Kentel
Regular Member
Here is a quote from a text I read on the eupedia webpage devoted to genetics :
The Indo-Europeans' bronze weapons and horses would have given them a tremendous advantage over the autochthonous inhabitants of Europe, namely the native haplogroup I (descendant of Cro-Magnon), and the early Neolithic herders and farmers (G2a, J2, E-V13 and T)
The theory according to which superior and patriarcal IE horsemen (Dumézil's mannerbund) arrived in Europe and subjected a population of inoffensive matriarcal pre-IE peasants whose languages they eradicated, has been supported from the very beginning of the IE studies, mostly on ideological grounds (see f.ex. Demoule http://www.anti-rev.org/textes/Demoule99a/ and http://mapageweb.umontreal.ca/tuitekj/cours/DeMouleMytheSurMesure.html).
This so-called invasionist model has moreover many flaws :
Archaeologic:
The debates are always been very vivid between linguists and archaeologists around the PIE question since archaeologists cannot really afford clear evidences to the conjectures of the linguists.
1- There is no objective archaeological attestation of a massive migration in Europe during the Bronze Age, that is : no archaeological culture spreading from the Black Sea to Western Europe at this date. The only continuous cultural horizon which can be connected with a migration in Europe is the dispersal of farming which predates the Chalcolithic (see Renfrew). Kossina's, Childe's and Gimbuta's theories are purely speculative since they rest upon jumps from a culture to another (eg. from Kurgan I,II,III to Yamna to Baden + Globular Amphora to Corded Ware II + Bell-Beaker to Unetice to Tumulus to Urnfield + Halstatt etc.)
2- The material found in the graves (Kurgans or others allegedly IE burial sites) showed no evidence of horse-riding.
3- All in all, it seems pointless to connect an archaeological culture to an ethnic group : technical innovation can spread by contact without any population move.
Genetic:
1- If I understand well R1a is mostly represented in Eastern Europe and R1b in Western Europe. We should thus have a linguistic split corresponding roughly to Slavic/Baltic/Hellenic/ on one side and Celtic on the other, with Italic and Germanic in the Middle. No linguistic branching agrees with such a split, as far as I know. It is even more problematic when we consider that this split between R1a and b occurred around 10 000 BC (Science 290) since it should have produced two clearly distinct linguistic branches at a very early date.
2- The fact that R1b is found at very high frequencies along the Atlantic coasts of Europe, in Siberia and in Central Africa is confusing, to say the least.
3- The dating of the genetic mutations is very inaccurate : f.ex. the G haplogroup has been dated from 30 000 BC (National Geographic Society), 17 000 BC (Semino 2000) and 9500 BC (Cinnioglu 2004).
4- 80% of the modern European genetic material dates back from the Palaeolithic according to Alinei.
5- R1a is connected with the Kurgan Culture, hence with PIE speaking people. I have no objection to this but what about R1b in the meantime ?
Linguistic :
Language variation is very slow, as far as we can observe it. There is f.ex. very little change between mycenean greek and modern greek (within a time span of 3500 years) or between old french and modern french (a time span of 1000 years), hence expecting a split of the PIE language families as late as the Chalcolithic seems unrealistic. In terms of language variation, the differenciation between hittite and latin would require much more than 1500 years.
To conclude this very long post (sorry for that), I have the feeling that linguists are trying to distort the facts in order to make them coincide with a highly ideological view of mankind (cf. Dumezil f.ex), based originaly on a poem from the Veda, namely the - very unclear - 96th Hymn to Indra.
The Indo-Europeans' bronze weapons and horses would have given them a tremendous advantage over the autochthonous inhabitants of Europe, namely the native haplogroup I (descendant of Cro-Magnon), and the early Neolithic herders and farmers (G2a, J2, E-V13 and T)
The theory according to which superior and patriarcal IE horsemen (Dumézil's mannerbund) arrived in Europe and subjected a population of inoffensive matriarcal pre-IE peasants whose languages they eradicated, has been supported from the very beginning of the IE studies, mostly on ideological grounds (see f.ex. Demoule http://www.anti-rev.org/textes/Demoule99a/ and http://mapageweb.umontreal.ca/tuitekj/cours/DeMouleMytheSurMesure.html).
This so-called invasionist model has moreover many flaws :
Archaeologic:
The debates are always been very vivid between linguists and archaeologists around the PIE question since archaeologists cannot really afford clear evidences to the conjectures of the linguists.
1- There is no objective archaeological attestation of a massive migration in Europe during the Bronze Age, that is : no archaeological culture spreading from the Black Sea to Western Europe at this date. The only continuous cultural horizon which can be connected with a migration in Europe is the dispersal of farming which predates the Chalcolithic (see Renfrew). Kossina's, Childe's and Gimbuta's theories are purely speculative since they rest upon jumps from a culture to another (eg. from Kurgan I,II,III to Yamna to Baden + Globular Amphora to Corded Ware II + Bell-Beaker to Unetice to Tumulus to Urnfield + Halstatt etc.)
2- The material found in the graves (Kurgans or others allegedly IE burial sites) showed no evidence of horse-riding.
3- All in all, it seems pointless to connect an archaeological culture to an ethnic group : technical innovation can spread by contact without any population move.
Genetic:
1- If I understand well R1a is mostly represented in Eastern Europe and R1b in Western Europe. We should thus have a linguistic split corresponding roughly to Slavic/Baltic/Hellenic/ on one side and Celtic on the other, with Italic and Germanic in the Middle. No linguistic branching agrees with such a split, as far as I know. It is even more problematic when we consider that this split between R1a and b occurred around 10 000 BC (Science 290) since it should have produced two clearly distinct linguistic branches at a very early date.
2- The fact that R1b is found at very high frequencies along the Atlantic coasts of Europe, in Siberia and in Central Africa is confusing, to say the least.
3- The dating of the genetic mutations is very inaccurate : f.ex. the G haplogroup has been dated from 30 000 BC (National Geographic Society), 17 000 BC (Semino 2000) and 9500 BC (Cinnioglu 2004).
4- 80% of the modern European genetic material dates back from the Palaeolithic according to Alinei.
5- R1a is connected with the Kurgan Culture, hence with PIE speaking people. I have no objection to this but what about R1b in the meantime ?
Linguistic :
Language variation is very slow, as far as we can observe it. There is f.ex. very little change between mycenean greek and modern greek (within a time span of 3500 years) or between old french and modern french (a time span of 1000 years), hence expecting a split of the PIE language families as late as the Chalcolithic seems unrealistic. In terms of language variation, the differenciation between hittite and latin would require much more than 1500 years.
To conclude this very long post (sorry for that), I have the feeling that linguists are trying to distort the facts in order to make them coincide with a highly ideological view of mankind (cf. Dumezil f.ex), based originaly on a poem from the Veda, namely the - very unclear - 96th Hymn to Indra.