Has anyone theorized about this? I see that the main theory is that the IE males had R1a /R1b gen. identities prior to the major expansion. What about their women and mothers? Say, ca. 3,000 BCE? Some dominants, or a more complex mix?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Something native to this area:Has anyone theorized about this? I see that the main theory is that the IE males had R1a /R1b gen. identities prior to the major expansion. What about their women and mothers? Say, ca. 3,000 BCE? Some dominants, or a more complex mix?
Something native to this area:
"Language-tree divergence times support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin."Not necessarily, no. There's no particular reason to assume that the Indo-Europeans were descended from the original pastoralists. After all, Proto-Indo-European was spoken a few thousand years later - it was a language of the Copper Age.
"Language-tree divergence times support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin."
http://www.mendeley.com/research/la...-the-anatolian-theory-of-indoeuropean-origin/
http://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid%3Ad6aef57c-ce30-40fb-8786-f64c4a70afd1/datastreams/ATTACHMENT01
"analysis of a matrix of 87 languages with 2,449 lexical items produced an estimated age range for the initial Indo-European divergence of between 7,800 and 9,800 years BP"
http://www.mapageweb.umontreal.ca/tuitekj/cours/IE/GrayAtkinson.pdf
I don't know about horses, but the origin of metallurgy is from Southeast Anatolia or Southern Caucasus (West Asia) !First off, the paper is from 2003, and secondly, the Anatolian hypothesis is rejected by the majority of linguists. The main argument should be obvious: the Proto-Indo-European has common word for horse and for metal-working, by that logic, it cannot be older than the domestication of the horse and the development of metal-working. Third, the method used by Gray and Atkinson to support the Anatolian hypothesis (glottochronology) is also rejected by the majority of linguists because the fundamental assumption (that there's a constant rate of change in language evolution) has been decsively disproven by a number of historically attested counter-examples where language evolution clearly happened at variable rates.
I don't know about horses, but metallurgy is from Southeast / West Asia!
http://www.semp.us/publications/biot_reader.php?BiotID=609
Yes, but the advanced so called 'Neolithic Farmers' left West Asia and migrated into Europe only 6000 years ago.I'm sorry, this still disproves the Anatolian hypothesis, because it explicitly argues for a spread of the Indo-European languages by Neolithic Farmers. In any case, another decisive argument against the Anatolian hypothesis that can be made is the presence of the Hurro-Urartian languages in exactly that purported home area of the Indo-Europeans. The idea that the Hurro-Urartians migrated there later can also be ruled out by the fact that there are no PIE loanwords into Hurrian.
Yes, but the advanced so called 'Neolithic Farmers' left West Asia and migrated into Europe only 6000 years ago.
Migration is exact of the same age as copper objects & items found in the Balkans (for about 4000 BCE).
So the so called 'Neolithic Farmers' introduced the metallurgy into Europe.
Sorry, no, you are clearly mixing things up there. The Neolithic Farmers, as the term 'Neolithic' ('New Stone Age') implies, did not know metal-working yet. No offense, but I'm under the impression by now that you somehow have the view that the IE languages must have originated in Anatolia.
There is also another geographic argument against an Anatolian origin: the only branch of IE found in the area in ancient times, the Anatolian languages (best represented by Hittite), are in many ways the most abberrant branch of Indo-European that has numerous loanwords from other non-IE languages surrounding it, including Akkadian and Hurrian. If the IE languages originated in this area, I would expect borrowings from other languages in the area into the PIE core vocabulary. Since we don't see this, the most likeliest explanation is that indeed PIE originated somewhere else.
Not to mention that there was the non-IE Hattian language in the Hittite lands, which seems to have preceded the arrival of the Anatolian languages.
If we take U4 as an example, we see an immediate issue with predicting the mtDNA of the Indo-Europeans. U4 seems obviously to have spread with IE, as it is present all over the Corded Ware areas, and has an obvious correlation with R1a. But at the same time, it has been found in ancient DNA in Mesolithic Portugal, Germany, Sweden, and Lithuania... basically all over Europe. mtDNA haplogroups like U4 are often quite old, and ancient admixture tends to be more heterogeneous than Y-DNA. So it would be useful to narrow down precise subclades (almost never done in studies) and date them all (hard to do with mtDNA).
With all due respect you do underestimated the influence of J2a folks. According to you there were two types of the Indo-Europeans, R1b-type and R1a-type. But that doesn't make any sense.I wrote Identifying the original Indo-European mtDNA from isolated settlements nearly two years ago.
Ok, but why sorry? We just don't agree with each other. You have got your vision and I've got my own vision. Your vision does make sense and can be the right one by the way!Sorry, no, you are clearly mixing things up there.
This thread has been viewed 23312 times.