a lot about Euphratic and I carried many observations about its link with Latin more than other IE languages.
If you read also my posts about mtDNA perhaps you know that many mtDNA haplogroups expanded from Italy between LGM and Younger Dryas, then may have expanded also hg. R1b1 and IE languages.
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Online Online

Posts: 2151


« Reply #66 on: August 25, 2012, 11:29:13 AM »

If Gray and Atkinson went to Pisa University or to Scuola Nomale Superiore where illustrious linguists like Tristano Bolelli, Romano Lazzeroni, Emilio Peruzzi and numerous others of the same level taught, they will be thrown out at the first answer.

Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #67 on: August 25, 2012, 11:29:43 AM »

To Richard Rocca I’d say that Hrdonka has expressed what who has chewed a little of glottology knows from his first steps:

Before 20th century BC - no traces of IE language in Anatolia or around.
20th century BC - the first traces of Hittite language started to appear in old Assyrian from 20th century BC, they highly probably came to Anatolia from outside.
. . .


That's the unknown Hrdonka's argument, so I don't mind characterizing it as silly.

Why should we think Hittite was the first language in the Anatolian branch or that it did not appear until the Assyrians made trading contacts with the Hittites and began writing about them?

Laughable.

« Last Edit: August 25, 2012, 11:30:15 AM by rms2 » Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #68 on: August 25, 2012, 11:50:48 AM »

To Richard Rocca I’d say that Hrdonka has expressed what who has chewed a little of glottology knows from his first steps:

Before 20th century BC - no traces of IE language in Anatolia or around.
20th century BC - the first traces of Hittite language started to appear in old Assyrian from 20th century BC, they highly probably came to Anatolia from outside.
. . .


That's the unknown Hrdonka's argument, so I don't mind characterizing it as silly.

Why should we think Hittite was the first language in the Anatolian branch or that it did not appear until the Assyrians made trading contacts with the Hittites and began writing about them?

Laughable.



By the way, if we were to apply Hrdonka's standard of documentary evidence everywhere, how would the PC steppe or anywhere in Europe stack up?

I think we all know the answer.

« Last Edit: August 25, 2012, 11:52:10 AM by rms2 » Logged

Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Online Online

Posts: 2151


« Reply #69 on: August 25, 2012, 11:54:33 AM »

Rich (Stevens), speak about what you know and not about what you don’t know. Hittite is an archaic form of IE because, amongst many other characteristics, maintains a trace of the laryngeals, theorized firstly by the great Swiss linguist Ferdinand De Saussure (Mémoire sur les voyelles), written at 20 years old. Another IE language which gets a trace of them is Albanian, spoken in the Balkans and not in Anatolia. To be an archaic form of IE doesn’t mean to be Anatolian.

Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #70 on: August 25, 2012, 12:05:33 PM »

Rich (Stevens), speak about what you know and not about what you don’t know. Hittite is an archaic form of IE because, amongst many other characteristics, maintains a trace of the laryngeals, theorized firstly by the great Swiss linguist Ferdinand De Saussure (Mémoire sur les voyelles), written at 20 years old. Another IE language which gets a trace of them is Albanian, spoken in the Balkans and not in Anatolia. To be an archaic form of IE doesn’t mean to be Anatolian.



Gioiello,

Avoid using my complete name, please. Use "rms2" if you want to distinguish between me and any other Rich or Richard here. Thanks.

Second, I am speaking about what I know from my own reading on the subject, and there is more to the archaic nature of Anatolian than what you described above, at least according to what I have read. When I have time (which is not right now), I will (once again) write about some of those things.

Third, no one here, including you, is either a noted linguist or a geneticist. Alan is actually an archaeologist, so we do have one of those. We all give our opinions based on our readings and interpretations of what those who are better qualified have written.

Fourth, who else in the entire world has proposed that Italy is not only the ultimate source of all the R1b in Europe but also of the Indo-European languages? Is Italy even a candidate for the consensus pick as IE Urheimat? I don't think so.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2012, 12:17:49 PM by rms2 » Logged

Heber
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 448


« Reply #71 on: August 25, 2012, 12:15:16 PM »

To Richard Rocca I’d say that Hrdonka has expressed what who has chewed a little of glottology knows from his first steps:

Before 20th century BC - no traces of IE language in Anatolia or around.
20th century BC - the first traces of Hittite language started to appear in old Assyrian from 20th century BC, they highly probably came to Anatolia from outside.
18th century - Old Hittite language with non-IE substratun appears in Anatolia
15th century - Mittani came from the east the northern Mesopotamia
15th century - First record of Mycenaean Greek - I think we are pretty sure, they did not come from Anatolia
We can make a conclusion that the IE languages did not originated in Anatolia
There were few languages before Hittite in Anatolia and they were not IE (Hattians, Hurrians, Assyrian...). The reason why I think, IE does not originate in Anatolia is that there are no IE languages in the area very close to or even within Anatolia long time after hypothetical split of them. If the IE languages would originated in Anatolia before 8000 year, I guess, there should be some IE words in the records of northern Mesopotamia before 2000 BC, but there are none”.

Then not the lack of written witnesses, but something deeper, as linguists usually do: Hittite language wasn’t born in Anatolia, but detached from the main IE languages first. My idea is that those languages were at that time in the Balkans (but you know that my idea is that before they were in Italy or around it).

To Richard Stevens I’d want to remember that I wrote a lot about Euphratic and I carried many observations about its link with Latin more than other IE languages.
If you read also my posts about mtDNA perhaps you know that many mtDNA haplogroups expanded from Italy between LGM and Younger Dryas, then may have expanded also hg. R1b1 and IE languages.


My understanding is that the first Neolithic expansion out of Anatolia was to Crete and eventually led to the Mycean and Minoan cultures. I don't know which language they spoke. However we do know of their veneration of the bull. Have a look at the Mycean bull figurines and notice the similarity of later Iberian and Gaelic Celtic depictions of the same, For example in the Tain Bo Cuailnge.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/Herakles/bull.html

http://www.kunstkopie.de/a/mycenaean-1/bullc1400-1100bcterracott.html

http://www.amazon.de/Europe-Between-Oceans-9000-BC-Ad/dp/0300170866

« Last Edit: August 25, 2012, 12:31:53 PM by Heber » Logged

Heber


 
R1b1a2a1a1b4  L459+ L21+ DF21+ DF13+ U198- U106- P66- P314.2- M37- M222- L96- L513- L48- L44- L4- L226- L2- L196- L195- L193- L192.1- L176.2- L165- L159.2- L148- L144- L130- L1-
Paternal L21* DF21


Maternal H1C1



rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #72 on: August 25, 2012, 12:16:02 PM »

By the way, I already knew about de Saussure and his work.

Frankly, I get rather tired of the vitriolic and ignorant nature of the posts that generally characterize threads about the nearly mythical and largely unknowable original Indo-Europeans.

Is there any worse topic?

Perhaps the "Caveman R1b" issue rivals it, but even the old "Wannabe Viking" threads don't compare with the heat (and little light) generated by threads on the original Indo-Europeans.



 
Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #73 on: August 25, 2012, 12:28:39 PM »

My understanding is that the first Neolithic expansion out of Anatolia was to Crete and eventually led to the Mycean and Minoan cultures. I don't know which language they spoke. However we do know of their veneration of the bull. Have a look at the Mycean bull figurines and notice the similarity of later Iberian and Gaelic Celtic depictions of the same, For example in the Tain Bo Cuailnge.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/Herakles/bull.html

I don't think we should speaking of both the Mycenean and Minoan cultures as being of the first Neolithic expansion.

The Mycenean culture was much later. It was a Bronze Age culture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycenaean_Greece

My understanding is that the Myceneans were IE speakers and this is where classical Greek comes from. I don't think the Minoans spoke an IE language, did they?
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Online Online

Posts: 2151


« Reply #74 on: August 25, 2012, 12:33:42 PM »

Fourth, who else in the entire world has proposed that Italy is not only the ultimate source of all the R1b in Europe but also of the Indo-European languages? Is Italy even a candidate for the consensus pick as IE Urheimat? I don't think so.
Yes, this theory is mine. I have expressed it during these last years. About our studies I am a teacher, then I got my "laurea", I wrote books of poetry and critics, but I studied glottology too, I had like teachers Emilio Peruzzi, Romano Lazzeroni, Tristano Bolelli. Perhaps I did too many things in my life, because beside this I cultivated also what an Italian (Calabrian/Sicilian) comic calls "lu pilu". About one thing I regret: to not having published a paper I presented to Romanno Lazzeroni more than 30 years ago where I demonstrated a link between IE *sweks and Chinese "liu". There were all the theories about the Nostratic languages that were theorized then by Russian linguists, above all Illych Svitich.
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 24 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 0.146 seconds with 19 queries.