Promenade
Banned
- Messages
- 288
- Reaction score
- 95
- Points
- 0
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- R1b-U106 R-L1
- mtDNA haplogroup
- H1e
Lord Colin Renfrew, progenitor of the Anatolian hypothesis still seems to believe that there was a pre-kurgan indo-european migration into Europe from Asia minor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5u7fls9CIs
In fact at 49:00 he even suggests Indo-European, Afro-Asiatic and Dravidian languages share a common urheimat in the middle east and all expanded therefrom around the same period with the advent of farming.
Although he now accepts the the validity of the spread of IE languages from the steppe into north and central Europe due to recent revelations from genetic discoveries he seems to have conveniently missed those conclusively connecting the spread of farming into Europe with people harboring non IE ancestry. His only argument now seems to be that since the earliest recorded indo-european languages are from Anatolia IE must have been spoken there first. The obvious answer to this being that Anatolia was the only area in the world Indo-European languages were being spoken in at the time where they could even possibly be recorded. He also doesn't seem phased by the fact that steppe ancestry in Greece seems to have only either come from the north or from Armenia and this ancestry entered long after farming had been introduced to Europe.
At 48:00 Renfrew makes a similar absurd claim about the spread of Celtic languages claiming that they might have spread from Iberia to the rest of Europe. He connects it to Tartessian, but only devotes 60 second to the matter and leaves it abruptly without developing an argument as for why. From his slide he seems to believe that it is associated with an apparent spread of the bell beaker culture from Iberia to the rest of Europe and at another point he mentions how the earliest bell beakers found are from Iberia. I'm guessing he believes centum indo-european languages spread from Iberia and were brought by a supposed Anatolian indo-european migration that traveled along the maritime seaboard with the cardium pottery culture. I find it baseless as well, but you have to guess how else Renfrew would consider that an IE language made it to Spain and then spread east rather than the other way around.
He doesn't start mentioning genetic evidence until the last 15 minutes, but it's clear to me that Renfrew either knows less about european migrations than most amateurs do online or that he has become emotionally attached to his brainchild theory and refuses to let it go. He is obviously an intelligent man who understands the importance of genetics, but if he thinks genetic evidence from hittites will change anything and that there isn't already an abundance of genetic evidence disputing the spread of IE languages from Anatolia and with farming then he will be sorely disappointed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5u7fls9CIs
In fact at 49:00 he even suggests Indo-European, Afro-Asiatic and Dravidian languages share a common urheimat in the middle east and all expanded therefrom around the same period with the advent of farming.
Although he now accepts the the validity of the spread of IE languages from the steppe into north and central Europe due to recent revelations from genetic discoveries he seems to have conveniently missed those conclusively connecting the spread of farming into Europe with people harboring non IE ancestry. His only argument now seems to be that since the earliest recorded indo-european languages are from Anatolia IE must have been spoken there first. The obvious answer to this being that Anatolia was the only area in the world Indo-European languages were being spoken in at the time where they could even possibly be recorded. He also doesn't seem phased by the fact that steppe ancestry in Greece seems to have only either come from the north or from Armenia and this ancestry entered long after farming had been introduced to Europe.
At 48:00 Renfrew makes a similar absurd claim about the spread of Celtic languages claiming that they might have spread from Iberia to the rest of Europe. He connects it to Tartessian, but only devotes 60 second to the matter and leaves it abruptly without developing an argument as for why. From his slide he seems to believe that it is associated with an apparent spread of the bell beaker culture from Iberia to the rest of Europe and at another point he mentions how the earliest bell beakers found are from Iberia. I'm guessing he believes centum indo-european languages spread from Iberia and were brought by a supposed Anatolian indo-european migration that traveled along the maritime seaboard with the cardium pottery culture. I find it baseless as well, but you have to guess how else Renfrew would consider that an IE language made it to Spain and then spread east rather than the other way around.
He doesn't start mentioning genetic evidence until the last 15 minutes, but it's clear to me that Renfrew either knows less about european migrations than most amateurs do online or that he has become emotionally attached to his brainchild theory and refuses to let it go. He is obviously an intelligent man who understands the importance of genetics, but if he thinks genetic evidence from hittites will change anything and that there isn't already an abundance of genetic evidence disputing the spread of IE languages from Anatolia and with farming then he will be sorely disappointed.
Last edited: