PDA

View Full Version : Thoughts from Klyosov R1b data and the IE problem



secherbernard
23-11-10, 19:01
Anatole Klyosov has published a very interesting web page about R1b history:http://www.turkicworld.org/turkic/60_Genetics/Klyosov2010DNK-GenealogyEn.htm
This is a short summary of Anatole thesis:
1) R1a and R1b are both from Alta
2) 12.000 years ago R1a migrated and arrived in Balkans
3) Between 6.000 and 8.000 years ago R1b migrated westward from Alta and arrived in the north of Black Sea. This R1b migration produced the cultures of Samara, Khvalynsk and Yamnaya
4) From here, 2 R1b migrations: the first one to Balkans and Italy and brings R1b-ht35 in Europe, the second one to Caucasus, Near East, North Africa and Iberia. Then R1b-ht15 spreads in occidental Europe with Bell Beaker culture.
5) R1a migrated to North Europe and produced the Corded Ware culture, then he went eastward to the Steppe between 5.000 or 4.000 years ago and produced the culture of Andronovo. Then R1a spread to Iran and India.

Anatole Klyosov thinks that R1a spoke proto IE language and R1b spoke proto turkic language. He doesn't agree with Kurgan hypothesis. He sees that R1b migrated from east to west and that R1a migrated from west to east.

I think that Klyosov data and chronology can be understood under the Kurgan hypothesis.

If R1b arrived first in the Steppes during Samara, Khvalynsk and Yamnaya cultures, I think R1b spoke proto IE language. The first migration of R1b to Balkans and Italy can be related with Yamnaya migrations.
When R1b arrived in East Europe, he comes in contact with R1a people (remember that Klyosov thinks R1a are in Balkans before 3.000 BC). From this contact, R1a changed his language and became IE with satem language. R1b kept his centum language.
Then R1a spread to the north of Europe:it is the Corded Ware culture.
From the south-east of Corded Ware, we can see an eastward R1a migration from Corded Ware culture to Sintashta culture, via Middle Dnieper, Fatyanovo, Abashevo cultures.
Then from Sintashta culture R1a migrated to south-east in Andronovo culture, and then spread to Iran and India.

I think this R1a and R1b scenario could be in agreement with Klyosov data.

spongetaro
05-09-11, 12:16
Anatole Klyosov thinks that R1a spoke proto IE language and R1b spoke proto turkic language. He doesn't agree with Kurgan hypothesis. He sees that R1b migrated from east to west and that R1a migrated from west to east.

But their is no evidence of Turkic substrate in Centum languages. How would R1b people lose so fast all their Turkic vocabulary ?

Taranis
05-09-11, 12:27
But their is no evidence of Turkic substrate in Centum languages. How would R1b people lose so fast all their Turkic vocabulary ?

It's utterly impossible from the linguistic side. In addition to what you said, Proto-Turkic is *much* younger than the Indo-European languages, and the Turkic languages probably did not start to split up until 1st century BC or so, and the earliest that Turkic languages arrived in Europe might be with the Hunnic invasions.

The oldest attested Centum language, in contrast, would be Mycenean Greek from the 15th century BC.

It should be added that there is also zero evidence in Basque for Turkic loans.

Dorianfinder
05-09-11, 12:28
Anatole Klyosov has published a very interesting web page about R1b history:http://www.turkicworld.org/turkic/60_Genetics/Klyosov2010DNK-GenealogyEn.htm
This is a short summary of Anatole thesis:
1) R1a and R1b are both from Alta�
2) 12.000 years ago R1a migrated and arrived in Balkans
3) Between 6.000 and 8.000 years ago R1b migrated westward from Alta� and arrived in the north of Black Sea. This R1b migration produced the cultures of Samara, Khvalynsk and Yamnaya
4) From here, 2 R1b migrations: the first one to Balkans and Italy and brings R1b-ht35 in Europe, the second one to Caucasus, Near East, North Africa and Iberia. Then R1b-ht15 spreads in occidental Europe with Bell Beaker culture.
5) R1a migrated to North Europe and produced the Corded Ware culture, then he went eastward to the Steppe between 5.000 or 4.000 years ago and produced the culture of Andronovo. Then R1a spread to Iran and India.

Anatole Klyosov thinks that R1a spoke proto IE language and R1b spoke proto turkic language. He doesn't agree with Kurgan hypothesis. He sees that R1b migrated from east to west and that R1a migrated from west to east.

Dienekes used a more accurate dating formula to come to the following conclusion:

Southeastern Europe (the Balkans)
Thus, Balkan haplogroup I seems related to a Bronze Age origin, with R-M17 being substantially older, and deriving perhaps from northern Balkan Neolithic or alternatively intrusive Kurgan populations.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2008/07/how-y-str-variance-accumulates-comment.html

Maciamo
06-09-11, 11:24
This theory doesn't make much sense to me. It completely disregards many essential points, such as :

1) the presence of the oldest clades of R1b in the Middle East and South Asia.

2) the early migration of R1b-V88 from the Middle East (where it is still found today) to Africa.

3) the distribution pattern of Indo-European languages, which obviously branched apart from a common source near the Caucasus/Black Sea.

4) archaeological evidence that domesticated animals like cows and sheep spread from the Caucasus region to the Pontic steppes, then eastward to Central Asia, and not the other way round (hence the migration of herders in the same direction).

5) archaeological evidence that the kurgan/tumulus culture and artefacts associated (including bronze weapons) spread from the North Caucasus/Pontic Steppe westward towards the Balkans and eastward towards the Urals and Central Asia, not the other way round.

Furthermore, the proposed migration scenario is very hard to conceive. How could R1b be the last to arrive from the Altai, settling in the Pontic steppe after R1a, but completely bridge the whole Balkans to move to Western Europe and almost completely disappear from Ukraine, Russia and the Altai region ? It makes much more sense that R1b came from the Middle East from Central-South Asia during the Paleolithic, then moved around the Black Sea with all the Neolithic and Bronze Age technology from the Caucasus region, and conquered the steppes, then once the horse domesticated (itself probably requiring the prior domestication of other tamer animals, like cattle, goats and sheep), R1b would have had an open window on the Danube valley and the metal rich Chalcolithic towns of the Balkans ("Old Europe"). Massive and destructive migrations into heavily populated regions don't happen just like that. They require a motive (e.g. plunder rich towns, seize copper resources) and capability to conquer (more advanced weapons, in this case bronze axes and swords and horses).

Bronze-age R1b1b and R1a1a people from the Pontic Steppe were essentially a semi-nomadic (no towns or cities) patriarchal and ware-like pastoralist people who craved gold, copper and tin and needed green pasture for their herds. Their dream land was a place with plenty of green grass and abundant mineral resources. Although the Caucasus was rich in metal for a while, the resources dwindled with time, became harder to extract and increasingly more coveted by Mesopotamian and Anatolian neighbours. The Balkans were rich and militarily weak, ripe for plunder, but too populated to settle and too farmed for herding. This is why the bulk of R1b moved on along the Danube till the Black Forest, then expanded in every direction in the relatively low populated and green lands of Western Europe. They settled most heavily in places least suitable for farming, and therefore least inhabited, such as the Landes in Southwest France, the marshes of the Netherlands, or the rocky terrains of Brittany, Cornwall, Wales, Scotland and Ireland.

R1b never migrated in big number eastward to Central Asia. A small minority did blend with the R1a tribes from the Volga-Urals region, perhaps an elite that brought bronze-working to them and converted them to their Proto-Indo-European language. The original language of these R1a1a people could have influenced the pronunciation of these new Indo-European speakers, becoming the Satem branch of Indo-European languages.

After over 5000 years of constant migrations from the Volga-Urals and Central Asia towards the Pontic Steppe and the Balkans, R1b eventually became a minority haplogroup in the region. It is even likely that no Bronze-age R1b from the Pontic Steppe survives today in that region, and that the R1b lineages found there today are back migrations from Central Asia, where R1b is also a small minority.

I have wondered for a long time if it wasn't simpler for R1b to migrate directly from Anatolia to the Balkans, then to Central and Western Europe. But there is no archaeological evidence supporting such a migration, and it wouldn't explain how about 10% of Russians are R1b, and how R1b got into Central Asia alongside R1a, as far as Xinjiang. It also bypasses the two most important factors for the conquest of Europe : bronze weapons and horses. All the archaeological evidence points at the Maykop culture as the very first to develop bronze swords and axes, and it is undeniable that horses were first domesticated in the Volga-Urals Steppe, in the continuum of the Pontic Steppe. Therefore it is unthinkable that R1b forced its away directly from Anatolia to the Balkans, without a passage through the North Caucasus and the Eurasian Steppes beforehand.

spongetaro
06-09-11, 13:31
It makes much more sense that R1b came from the Middle East from Central-South Asia during the Paleolithic, then moved around the Black Sea with all the Neolithic and Bronze Age technology from the Caucasus region, and conquered the steppes

Do you support the idea that R1b1b2 was among the Yamna tribes? I saw this on your migrations map. But the Corded Ware culture which has its R1a from the Yamna lacks R1b1b2.

Maciamo
08-09-11, 17:13
Do you support the idea that R1b1b2 was among the Yamna tribes? I saw this on your migrations map. But the Corded Ware culture which has its R1a from the Yamna lacks R1b1b2.

It's hard to say exactly when most of the R1b left the Pontic Steppe and R1a filled the void. It was a progressive process taking place over thousands of years. I would say that the Pontic Steppe still had a fair number of R1b at least until the Yamna period. R1a might have become the majority lineage during the Catacomb or Timber-grave culture. But the Corded Ware, which originated in the forest-steppe north of the Pontic Steppe, was almost certainly in vast majority R1a. The Corded Ware Culture correspond to an extension of the Abashevo Culture, not of the Yamna Culture. You can see on my migration maps (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/neolithic_europe_map.shtml) that the yellow cultures correspond to a strongly dominant R1a element, the red ones to strongly dominant R1b, and the orange ones a blend of both, or uncertain.

bertrand
08-09-11, 22:55
Hello,

I just joined this site which is extremely interesting to me. I would like to contribute the result of my analysis of various recent publications that I have read, most importantly the well known Myres et al article as well as the book :

"The horse, the wheel, and language" by David Anthony, the extensive analysis of the PIE problem.

I put pieces of my findings on the following link: (unfortunately only in French for now)



.bertrandjost.tk/Francais/Monog-famille/Jost/Asie/nouvelle-naissance.html



But in essence my theory about the origin of R1b, S28 and R1a is the following:



60K ago: Haplogroup CT crosses gulf of Aden from Ethiopia and follows the Arabian coast eastward (Neanderthal occupies Middle east, including Irak and western Iran, blocking progress north)

50K: Modern Humans arrive in Western India: appearance of Haplogroup F

40-35K: Haplogroup K appears in central India (very few individuals, hence little remains)

25-18K: Haplogroup R, R1, R1b appear in Northern Pakistan, right below the limit of the steppes at that time (max ice age)

This appears clearly on Myres et Al study

Later R2 will migrate back south to Southeast India; other R and R1b will migrate west toward Iran and Jordan

12-14K: Most R1b migrate from Pakistan to the caves of Bashkortostan, south the Ural mountains; this where U152 will appear during this period. Myres et al also shows this.

10K: R1b will follow Volga and other rivers to Western Ukraine, followed by R1a settling Eastern Ukraine. Both R1b and R1a are part of the Yamna PIE culture that appears around 4500BC in this area. (See Anthony). Main advantages of the culture: herding, horse, mobility (wagons) and lactose tolerance.

In the west, R1b language will give birth to the centum group of PIE languages

In the east R1a will give birth to the satem languages.

Ca 4000BC, some r1b migrate to rumania, bulgaria and cross over to Anatolia (ancestors of the Hittite)

Ca3700BC tocharian will migrate from R1a group toward urals in the direction of Western China (proven by DNA tests on mummies)

Ca3300BC migration of R1b will begin up the Danube (Celtic/Italic) and Dniester (Germanic). these are the two primary waves: Germanic toward Denmark, celtic/Italic toward switzerland

Ca3100BC: R1a will migrate northwest up the Dnieper toward western russia and Poland and back east toward Ural, Pakistan and India.



The key next step will be to find ancient R1b in the balkans to verify this but I believe the fact that Ossesians (descendants of Scythians of Western Ukraine) have a lot of R1bs among them is good indication of this theory. Also no ancient R1b was found in Western Europe prior to 3000BC.

As for the book of David Anthony he clearly shows the various steps of evolution of PIE culture and the later migration with likely dates.

Taranis
09-09-11, 01:03
First off, welcome on the forum.

Honestly, I am afraid to say this, but these dates are absolutely impossible. This gets very clear from the adherence/non-adherence of sound laws. It is absolutely impossible that the Indo-European languages diverged before the latest Neolithic / Chalcolithic due to the fact that there are common words for agriculture, horses, cattle, and metal-working. Likewise, that the Centum and Satem splits are 10,000 years old is completely impossible. How could there be a common word for "horse" in Indo-European (ek´wos) if the Indo-European language family was older than the domestication of the horse?

Likewise, the association of R1a and R1b with the Indo-European languages is dubious, because only specific subclades (R1b-M269 and R1a1a) appears to be tied with the spread of the Indo-European languages, and even this produces a very incomplete and inaccurate picture. For instance is the distribution of R1a not limited to areas where Satem-IE languages are spoken. For instance, R1a reaches ~20% in Scandinavia, ~10% in Greece. Both the Germanic languages and Greek are Centum.

Also, never mind that with high likelihood R1b and R1a weren't in Europe that early.

bertrand
09-09-11, 14:54
Hello Taranis,
You must have misunderstood my point. I did not say that the centum and satem are 10,000 years old. The Tocharians (R1a) were clearly part of the centum group because the split had not occured yet. The split occured around 3500 BC;

What i said is that Myres et Al clearly shows that R1b originates in northern Pakistan and that the following areas of settlement for the Majority (not all) of R1b and R1a were bashkortostan, and Ukraine (also shown by Myres et Al). The PIE language only developed in the Ponthic-Caspian steppes around 4500-4000BC. At that time, according to my assumption, both R1b-269 (in Western Ukraine) and R1a (in eastern Ukraine) spoke the PIE language that split a few centuries later, as western and eastern group started to drift apart.

Of course since R1b originated much earlier in Pakistan (for R1a it is harder to tell since there was a massive reverse migration in that region), some small sub-groups split on the way to create what is now the small groups of R1b in Central Asia, Middle East and Africa.

Taranis
12-09-11, 16:06
The Anatolian languages are generally thought to be first branch of Indo-European languages to have diverged. In particular predate the Centum/Satem split:

- the treatment of the so-called labiovelar sounds in PIE (k´, g´ and g´h, which are essentially what the Centum-Satem split is all about) is unique.
- the Anatolian languages were the only branch to preserve the pharyngal sounds lost in all other branches Proto-Indo-European.

At that point, I have speculated in the past if the Anatolian hypothesis might be sort of correct if we assume that there was a migration of Proto-Indo-Europeans from Anatolia into the Pontic-Caspian region. However, I am nonetheless of the opinion that the Kurgan hypothesis is more or less correct because from the linguistic perspective it's prettymuch impossible that the IE languages would have spread into Europe during the Neolithic.

Regarding the Centum-Satem split, what is important to consider is that you must assume that this is not an early split, but it's more probable that it was a common innovation occuring in a 'core area' of Indo-European languages which were in proximity (Balto-Slavic, Armenian, the Paleo-Balkan languages, and Indo-Iranic) did participate, whereas the IE branches in the greater distance (Italo-Celtic, Germanic, Greek and Tocharian) did not.

In my opinion, the Centum-Satem split must have occured some time in the late 3rd to early 2nd millennium BC.

phoenix
04-10-11, 20:53
An agreement with that

razor
04-10-11, 21:48
First off, welcome on the forum.

Honestly, I am afraid to say this, but these dates are absolutely impossible. This gets very clear from the adherence/non-adherence of sound laws. It is absolutely impossible that the Indo-European languages diverged before the latest Neolithic / Chalcolithic due to the fact that there are common words for agriculture, horses, cattle, and metal-working. Likewise, that the Centum and Satem splits are 10,000 years old is completely impossible. How could there be a common word for "horse" in Indo-European (ek´wos) if the Indo-European language family was older than the domestication of the horse?

.

Out of curiosity about the "horse" word (leaving aside the issue of this in English and German (unless you have ideas there too!)
(1) Have you read any info as to why the Hittites didn't have a proper IE "horse word"? The Tocharians did.
(2) The Balts also have a satemized version of the IE horse word. But why don't the Slavs? Do you have any info as to whence the "kon'" (or older "komon'") of the Slavs (="horse") comes from?

LeBrok
05-10-11, 04:05
I've read somewhere that old Slavic kon was kobn, the horse female is kobyla in polish. Now we are closer to Italian caballo. Also horse run called trot is called kłus (eng phonetic: kwus, qwus) in polish, now we are close to IE eq'wos.

razor
05-10-11, 05:28
I've read somewhere that old Slavic kon was kobn, the horse female is kobyla in polish. Now we are closer to Italian caballo. Also horse run called trot is called kłus (eng phonetic: kwus, qwus) in polish, now we are close to IE eq'wos.

Thank you. After your post, I checked out Vasmer, and that is indeed his explanation. He considers "kobn" "kobyla" "komon" to derive from the same old root which produced the Latin "caballus". Then we hit obscurity. Vasmer mentions theories that this root goes back to some ancient Asia Minor or Danubian language, He does not deny this, but rejects all actually proferred proofs... At least we know where "pferd" (German) comes from. But the English "horse" is from a root as obscure as the Slavic "kon'/kin'". I find it interesting that the Baltic languages have retained the ancient satemized version of "equus", while Slavic languages have not. Especially since the Slavs borrowed the "God" word from the same peoples who used this satemized equivalent of "equus", and Balts kept the older term (as of course did the Latins)...

Taranis
05-10-11, 09:19
Out of curiosity about the "horse" word (leaving aside the issue of this in English and German (unless you have ideas there too!)
(1) Have you read any info as to why the Hittites didn't have a proper IE "horse word"? The Tocharians did.
(2) The Balts also have a satemized version of the IE horse word. But why don't the Slavs? Do you have any info as to whence the "kon'" (or older "komon'") of the Slavs (="horse") comes from?

Yes, cognates for ek´wos are not preserved in all branches of Indo-European, especially few of the modern languages preserve it.

Regarding the Germanic languages, the lost has been lost in all the modern languages, but it is attested in two older ones, namely Anglo-Saxon 'Eoh' and Gothic 'Aihws' (consider that in Germanic, PIE *k´ is first merged with *k like in the other Centum languages but later shifted to *h).

As for the Hittites, while it isn't attested there, the word is attested in another Anatolian languages, Luwian as 'A-su-wa'.

razor
05-10-11, 14:45
As for the Hittites, while it isn't attested there, the word is attested in another Anatolian languages, Luwian as 'A-su-wa'.

Where it seems a borrowing (from the Mitanni?) It's the satemized version, and closer to Indic or Thracian than to Iranic, which substitutes a "p" for the "v" or "w".

Taranis
07-10-11, 00:23
Where it seems a borrowing (from the Mitanni?) It's the satemized version, and closer to Indic or Thracian than to Iranic, which substitutes a "p" for the "v" or "w".

Actually, I don't think so. The shift from *k´ > *s (or *z) is found throughout Luwian. You might call Luwian a Satem language, but the critical part is that the Anatolian languages were the first part to diverge from PIE, and as a result the treatment of the Palatovelars (k´, g´ and g´h) occurs individually in the Anatolian languages.

razor
07-10-11, 02:21
Actually, I don't think so. The shift from *k´ > *s (or *z) is found throughout Luwian. You might call Luwian a Satem language, but the critical part is that the Anatolian languages were the first part to diverge from PIE, and as a result the treatment of the Palatovelars (k´, g´ and g´h) occurs individually in the Anatolian languages.

Thank you. I didn't realize the ubiquity of the satem shift in Luwian. I'm not a linguist and simply assumed that the deep comparative antiquity of the Anatolian languages (Luwian included) meant that the appearance of a "horse" word absent in Hittite implied a borrowing etc. But I am still a bit bemused by this. The satemization process is still, as far as I know, imperfectly dated and understood. I take it that Hittite and Palaic are NOT satemized?

Taranis
07-10-11, 02:45
Thank you. I didn't realize the ubiquity of the satem shift in Luwian. I'm not a linguist and simply assumed that the deep comparative antiquity of the Anatolian languages (Luwian included) meant that the appearance of a "horse" word absent in Hittite implied a borrowing etc. But I am still a bit bemused by this. The satemization process is still, as far as I know, imperfectly dated and understood. I take it that Hittite and Palaic are NOT satemized?

Don't worry, I can understand your reasoning here: if the Hittite language had (hypothetically) diverged before the adoption of the horse by the Indo-Europeans, then one would expect them not to have the common word for horse, and it would indeed make sense if the word was borrowed into Luwian.

I can't tell you about Palaic without looking it up, but yes, Hittite might be considered a Centum language. As I said, the Anatolian languages are generally thought to have diverged before the Centum/Satem split, and as such, the development of the palatovelars occurs in the individual Anatolian languages, not in Proto-Anatolian.

In contrast, in the Centum and Satem languages, the treatment of the Palatovelars (merger with plain velars in the former case, and shift to fricative sounds in the latter case) occurs very early proto-stages of the respective languages.

bicicleur
17-02-13, 21:34
I think R1b L23 conquered the Balkans 4000 BC , this area was in a crisis before their arrival. (4500 BC the Minoans started copper melting)
I think L51 came later on wagons, they crossed the Balkans and settled upstream along the Danube leaving R1b L23 in place in the Balkans. Is that possible?

R1b M73 went eastward, along with R1a. R1b M73 where the ones exploiting the copper mines in Bashkotarstan, west of South Ural. After that, R1a started exploiting the copper mines east of South Ural.

Yetos
17-02-13, 23:14
I am still waiting for Varna necropolis,
when a genntic search is done, I Think we can have a clear view,

about klyosov, and from West to East,
that seems to be connected with Tocharian movement from Near East to East

and maybe (I say maybe since noone yet gathered archaological data) the gold mettalurgy and Balkanic burial system to East.

bicicleur
18-02-13, 09:00
is there a genetic search for Varna necropolis underway? can you tell more about that?

LeBrok
10-02-14, 19:16
Anatolians carry R1a and R1b. Before the islamization and mongol invasion The Anatolians know their white skin with blonde hair all isolated anatolian villiages are blonde green blue eyes, Christians Anatolians have Nordic looking .


We anatolians dont lİke mongols and kurds. İ am anatolİan mİtannİ descend İ wİsh everyone return theİr homeland anatolİa for anatolİans



I suggest you tone down your ethnic and supremacist agenda.

Sile
10-02-14, 19:38
I suggest you tone down your ethnic and supremacist agenda.

simplify your statement...not for me , for others

martiko
11-02-14, 01:40
the proposal of BernardSeicher is judicious, among the best that I read.
But I would think more that IE would be a language of synthesis. A blended language and simplified can be to allow people to communicate together.

Aberdeen
11-02-14, 04:03
Actually, Proto-Indo-European was a fairly complex and formal language, more so than modern IE languages.

Taranis
11-02-14, 11:30
the proposal of BernardSeicher is judicious, among the best that I read.
But I would think more that IE would be a language of synthesis. A blended language and simplified can be to allow people to communicate together.


Actually, Proto-Indo-European was a fairly complex and formal language, more so than modern IE languages.

Aberdeen, you are correct. The idea that Proto-Indo-European was a creole or pidgin has been raised multiple times, but as you said, its fairly complex: in PIE there were 8 declensions (Nominative, Genitive, Dative, Accusative, Instrumental, Ablative, Locative, Vocative), for instance, and three numbers (Singular, Dual and Plural). That is not the sign of a 'blended language', as such languages tend to have a rather simplified grammar.

Aberdeen
12-02-14, 03:01
Aberdeen, you are correct. The idea that Proto-Indo-European was a creole or pidgin has been raised multiple times, but as you said, its fairly complex: in PIE there were 8 declensions (Nominative, Genitive, Dative, Accusative, Instrumental, Ablative, Locative, Vocative), for instance, and three numbers (Singular, Dual and Plural). That is not the sign of a 'blended language', as such languages tend to have a rather simplified grammar.

I think people who assume that Proto-Indo-European was a creole or pidgin language have never read what the linguists have to say about it and are just assuming that a nomadic pastoral people from the steppes who had more than one genetic signature would have been speaking a simplified polyglot language, as a result of the mixing of various tribes. And that seems like a perfectly reasonable assumption until one learns the extent to which linguists are able to reconstruct the language and we find that it's actually quite a formal and structurally conservative language. And, to me, that's one of the more puzzling aspects of the whole IE problem. To me, their linguistic style sounds more like what one might expect from a sedentary nation of scribes and priests. And yet apparently the things they actually liked were herding cattle, making bronze weapons, killing people and forcing the survivors to learn their language. I wonder how one says "Aahh! You stabbed me!" in Proto-Indo-European.

martiko
13-02-14, 02:40
the indo-european proto nobody knows, but the old languages ie introduce characteristics of the ergativit, of big numbers of declension of vouvoiment numerous ( different use to the second person) which one find in the European languages no indo as to basques, Hungarian, hittites.
It gives very much possible that IE is a pidgin and even a mixture of languages along the Black Sea;
If they notice English or French they are in good direction.
Can they trust in Kliuzov?

Taranis
13-02-14, 12:12
the indo-european proto nobody knows, but the old languages ie introduce characteristics of the ergativit�, of big numbers of declension of vouvoiment numerous ( different use to the second person) which one find in the European languages no indo as to basques, Hungarian, hittites.
It gives very much possible that IE is a pidgin and even a mixture of languages along the Black Sea;
If they notice English or French they are in good direction.
Can they trust in Kliuzov?

I'm sorry but you are definitely mistaken. There is no sign whatsoever of ergativity in Proto-Indo-European, because the language had an accusative case and a nominative case (as opposed to an ergative case and an absolutive case, which is the counterpart in ergative languages). Also, Hittite was an Indo-European language (part of the Anatolian language family, along with the Luwic languages), and Hittite was an accusative/nominative language. The same applies for the other 'old' Indo-European languages such as Greek, Latin and Sanskrit.

I should add that Hungarian and Finnish (both Uralic languages) are also are accusative/nominative languages, not ergative/absolutive, as are for example the Afroasiatic (including Berber, Egyptian and Semitic) languages.

It is not possible for Proto-Indo-European to have been a pidgin/creole, as it had a very complex grammar, and in general creole languages have a very simplified grammer.

martiko
13-02-14, 14:31
I'm sorry but you are definitely mistaken. There is no sign whatsoever of ergativity in Proto-Indo-European, because the language had an accusative case and a nominative case (as opposed to an ergative case and an absolutive case, which is the counterpart in ergative languages). Also, Hittite was an Indo-European language (part of the Anatolian language family, along with the Luwic languages), and Hittite was an accusative/nominative language. The same applies for the other 'old' Indo-European languages such as Greek, Latin and Sanskrit.

I should add that Hungarian and Finnish (both Uralic languages) are also are accusative/nominative languages, not ergative/absolutive, as are for example the Afroasiatic (including Berber, Egyptian and Semitic) languages.

It is not possible for Proto-Indo-European to have been a pidgin/creole, as it had a very complex grammar, and in general creole languages have a very simplified grammer.


I am not an expert of the linguistics therefore I use wiki
examples given by wiki of the evolution of the ergative

Examples:

ancient Greek:
θύομαι I sacrifice for me (medium value),
κεῖμαι I am lying (medium tantum of intransitive value),
μάχομαι I fight (medium tantum of intransitive value)
Sanskrit:
यज॑ते yjate it sacrifices for itself (medium value),
शेते॑ śte it is lying (medium tantum of intransitive value),
Latin:
inquinor I get dirty (medium tantum in medium value),
uēlor I become covered (medium tantum in medium value),
sequor I am [follow] (medium tantum in active value),
Icelandic:
matast to "eat (intransitive value),
sjst to be seen (passive value),
kl ast "get dressed" (medium value),
i rast "regret" (medium tantum),
skjtlast "to be wrong" (medium tantum).
Russian:
кусаться "bite" (intransitive value)
целоваться "embrace each other" (intransitive value)

MOESAN
15-02-14, 19:26
First off, welcome on the forum.

Honestly, I am afraid to say this, but these dates are absolutely impossible. This gets very clear from the adherence/non-adherence of sound laws. It is absolutely impossible that the Indo-European languages diverged before the latest Neolithic / Chalcolithic due to the fact that there are common words for agriculture, horses, cattle, and metal-working. Likewise, that the Centum and Satem splits are 10,000 years old is completely impossible. How could there be a common word for "horse" in Indo-European (ek´wos) if the Indo-European language family was older than the domestication of the horse?

Likewise, the association of R1a and R1b with the Indo-European languages is dubious, because only specific subclades (R1b-M269 and R1a1a) appears to be tied with the spread of the Indo-European languages, and even this produces a very incomplete and inaccurate picture. For instance is the distribution of R1a not limited to areas where Satem-IE languages are spoken. For instance, R1a reaches ~20% in Scandinavia, ~10% in Greece. Both the Germanic languages and Greek are Centum.

Also, never mind that with high likelihood R1b and R1a weren't in Europe that early.

interesting post of Bertrand, interesting answer by you (at first concerning the date of split) - just a detail: concerning kentum/satem I'm also tempted to think the bulk of the R1a tribes contributed to satemization -
concerning Greeks, R1a 10% is not so high - the 20% R1a of Scandinavia are in fact the result of two waves (I think), the R1a bearers of the second wave being in minority among other people (Y-R1b-U106 + -I1) and unable to change a dominant centum pronounciation - but I believe "my supposed" first wave of R1a was satem speaking OR RATHER on the way to - the R1a's newcomers in Greece were maybe among a proto-satem (not completely evolved) group, as the northwestern R1A's (corded?)
just my point for the moment- concerning U152 in steppes I 'm confused at this point
good thread, even if I discard completely a lot of Kyosov affirmations - what I conserve is the N-Pakistan (and surroundings) origin of R1b -

Taranis
15-02-14, 19:39
I am not an expert of the linguistics therefore I use wiki
examples given by wiki of the evolution of the ergative

Examples:

ancient Greek:
θύομαι � I sacrifice for me � (medium value),
κεῖμαι � I am lying � (medium tantum of intransitive value),
μάχομαι � I fight � (medium tantum of intransitive value)
Sanskrit:
यज॑ते y�jate � it sacrifices for itself � (medium value),
शेते॑ ś�te � it is lying � (medium tantum of intransitive value),
Latin:
inquinor � I get dirty � (medium tantum in medium value),
uēlor � I become covered � (medium tantum in medium value),
sequor � I am � [follow] (medium tantum in active value),
Icelandic:
matast to "eat � (intransitive value),
sj�st � to be seen � (passive value),
kl� � ast "get dressed" (medium value),
i � rast "regret" (medium tantum),
skj�tlast "to be wrong" (medium tantum).
Russian:
кусаться "bite" (intransitive value)
целоваться "embrace each other" (intransitive value)

Sorry, but you are clearly mistaken, because all of the languages you cite above (Greek, Latin, Icelandic, Sanskrit, Russian) all have nominative cases and accusative cases. The existence of intransitive verbs are no evidence for ergativity.

martiko
16-02-14, 06:36
Linguist i am not therefore I prefer to let speak the specialists confirmed in latin and basque: Videgain, Michalena, Etxamendy ... therefore it is them that you may question, I am tired of this pointless debate without end and in loss of time, I do not think that it is essential not more.

It appears that the Supposed specificities of basque (ergative syntax, nominal prédicat, absence of kind, morphology, etc. ) are the caractéristiques of the indo-européen of before the hypothétique séparation groups, and whose aspects archaïques begin at se révéler (Martinet, Vaillant, Laroche, C. Tcheckoff). Finally, the lexical stock irréductible of Euskera - if this means without common roots - do we is not appeared at this day

http://rokus01.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/etchamendy.pdf

martiko
16-02-14, 13:14
Sorry, but you are clearly mistaken, because all of the languages you cite above (Greek, Latin, Icelandic, Sanskrit, Russian) all have nominative cases and accusative cases. The existence of intransitive verbs are no evidence for ergativity.


This is false the nominative form exists in basque aslo the language IE have lost their declination ergative by their simplification (pidgin;Why? Because it can be considered the nominative form of language IE as the simplified form of the ergatif in the employment of the transitive, but in this case makes the essential auxiliary by its form active or inactive ).
In linguistics, the absolutif is a present case in the languages ergatives, or he is opposed to the case ergatif.

For example, in Basque, the name mutil (boy) takes the appropriate conjugation of the absolutif singular -a as well as subject of the sentence intransitive mutila etorri da (the boy has come) that object of the transitive sentence Irakasleak ikusi mutila of (the professor has seen the boy), in which the subject takes the appropriate conjugation ergative -ak.
For example French cas de l'absolutif:
l'homme a un chien (actif ,transitif direct.). L'homme est un chien (passif).
on retrouve dans l'emploi pronominal rflchi des formes de l'ergatif des orignines: pronoms premire personne MOI et ME, lorsque il devient sujet et complment simultanment : je moi rends --->je me rends---->me rends
There are some similarities of simplification of the French in comparison to the Russian for example in the use of the instrumental with declination or prepositif. Such this sentence.
And such between the dative and the prepositif: menia- -- >ot menia and obo mne ...
Therefore we can speak of simplification of the language.

Taranis
16-02-14, 14:40
This is false the nominative form exists in basque aslo the language IE have lost their declination ergative by their simplification (pidgin;Why? Because it can be considered the nominative form of language IE as the simplified form of the ergatif in the employment of the transitive, but in this case makes the essential auxiliary by its form active or inactive ).
In linguistics, the absolutif is a present case in the languages ergatives, or he is opposed to the case ergatif.

The whole "Indo-European languages formed through pigdinization" is obviously false. All pidgin and creole languages have an extremely simplified grammar. If one now assumes that Proto-Indo-European (or the individual branches of Indo-European) were the result of pidginization, then you must assume that the parent language was more complex. Considering that virtually all of "old" Indo-European languages (ie, Latin, Greek, Avestan, Sanskrit, Hittite, but also for example Gaulish, Celtiberian) and even some modern languages (Lithuanian for example) have a very complex grammar. If now you were to claim that Proto-Indo-European was a pidgin or creole, the consequence is that it was simplified from something else, more complex (more complex than eight noun cases, three numbers, etc.) which is something that is utterly nonsensical in my opinion.

Think about it: if you assume that the ergative case was lost in Indo-European, that would mean that this happened (independently?) in Latin, Sanskrit and Greek, which means that Proto-Indo-European would have been even more complex, and that seems to me entirely superfluous to claim, unless you have the foregone conclusion that Indo-European must have been more complex because you want to connect it to Basque (which, to me, seems to be your core point).


Linguist i am not therefore I prefer to let speak the specialists confirmed in latin and basque: Videgain, Michalena, Etxamendy ... therefore it is them that you may question, I am tired of this pointless debate without end and in loss of time, I do not think that it is essential not more.

It appears that the Supposed specificities of basque (ergative syntax, nominal prédicat, absence of kind, morphology, etc. ) are the caractéristiques of the indo-européen of before the hypothétique séparation groups, and whose aspects archaïques begin at se révéler (Martinet, Vaillant, Laroche, C. Tcheckoff). Finally, the lexical stock irréductible of Euskera - if this means without common roots - do we is not appeared at this day

http://rokus01.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/etchamendy.pdf

I'm not going to commend on that, because my French isn't that good (is there an English language version available?). I have to say though, what makes me raise an eyebrow is that the first thing the guy does is boast that he has a doctoral title (I don't want to transgress on him here) - but it doesn't strik me as a sign of professionalism that you have to go and boast about that. :rolleyes2:

By the way, I would recommend you the etymological dictionary of Basque by the late linguist Larry Trask. To me it is clear that:

- the (core) vocabulary of Basque shows no sign whatsoever of a connection with the Indo-European languages. Borrowings from Indo-European languages do exist (Latin and Romance languages, in particular, but also Celtic), but this is a relatively recent thing.
- the grammar of Basque (an agglutinative, ergative-absolutive language) is very dissimilar to that reconstructed for Proto-Indo-European (a fusional, nominative-accusative language, notably also with three different numbers - singular, dual and plural - the dual which I might add, is non-existent in Basque!)
- Therefore, it is clear that Basque and Proto-Indo-European are not closely related with each other, and the idea that Proto-Indo-European was simplified from another language makes no sense if it in itself was so complex.

Also, no offense, I do sense that we are not getting each others point because of your deficit in English skills... (or my deficit in French skills) if that is the case (again, no offense), I would think it would be the best thing to leave it as is, and agree to disagree on the matter. :smile:

Taranis
16-02-14, 14:46
I might add, one language family that would qualify as being the result of a past pidginization are the Japonic languages, they match the criterion, as there is no gender, no numbers, and no articles - and the verb system of Japanese is (compared to that of Proto-Indo-European, for example) extremely simple (only two tenses).

martiko
16-02-14, 15:13
This is not decisive for call a pidgin a language not having the article and the kind because it is also the case of the basque but the basque to several forme verbatim as the Hittite. I am not a connoisseur in the languages but i know enough play to know these information
I would remind you that the Basques have a semi society matriarchal the opposite of the majority of the peoples which could explain the absence of feminine gender and male
Behia cow
cows behiak
Oreina deer
deers orein asko (grand nombre)
dogs xakurra
dogs txakurrak
the man behind counting on their fingers as children, and when this number is exceeded it is common to use a plural signifant the many
http://www.euskomedia.org/PDFAnlt/riev/01/01154154.pdf

may be there is not the Proto IE but can exist be born IE language mixing language and probably would be the pidgin language of an ancient people led by the R1b group and may be the Basque could be a another development different from those old forgotten languages​​.
In my personal opinion
It is unfortunate that tchuvash Bashkir Urals have lost their language because this group has 75% of R1b

(http://www.euskomedia.org/PDFAnlt/riev/01/01154154.pdf)

MOESAN
16-02-14, 17:27
I've read somewhere that old Slavic kon was kobn, the horse female is kobyla in polish. Now we are closer to Italian caballo. Also horse run called trot is called kłus (eng phonetic: kwus, qwus) in polish, now we are close to IE eq'wos.

sorry for no global positive theory of mine - very often I put just some limited points: but it could help or at least eliminate false conclusions based upon mistaking "looks" of things:
the speacial Ł / ł /w/ of polish is well an ancient 'L' so we cannot assume a link with a supposed *kwus << equus - only a very modern loan could explain a non eymological spelling using this special evolved Ł to exprim a /w/ distinct from polish 'W' = /v/ - the ancient I-E 'w' have turned into /v/ in polish and other languages -
so kŁus seems from *klos: maybe ??? an ancient **kros <> I-E >> germanic hros (horse, ros) ??? with ??? k-r <> cursus/carros ???
just an amateur hypothesis still to be proved -

LeBrok
16-02-14, 20:51
sorry for no global positive theory of mine - very often I put just some limited points: but it could help or at least eliminate false conclusions based upon mistaking "looks" of things:
the speacial Ł / ł /w/ of polish is well an ancient 'L' so we cannot assume a link with a supposed *kwus << equus - only a very modern loan could explain a non eymological spelling using this special evolved Ł to exprim a /w/ distinct from polish 'W' = /v/ - the ancient I-E 'w' have turned into /v/ in polish and other languages -
so kŁus seems from *klos: maybe ??? an ancient **kros <> I-E >> germanic hros (horse, ros) ??? with ??? k-r <> cursus/carros ???
just an amateur hypothesis still to be proved -

Good point about ł(w), kwus (kłus) be a late borrowing in this particular case. Definitely there was L to Ł (w) transformation in polish language some time ago. It made me think that perhaps original value of this word was "kus". In Czech there is a word KUS meaning small/piece. "Kwus" in polish means trot, small horse step/gate. In polish KUC (tz) means small horse. In central/east europe the cavalier (horse warrior) was called "usar, husar, gusar", perhaps similar meaning of word "kosak, kozak, kazak" Cossack, the horse warriors of the steppes.
"Kuznets" in russian means blacksmith.

Nice picture of Don Kozak on guard. (to make this post more esthetic) :)

http://02varvara.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/don-cossack.jpg

Taranis
16-02-14, 21:04
Good point about ł(w), kwus (kłus) be a late borrowing in this particular case. Definitely there was L to Ł (w) transformation in polish language some time ago. It made me think that perhaps original value of this word was "kus". In Czech there is a word KUS meaning small/piece. "Kwus" in polish means trot, small horse step/gate. In polish KUC (tz) means small horse. In central/east europe the cavalier (horse warrior) was called "usar, husar, gusar", perhaps similar meaning of word "kosak, kozak, kazak" Cossack, the horse warriors of the steppes.
"Kuznets" in russian means blacksmith.

Nice picture of Don Kozak on guard. (to make this post more esthetic) :)

LeBrok, Polish "ł" /w/ is a relatively late thing, as it corresponds clearly to *l in other Slavic languages. An example would be Polish "osioł" (donkey) against Czech "osel" and Russian "осел" (osel) - which in turn was borrowed originally from Latin "asellus" (also notice the sound shift *a > *o, which was itself a relatively late thing in my opinion (but still a common Slavic sound change!), as must have occured around the Migration Period).

I might add, I'm not aware of any reflex of *ekwos in Slavic (Baltic, yeah), but instead Slavic possesses a reflex of *kaballo- ("kobyła" in Polish), which is also found in the Celtic languages (Welsh has "ceffyl"), borrowed into Latin as 'caballus', hence French 'cheval', Spanish 'caballo', but the word probably isn't from Proto-Indo-European.

LeBrok
16-02-14, 21:37
LeBrok, Polish "ł" /w/ is a relatively late thing, as it corresponds clearly to *l in other Slavic languages. An example would be Polish "osioł" (donkey) against Czech "osel" and Russian "осел" (osel) - which in turn was borrowed originally from Latin "asellus" (also notice the sound shift *a > *o, which was itself a relatively late thing in my opinion (but still a common Slavic sound change!), as must have occured around the Migration Period).
In my layman linguistic knowledge I was musing about possibility of original possible IE kus (perhaps meaning small/piece) becoming klus and later kłus. Latin exiguus?
I agree though that polish kłus looks definitely as borrowing from latin equus or ecus. Is there possibility of later Latin development of "ekwus" from "ekus"?
I would like to mention that small horses were more of a standard way back than big Arabian type. Perhaps called kus, later giving meaning for small when compared to big breeds?


I might add, I'm not aware of any reflex of *ekwos in Slavic (Baltic, yeah), but instead Slavic possesses a reflex of *kaballo- ("kobyła" in Polish), which is also found in the Celtic languages (Welsh has "ceffyl"), borrowed into Latin as 'caballus', hence French 'cheval', Spanish 'caballo', but the word probably isn't from Proto-Indo-European. I have a hunch that caballo might have been coined as a differentiation for naming big/modern/expensive horses. Before that the small mongol/steppe horse was most popular even across Europe. Possibly called ecus and kus.

martiko
16-02-14, 23:31
http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Post par LeBrok http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?p=383288#post383288)
I've read somewhere that old Slavic kon was kobn, the horse female is kobyla in polish. Now we are closer to Italian caballo. Also horse run called trot is called kłus (eng phonetic: kwus, qwus) in polish, now we are close to IE eq'wos.


Russian word for mare "lochka"; Koin is the general sense to horse, Basque tsalde and mare behoka , french : mare jument ; horse cheval
kabil for Russian is an insult meaning "dog"


text Cossack music "kon": "with my horse we will go towards the horizon ..................Russia you I love you". [The palace

opera Moskow]


(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzAaioP2GGw)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFCfO-5Exjc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbG8fABvbXM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbG8fABvbXM)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzAaioP2GGw

MOESAN
21-04-14, 00:09
LEBROK, (and a bit too, MARTIKO, I'm afraid you did not see the implication of the *KLUS existance: it can never be compared to EQUUS nor to KON'- so we have to search for another etymplogy for this word...
concerning KON', I have no opinion for now but ALINEI thought it was a turkic former word loaned in slavics...(I don't know what to think because I found only the word AT for "horse" in anatolian Turkic by the way all the slavic words have a 'yod' appendix perhaps a remnant of an old 'I' : KON' << KONJ << KON-I: but?- a cognate with CANIS would be tempting but the meaning is by far too different at first look - sorry, just "lice castration" here as we say in breton ... the non-
PS: MARTIKO: °KOB-N if confirmed could be a good new for us...

MOESAN
21-04-14, 22:58
the general question of the 'horse' and 'wheel' in the I-Ean puzzle:
I put my rifle in some slavics dictionaries (knowing it's game and not work, but i'have NO etymologic studies at hand about slavic language history)

I found some words, not exactly in the "horse" entries, but in entries concerning close things like 'chevalry', 'horse riding' and so on...
Czech: jezdec "horse rider" + 4 derived words on the same words (jezd-) for close meanings + jizd "race", "promenade"
Srb-Croat: jezditi "to go on a horse", "to ride a horse"
Bulgarian: ezda "riding time" or "travel" ->> jazdja "to ride"
Russian: poiézdka, obiézd verkhôm "riding time or travel" + iézdit' verkhôm "ro ride a horse"

the root seems being °êg-d could that be an ancient °êk-t<< °êkw- (see latin equ-it-) - I don't know the peculiar laws concerning stop consonnants sonorization in old slavic -
maybe this is a born-dead speculation of mine but if it could be true, it would be of some interest concerning the "hrose" notion among Slavs - just attepting to guess
good post-Eather to you!

kosmonomad
22-04-14, 11:45
the general question of the 'horse' and 'wheel' in the I-Ean puzzle:
I put my rifle in some slavics dictionaries (knowing it's game and not work, but i'have NO etymologic studies at hand about slavic language history)

I found some words, not exactly in the "horse" entries, but in entries concerning close things like 'chevalry', 'horse riding' and so on...
Czech: jezdec "horse rider" + 4 derived words on the same words (jezd-) for close meanings + jizd "race", "promenade"
Srb-Croat: jezditi "to go on a horse", "to ride a horse"
Bulgarian: ezda "riding time" or "travel" ->> jazdja "to ride"
Russian: poiézdka, obiézd verkhôm "riding time or travel" + iézdit' verkhôm "ro ride a horse"

the root seems being °êg-d could that be an ancient °êk-t<< °êkw- (see latin equ-it-) - I don't know the peculiar laws concerning stop consonnants sonorization in old slavic -
maybe this is a born-dead speculation of mine but if it could be true, it would be of some interest concerning the "hrose" notion among Slavs - just attepting to guess
good post-Eather to you!

Hi,

I am not a linguist, but g -> dzh -> z looks legitimate.

Regarding kobyla, a similar sounding word exists, possibly describing movement of a hoppled? horse - ковылять/kovilyat' - hobble, stump along, dodder, stumble along. To smith - ковать/kovat' thus horseshoe becomes подкова/podkova. The smith is koval' in Polish and Ukrainian. Shoed horse - podkovanniy kon'.
Also ковыль/kovil' - feather grass or mat grass that grows in the steppes.

LeBrok
22-04-14, 16:44
Hi,

I am not a linguist, but g -> dzh -> z looks legitimate.

Regarding kobyla, a similar sounding word exists, possibly describing movement of a hoppled? horse - ковылять/kovilyat' - hobble, stump along, dodder, stumble along. To smith - ковать/kovat' thus horseshoe becomes подкова/podkova. The smith is koval' in Polish and Ukrainian. Shoed horse - podkovanniy kon'.
Also ковыль/kovil' - feather grass or mat grass that grows in the steppes.
Koval is might be a borrowing (possibly from celtic?) kabal->kobal->koval. Looks like kobn, kobyla came from kabal too. I think it might came with new breed of big horses.
I have a hunch that small horses, the steppe original horses, were called something else like kuc or klus/kus or even koza.

MOESAN
24-04-14, 00:04
[QUOTE=LeBrok;430172]


Yes we have Croatian potkovatiand Bulgarian podkovavam meaning«to shoe horses», O.K.
But a link between words likekovař/kowal/kovačand words likekobila/kobyla ? I think it'sgoing to far – the V >< B differenceis not an obstacle in a diachronic point of view and the /b>>v/evolution is very common in some languages, for the most betweenvowels – but in a same language at the same stage of history,without dialectal forms, it becomes an obstacle to the conclusion ofa common origin - &: the prononuciation is /v/ and /b/ in everyslavic language between vowels, so no sound according to otherconsonnant, whatever the spelling – all the slavic languages I saw(russian, polish, czech, serbian-croatian, bulgarian) present thesame opposition in these two meanings -
/v/>< /b/so... 2different roots, I bet -


theonly semantical link between the words concerning smith work andhorses in slavics are based on the «metal» notion, nothing else –the same occur in breton where the original «smith» equivalent, gov(gob- inceltic) is very often replaced by the word marichal/marchalof germanic origin and passedin it through french language – marichal / maréchal(marshall) derives fromgerm-(OHG) marah-skalkwhere the «horse» notion is evident (the smithes used to shoehorses with iron shoes) -


inrussian and polish there are two seemingly different roots for«smith-» or «smithy» or «to forge»: kov-and kuc- [koots] -
Ihave no idea of their possible link and the previous generic meaning-
veryhazardous hypothesis (fun): '°'= MY bets >< '*'= scholars bets-
kuts<< °kow+k+j ?°kow-d-s ? < - >°kow-ak-j ? >>kovac (monophtonguisons is common in slavic evolution (here /ou/ >>/u/) as well as lost of consonnants in groups) -
anI-Ean root *kau-would exist (scholars) : «to cut», «to prune» - Lat- cu-dere,cusum to beat, to forge», «toform» + incus, incudis,Italian incudine,French enclume«anvil», see Polish kowadlo«anvil» – Germ-O-H-G houwan >> hauen : «to hew» – heu : «hay»>> French houe,houlette, hoyau – English tohew >> hay -
theCzech kovina «metal»could very well be the source and explanation and cut short otherspeculations?
#
kobila <<kobyla <<°kobula <<°kob-l << °kăb-lor°kăp-l,see caballusbut too capal/ceffyl(celticwhere the root seems being °kapp-l–) - ? an european root, perhaps non I-Ean ? -
&:in Kurdic I found in a dictionary the words: keil,kiayl «purerace horse», Turkic kehlanati – it's pure speculation for curiositylacking the old forms, knowing the phonetical evolution can send usvery far, so I don't know if we have here a cognate of°kabal-/°kappal???


alater loan to celtic (?) or other I-Ean 'kaval'could explain the form kovalbuthere again, kovalis not a one-bit word but a compound ofkov+al,as we can see with other slavic derived words on the same ground:kovačnica/ kowadlo/ kovati...

kosmonomad
31-05-14, 22:59
Hi,
I thought you might like this.
Klyosov is publishing a series of articles on R1b and related burial practices. The latest one (in Russian, use google translate) at pereformat_ru/2014/05/arbins-2/ - I cannot link yet, replace the underscore with dot.

A small exerpt from his correspondence with linguist Klein about yet unpublished results:

Теперь вопрос – а почему я считаю, что там была гаплогруппа R1b? Объясняю. Это мне в частном порядке сообщил Л.С. Клейн, в январе 2014 года. Вот что он написал (и не в первый раз, это он мне сообщает последние три года):
Есть у меня ученик, Алексей Ковалев, он копал много лет в Монголии и Синьцзяне. Вот он поместил в Рос. Арх. Ежегоднике 2011 сенсационную статью «Великая чемурчекская миграция» – о происхождении чемурческский культуры Алтая и Синьцзяна прямиком из Западной и Южной Франции. Это III тыс. до н.э. Он связывает эту культуру с тохарами. У меня впечатление, что миграция доказана, а связь с тохарами вызывает ряд вопросов…

Полагаю, Вам будет интересно узнать, что мой ученик Алексей Ковалев, тот самый, который исследовал чемурчекскую культуру Алтая, Монголии и Синьцзяна (видимо, тохары), и выпустил сейчас уже две книги о ней, добился анализов ДНК по афанасьевцам и окуневцам. Два из трех афанасьевцев и один окуневец оказались R1b1 (M269), а один афанасьевец – R1b. Ковалев же имеет радиуглеродные даты по многим афанасьевцам: калибров. 3000-2600 до н.э… Чемурчекская культура совершенно четко из Франции.


Я ответил:

Советую А. Ковалеву передать, что ему стоит перед публикацией показать эти данные мне, чтобы потом не было конфуза. Он, надеюсь, имеет данные по трупоположению? …Я вовсе не исключаю, что в Южной Сибири были древние R1b, сам это описывал, и датировал по ДНК. Просто надо исключить неверные отнесения, и знать, кто определял эти R1b и R1b1, какие там гаплотипы (если их нет – это большой промах), и поставить это в исторический контекст. Думаю, что Вам это объяснять не надо, как и А. Ковалеву. Надеюсь, понятно, почему А. Ковалеву стоит со мной связаться?

К сожалению, данных по трупоположению ни в одной статье А. Ковалева не оказалось. Если это так – непростительное упущение для археолога. И досадная упущенная возможность идентифицировать принадлежность останков к определенному роду, к тому же R1b, например.

Two out of three afanasievo remains and one okunevo remains tested R1b1 (M269) and one afanasievan – R1b.

martiko
02-06-14, 03:58
[QUOTE=LeBrok;430172]


Yes we have Croatian potkovatiand Bulgarian podkovavam meaning«to shoe horses», O.K.
But a link between words likekovař/kowal/kovačand words likekobila/kobyla ? I think it'sgoing to far – the V >< B differenceis not an obstacle in a diachronic point of view and the /b>>v/evolution is very common in some languages, for the most betweenvowels – but in a same language at the same stage of history,without dialectal forms, it becomes an obstacle to the conclusion ofa common origin - &: the prononuciation is /v/ and /b/ in everyslavic language between vowels, so no sound according to otherconsonnant, whatever the spelling – all the slavic languages I saw(russian, polish, czech, serbian-croatian, bulgarian) present thesame opposition in these two meanings -
/v/>< /b/so... 2different roots, I bet -


theonly semantical link between the words concerning smith work andhorses in slavics are based on the «metal» notion, nothing else –the same occur in breton where the original «smith» equivalent, gov(gob- inceltic) is very often replaced by the word marichal/marchalof germanic origin and passedin it through french language – marichal / maréchal(marshall) derives fromgerm-(OHG) marah-skalkwhere the «horse» notion is evident (the smithes used to shoehorses with iron shoes) -


inrussian and polish there are two seemingly different roots for«smith-» or «smithy» or «to forge»: kov-and kuc- [koots] -
Ihave no idea of their possible link and the previous generic meaning-
veryhazardous hypothesis (fun): '°'= MY bets >< '*'= scholars bets-
kuts<< °kow+k+j ?°kow-d-s ? < - >°kow-ak-j ? >>kovac (monophtonguisons is common in slavic evolution (here /ou/ >>/u/) as well as lost of consonnants in groups) -
anI-Ean root *kau-would exist (scholars) : «to cut», «to prune» - Lat- cu-dere,cusum to beat, to forge», «toform» + incus, incudis,Italian incudine,French enclume«anvil», see Polish kowadlo«anvil» – Germ-O-H-G houwan >> hauen : «to hew» – heu : «hay»>> French houe,houlette, hoyau – English tohew >> hay -
theCzech kovina «metal»could very well be the source and explanation and cut short otherspeculations?
#
kobila <<kobyla <<°kobula <<°kob-l << °kăb-lor°kăp-l,see caballusbut too capal/ceffyl(celticwhere the root seems being °kapp-l–) - ? an european root, perhaps non I-Ean ? -
&:in Kurdic I found in a dictionary the words: keil,kiayl «purerace horse», Turkic kehlanati – it's pure speculation for curiositylacking the old forms, knowing the phonetical evolution can send usvery far, so I don't know if we have here a cognate of°kabal-/°kappal???


alater loan to celtic (?) or other I-Ean 'kaval'could explain the form kovalbuthere again, kovalis not a one-bit word but a compound ofkov+al,as we can see with other slavic derived words on the same ground:kovačnica/ kowadlo/ kovati...

Russian kabil is the dog in the popular sense and it is also an insult

bicicleur
02-06-14, 08:56
Hi,
I thought you might like this.
Klyosov is publishing a series of articles on R1b and related burial practices. The latest one (in Russian, use google translate) at pereformat_ru/2014/05/arbins-2/ - I cannot link yet, replace the underscore with dot.

A small exerpt from his correspondence with linguist Klein about yet unpublished results:


Two out of three afanasievo remains and one okunevo remains tested R1b1 (M269) and one afanasievan – R1b.

this is a big surprise

any idea when and where it will be published ?

kosmonomad
02-06-14, 16:24
this is a big surprise

any idea when and where it will be published ?

Nothing in the article about the publication date. It is to be by Klein's former student Kovalyov who's been digging in Mongolia and Xinjiang. They are linking the Chemurchek culture to a clear migration from France (surprise!) - you can find more in English. Klein isn't as certain as Kovalyov about a relation to the tokhar language. They radio-carbon calibrated the afanasievo remains to 3000-2600 b.c.

One thing, three years ago Klein decided to stick to Zhivotovskiy's evolutionary mutation rates, I wonder what they will do this time.

Silesian
02-06-14, 16:56
Nothing in the article about the publication date. It is to be by Klein's former student Kovalyov who's been digging in Mongolia and Xinjiang. They are linking the Chemurchek culture to a clear migration from France (surprise!) - you can find more in English. Klein isn't as certain as Kovalyov about a relation to the tokhar language. They radio-carbon calibrated the afanasievo remains to 3000-2600 b.c.

One thing, three years ago Klein decided to stick to Zhivotovskiy's evolutionary mutation rates, I wonder what they will do this time.

Thanks kosmonomad, can you possibly give a translation of the quotes between A.Klyosov and theoretical archeologist L. Klejn/Klein. Do both L. Klein and A. Kovalev have reason to believe a genetic ydna and or mtdna connection between France and Chemurchek culture in Western Mongolia ?
Is it the same as A.A. Kovalev
https://www.academia.edu/4970951/Kovalev_A.A._The_Great_Migration_of_the_Chemurchek _People_from_France_to_the_Altai_in_the_Early_3rd_ Millenium_BCE_International_Journal_of_Eurasian_St udies._Vol._1_11_._2011._P._1-58

If it is can you translate #39 reference study where mtdna was found.

kosmonomad
02-06-14, 19:23
Thanks kosmonomad, can you possibly give a translation of the quotes between A.Klyosov and theoretical archeologist L. Klejn/Klein. Do both L. Klein and A. Kovalev have reason to believe a genetic ydna and or mtdna connection between France and Chemurchek culture in Western Mongolia ?
Is it the same as A.A. Kovalev

If it is can you translate #39 reference study where mtdna was found.


I am not sure this isn't the old-fashioned approach, not the paleolithic continuity model for R1b, not Zhivo's rates. I hope they have taken Klyosov's criticism and have gone for more than a 6- or 12-marker haplotypes which they ran through a y-dna predictor. No mention of any tested terminal SNPs - I hope they did at least some.
Such materials should be tested very thoroughly for the newest defining SNPs at the relevant level.



Klejn:
I have a student, Aleksey Kovalev, He has been excavating many years in Mongolia and Xinjiang. He published in The Russian Archeology Yearbook 2011 a sensational article "The great Chemurchek migration" - about origin of Chemurchek culture of Altay and Xinjiang directly form Western and Southern France. It is the 3rd millenium b.c. He links this culture to Tochars. I have the impression that the migration is confirmed, but the link to Tochars calls for a line-up of questions...

I think you will be interested to know that my student Alexei Kovalev , the man who investigated Chemurchek culture of Altai , Mongolia and Xinjiang (apparently Tochars) and released two books about it, did DNA tests on afanasievans and okunevans. Two out of three afanasievans and one okunevan were R1b1 (M269), one afanasievan - R1b1. Kovalev has radiocarbon ages of many afanasievans: calibrated 3000-2600 b.c. Chemurchek culture very clearly is from France.


Klyosov:
I advise to A. Kovalev that he shows the data to me before the publication, to avoid an embarrassment. I hope he has data on inhumation? ...I don't exclude at all that ancient R1b were in Southern Siberia, I myself described it and dated based on DNA. Simply we have to exclude false attribution and we should know who determined these R1b and R1b1, what sort of haplotypes (if they were not done - it's a big miss) , and put it in historical context. I think you do not need to be explained, like A. Kovalev. I hope it is clear why A. Kovalev should contact me.

These letters are from January.


Yes, Kovalev is the same man.

[39] Куликов Е.Е., Кирюшин Ю.Ф., Серегин Ю.А., Тишкин А.А., Полтараус А.Б., Результаты палеогенетических исследований (по материалам погребений младенцев на памятнике Березовая Лука) // Березовая Лука – поселение эпохи бронзы в Алейской степи. Барнаул: Изд-во Алт. ун-та, 2005. Т. 1. С. 216–224.
[39] Kulikov E.E., Kiryushin Yu.F., Seregin Yu.A., Tishkin A.A., Poltaraus A.B., "Results of paleogenetic research (materials on burials of infants at Berezovaya Luka)" // Berezovaya Luka - bronze age settlement in Alei Steppe. Barnaul: Altay University Press, 2005. T. 1. S. 216-224.
It isn't available in English.

Semitic Duwa
04-06-14, 09:28
I'm sorry but you are definitely mistaken. There is no sign whatsoever of ergativity in Proto-Indo-European, because the language had an accusative case and a nominative case (as opposed to an ergative case and an absolutive case, which is the counterpart in ergative languages). Also, Hittite was an Indo-European language (part of the Anatolian language family, along with the Luwic languages), and Hittite was an accusative/nominative language. The same applies for the other 'old' Indo-European languages such as Greek, Latin and Sanskrit.

I should add that Hungarian and Finnish (both Uralic languages) are also are accusative/nominative languages, not ergative/absolutive, as are for example the Afroasiatic (including Berber, Egyptian and Semitic) languages.

It is not possible for Proto-Indo-European to have been a pidgin/creole, as it had a very complex grammar, and in general creole languages have a very simplified grammer.

I agree with what you have to say but Afroasiatic languages simply aren't ergative-absolutive, though proto-Berber and proto-Semitic might've displayed weak ergative features.

Either way, the theory according to what PIE is a pidgin or a creole is preposterous and absolutely shattered by facts on the ground.

Sile
09-06-14, 05:48
posted on Ftdna

information circulating that Russian scientist and archaeologist Alexei Kovalev has recovered ancient R1b in some male remains from the Afanasievo Culture and the Okunevo Culture in the Altai Mountains in Mongolia. Two out of three Afanasievans and one Okunevan were R-M269, and one Afanasievan tested R-P25. Radiocarbon dates were 3000 - 2600 BC.

There are stone stelae present like those from the Yamnaya Culture that spread across Europe from Crimea all the way to Iberia.

Nobody1
09-06-14, 06:01
posted on Ftdna

information circulating that Russian scientist and archaeologist Alexei Kovalev has recovered ancient R1b in some male remains from the Afanasievo Culture and the Okunevo Culture in the Altai Mountains in Mongolia. Two out of three Afanasievans and one Okunevan were R-M269, and one Afanasievan tested R-P25. Radiocarbon dates were 3000 - 2600 BC.

There are stone stelae present like those from the Yamnaya Culture that spread across Europe from Crimea all the way to Iberia.

Just M269 or pos. downstream clades not further tested yet? i.e. a possibility for it to be further downstream clades from M269;

LeBrok
09-06-14, 08:18
Just M269 or pos. downstream clades not further tested yet? i.e. a possibility for it to be further downstream clades from M269;
Looking at the IE languages the intercultural exchange had to happen around 6-5 thousand years ago. We should be getting some data about mingling R1a and R1b at some point after that time.

Nobody1
09-06-14, 09:06
Looking at the IE languages the intercultural exchange had to happen around 6-5 thousand years ago. We should be getting some data about mingling R1a and R1b at some point after that time.

If this message is correct about R1b-M269 in Afanasevo than that could mean that certain R1b clades did enter Europe to the west with the Indo-Europeans because both this east (Afanasevo) expansion as well as all the west (into Europe expansions) trace back to the common Yamna complex; But that would depend on which clades of M269 those were in Afanasevo and if that quoted/post is even correct; As for the languages the Afanasevo complex is linked to the Tocharians the only centum Indo-European tongue in the east (far far east) and a language which still shows common features with the Keltic branch and the Italic branch in r-endings and ā-subjunctive; If that message is correct than highly interesting;

kosmonomad
09-06-14, 17:24
Just M269 or pos. downstream clades not further tested yet? i.e. a possibility for it to be further downstream clades from M269;

I remember seeing an initiative to test ancient R1b samples. This should be a perfect opportunity. Academic research may still be lagging behind.

Nobody1
09-06-14, 19:05
I remember seeing an initiative to test ancient R1b samples. This should be a perfect opportunity. Academic research may still be lagging behind.

Than lets hope it catches up fast; for if there really is R1b-M269 in Afanasevo than it would be a shame to waste it by no proper research at all;

Aberdeen
09-06-14, 20:31
Than lets hope it catches up fast; for if there really is R1b-M269 in Afanasevo than it would be a shame to waste it by no proper research at all;

I agree. I'll remain dubious about the idea of ancient R1b in any quantity in that part of the world until that's proven, but if it's true, it's very significant.

Sile
10-06-14, 09:03
http://dispatchesfromturtleisland.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/new-archaic-y-dna-r1b-in-southern.html

Vedun
21-06-14, 18:15
I've read somewhere that old Slavic kon was kobn, the horse female is kobyla in polish. Now we are closer to Italian caballo. Also horse run called trot is called kłus (eng phonetic: kwus, qwus) in polish, now we are close to IE eq'wos.

The root is "KN" (Kon), which also meant "a law" (zakon; za-Kon) or better said "cycle" (КОН); "time keeper" (an emperor, a dynasty) in old Slavic. Gon is an "instinct" (nagon; Na-Gon; "on running(instinct"). From Kon came Kan or Konyaz or Kniaz or Knez (prince); "Koningaz" in later Gothic or "konig, könig, knight, k(o)nigt" . Or something which is "fast & young". Kneht, Kunec (rabbit), Kon(j)...The Turkish adaptation was "Khan" and in Saxonic sounded as "K(o)night" (Knight), because he was part of the ancient Law (justice and loyalty), and a Horse rider. (kłus or kljuse, kluse meant/means a "young horse" "baby horse", generally stands in the "neuter (neutrum) sex form". It means "k(o)luse" (kolose); "cycle", because it was born not long ago and because it "rolls", like Cats (Kot) and runs around...
"Klyosov" surname derives from the "Kolesov", because he knows the "cycles" (history) -Kon of our people... :)

http://csis.pace.edu/grendel/projs992a/knight_on_horse.jpg

The Slavic term for k(o)night (konyaz) was however Vitez or Vityaz, because of his abilities; to "see" (Video, Veda) an enemy and the danger and predict his moves... Princes were knights, only few of them were natural leaders, that's why they were also "holy knights" or kings. The old name for a king in Slavic territories was Volhv or Volkhv, this is also the name for a highest rank of pre-christian priests. The writers of Ukrainian and Russian Bible however thought to "keep" the original form for "3 wise men" (3 kings; Volhvs; Mages) who visited baby Jesus...

MOESAN
22-06-14, 00:19
The root is "KN" (Kon), which also meant "a law" in old Slavic. Gon is an "instinct" (nagon; Na-Gon; "on running(instinct"). From Kon came Kan or Konyaz or Kniaz or Knez (prince); "Koningaz" in later Gothic or "konig, könig, knight, k(o)nigt" . Or something which is "fast & young". Kneht, Kunec (rabbit), Kon(j)...The Turkish adaptation was "Khan" and in Saxonic sounded as "K(o)night" (Knight), because he was part of the ancient Law (justice and loyalty), and a Horse rider. (kłus or kljuse, kluse meant/means a "young horse" "baby horse", generally stands in the "neuter (neutrum) sex form". It means "k(o)luse" (kolose); "cycle", because it was born not long ago and because it "rolls", like Cats (Kot) and runs around...
"Klyosov" surname derives from the "Kolesov", because he knows the "cycles" (history) of our people... :)

http://csis.pace.edu/grendel/projs992a/knight_on_horse.jpg

The Slavic term for k(o)night (konyaz) was however Vitez or Vityaz, because of his abilities; to "see" (Video, Veda) an enemy and the danger and predict his moves... Princes were knights, only few of them were natural leaders, that's why they were also "holy knights" or kings. The old name for a king in Slavic territories was Volhv or Volkhv, this is also the name for a highest rank of pre-christian priests. The writers of Ukrainian and Russian Bible however thought to "keep" the original form for "3 wise one" (3 kings; Volhvs) who visited baby Jesus...

wow!!!I discover here the new linguistic - I'll do marvellous dreams tonight where the unique root of all the words of all the languages will be revealed to me!

LeBrok
22-06-14, 03:26
wow!!!I discover here the new linguistic - I'll do marvellous dreams tonight where the unique root of all the words of all the languages will be revealed to me!
lol, I have to say Vedun is extremely creative guy. I'm sure if he continued we could see that everything started from one proto word.

LeBrok
22-06-14, 03:29
The root is "KN" (Kon), which also meant "a law" (zakon; za-Kon) or better said "cycle" (КОН); "time keeper" (an emperor, a dynasty) in old Slavic. Gon is an "instinct" (nagon; Na-Gon; "on running(instinct"). From Kon came Kan or Konyaz or Kniaz or Knez (prince); "Koningaz" in later Gothic or "konig, könig, knight, k(o)nigt" . Or something which is "fast & young". Kneht, Kunec (rabbit), Kon(j)...The Turkish adaptation was "Khan" and in Saxonic sounded as "K(o)night" (Knight), because he was part of the ancient Law (justice and loyalty), and a Horse rider. (kłus or kljuse, kluse meant/means a "young horse" "baby horse", generally stands in the "neuter (neutrum) sex form". It means "k(o)luse" (kolose); "cycle", because it was born not long ago and because it "rolls", like Cats (Kot) and runs around...
"Klyosov" surname derives from the "Kolesov", because he knows the "cycles" (history) -Kon of our people... :)

http://csis.pace.edu/grendel/projs992a/knight_on_horse.jpg

The Slavic term for k(o)night (konyaz) was however Vitez or Vityaz, because of his abilities; to "see" (Video, Veda) an enemy and the danger and predict his moves... Princes were knights, only few of them were natural leaders, that's why they were also "holy knights" or kings. The old name for a king in Slavic territories was Volhv or Volkhv, this is also the name for a highest rank of pre-christian priests. The writers of Ukrainian and Russian Bible however thought to "keep" the original form for "3 wise men" (3 kings; Volhvs; Mages) who visited baby Jesus...
Are these your linguistic deductions and synthesis or you can reffer us to the book you read?

Vedun
23-06-14, 01:20
If people find answers (understand them through their own words(mind), then I find it enough "deductive", yes. And there is no individual book to check all the information i gave above... It comes from the observation and from reading of different books; one of them is the Bible (yes, I am seeking many information there, to "unlock" the hidden (inverted, stolen...) 'mysteries' from the past; one of them is the fact that old Slavs called "kings" as Volhvs (Mages; "great ones"). In matter of fact, one of Karantanian princes was called "Valuk"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valuk_%28duke%29 (modern interpretation of latin transmutation, transliteration of "Wallucus dux". His real name was Volkh or Volhv, which means "Druid" (Mage) and a "king"... Every king has 'saw and could predict the future, danger, describe the enemy from the distance (even if he did not see him directly with his physical eyes)... That's how the real King became to be the leader of a nation. That's why was Christianity so distant and foreign among these people. In fact was Christianity more deadly than any Gengis Khan (Kniaz) who came to save Russians (for example) from this new deadly cult which was arriving from Byzantium and Rome (that's why were also 'mongols' (the real name was Moguls (which means 'great ones' in old Greek - the word itself has no meaning in Chinese (current Mongol) languages) well accepted among Russian aristocracy...

a little thought about the 'mythology'...
One of many Slavic surnames was also famous "Vuk" or Volk or "wolf". It was a patrimonial name of every Volhv who achieved the status as a "protector of a village"; a Werewolf. To become a Werewolf was required a special, sacred ritual, which has roots in Shamanism...
(perhaps you've heard or read about the story when the Witch(Viech; Vešča; Volhva, Veda Vedun; "the one who knows(sees things as a Moth (also check the Lord of the Rings story about Gandalf's transformation into a Moth (Vešča; "witch; Witcher)" or a thing called "Mothman" (Vešč; (dark) Witcher (moth - Seer) http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/bd51283fa0.jpg ) (http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/bd51283fa0.jpg) as are stories which are still part of modern western World... ) turned the prince into a frog? Actually was the story written by Grimm brothers when they were collecting tales with their trip through ex Karantanian (then already Austrian) territories... The ability of these Mages (and knights) was a special state of mind, where their body called Nav left their material body in Jav... This process can be also described as several "Astral" projections... But there were differences between them (the best description about this process is described in the Tibetan Book of the dead; as part of ancient Vedic (Shamanic) - Asian teachings...which were carried into the Egyptian "Book of the Dead" of Osiris (=Vedic Asura)...

Current Chinese "secret service", as well as several CIA members are (still) extremelly interested into this subject... part of this teaching is also called "Remote viewing", which was generally established by Ingo Swann...
Back to the "werewolves". So, every Volhv have had an ability to "join" (merge) his Information ("body") or Mind (Um) with the body of an animal... generally to become part of the "wolves". When he returned back he carried part of this animal "information" in a spiritual way... That's why were his Volkv descendants also called Volk or Vuk.
(if the priest joined, combined his soul with a dying or a person who was in status of "passing away" (instead he was already physically dead, 3 - 40 days...) he become known as a "Vampir"...He came from the realm of Navi (also the name of a cemetery, the place of the souls which are still "waiting" (or do not want to re-incarnate)...

This is also the way how I "see" the history(time), not only through written (official) messages in Books, but to observe them between the lines...

Alpakut
02-04-15, 23:56
Anatole Klyosov thinks that R1a spoke proto IE language and R1b spoke proto turkic language. He doesn't agree with Kurgan hypothesis. He sees that R1b migrated from east to west and that R1a migrated from west to east.

I think that Klyosov data and chronology can be understood under the Kurgan hypothesis.
M. Gimbutas artfully reconstructed the IE mythology, religion, and gender relations in the context of the IE's westward kurgan migrations, riding the “Lord of the gaps” to construct the most popular IE creationist story, the so called “mainstream consensus”. While whole schools of archeology discounted radiocarbon dating as too imprecise and unreliable, the new tool allowed M.Gimbutas to leapfrog into the 20th c. Only with the 21st c. technology of haplotype allele dating it became clear that archeologists confused two separate developments, a later west-to-east movement of non-Kurgan people with the earlier east-to west movement of the Kurgan people. The history of these movements, separated in time by a millennia, is yet unwritten, but it is already clear that much of M.Gimbutas interpretations will have to be disbanded, while the facts on the ground will remain solidly intact.

Semitic Duwa
07-04-15, 16:56
M. Gimbutas artfully reconstructed the IE mythology, religion, and gender relations in the context of the IE's westward kurgan migrations, riding the “Lord of the gaps” to construct the most popular IE creationist story, the so called “mainstream consensus”. While whole schools of archeology discounted radiocarbon dating as too imprecise and unreliable, the new tool allowed M.Gimbutas to leapfrog into the 20th c. Only with the 21st c. technology of haplotype allele dating it became clear that archeologists confused two separate developments, a later west-to-east movement of non-Kurgan people with the earlier east-to west movement of the Kurgan people. The history of these movements, separated in time by a millennia, is yet unwritten, but it is already clear that much of M.Gimbutas interpretations will have to be disbanded, while the facts on the ground will remain solidly intact.

Looks like you've been living in a cave these last 15 years. While some of what Gimbutas said about the nature of "Old [Neolithic] Europe" was romantic nonsense, her model still happens to be quite relevant nowadays (save some details, such as the Baden culture being IE for instance). There's no way around this, really.

Alpakut
08-04-15, 02:05
Looks like you've been living in a cave these last 15 years. While some of what Gimbutas said about the nature of "Old [Neolithic] Europe" was romantic nonsense, her model still happens to be quite relevant nowadays (save some details, such as the Baden culture being IE for instance). There's no way around this, really.
Except for the fact that she misinterpreted R1a migrations with R1b migrations. Have a nice cave.