Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: New 2015 paper on the Indo-European languages by David Anthony and Don Ringe

  1. #1
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    19,598


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    4 members found this post helpful.

    New 2015 paper on the Indo-European languages by David Anthony and Don Ringe

    This is the link to the paper itself
    http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/ful...-030514-124812

    Dienekes' take on it-Strong (?) Linguistic and Archaeological Evidence for Steppe Indo-Europeans:
    http://www.dienekes.blogspot.com/201...eological.html

    On a first, cursory reading I don't see much that is new, but it's nice to have it summarized.

    Dienekes is still not convinced, and holds to his Bronze Age spread of Indo-European languages from West Asia (a variant of the Grigoriev thesis).


    Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci

  2. #2
    Advisor LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,295

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z2109
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    Seems like vocabulary of PIE was pastoralist in nature. This points more to Steppes as their homeland. At this time, before 4k BC, Anatolia was full of farmers already, therefore they would have had farming vocabulary too, if they had Anatolian origin.
    A homeland for PIE in the western Eurasian steppes of what is today Ukraine and southern Russia has a long history of support (Schrader 1890; Gimbutas 1970, 1977;Mallory 1989; Kortlandt 1990; Anthony 2007), initially because the reconstructed PIE vocabulary seemed to be a vocabulary of pastoralists (wool, horses, livestock, dairy foods) rather than farmers; and later because horses, domesticated in the steppes before 3500 bce (Outram et al. 2009, Anthony & Brown 2011), played a prominent role in IE ritual practices in almost every IE branch, and horses are native to and were frequently exploited by people in the Eurasian steppes. The steppe theory of PIE origins is consistent with a date for post-Anatolian PIE after 4000–3500 bce because the adoption of wheeled vehicles transformed steppe economies after this date, encouraging the rise and spread of a new form of highly mobile pastoralism that is thought to be associated with the spread of the IE languages.
    Be wary of people who tend to glorify the past, underestimate the present, and demonize the future.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Aberdeen's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-11-13
    Posts
    1,838

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I1
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H4

    Ethnic group
    Scottish, English and German
    Country: Canada-Ontario



    1 members found this post helpful.
    I like the idea of Indo-European language originating in Anatolia before 4000 BC and Indo-European culture developing from a mixture of those Anatolians and some Russian hunter gatherers on the steppes after 4000 BC. That hypothesis seems to get rid of the problems caused by assuming that IE language and the cultural traits that led to the IE expansion must have originated in the same place.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    16-02-14
    Location
    Regina
    Posts
    254

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2a1a2a1a L233
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c3

    Ethnic group
    English
    Country: Canada



    So there is this brand new paper supporting the Steppe PIE theory, then there are some bits of information from the upcoming Reich lab Yamnaya paper implying they do not believe the Yamanya were the PIE people. I am very curious to see how this all turns out.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Sile's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-09-11
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,115

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 -Z19945..Jura
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a1 ..Pannoni

    Ethnic group
    North Alpine Italian
    Country: Australia



    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-rObEjrXmke...guages-map.jpg

    this map is interesting....are they are from the what language tree?

    Also they found Luwian language in the Troas area of the NW corner, I wonder why they did not designate this.

    The Palaic is what italian scholars claim was the pre origin of venetic
    có che un pòpoło no 'l defende pi ła só łéngua el xe prónto par èser s'ciavo

    when a people no longer dares to defend its language it is ripe for slavery.

  6. #6
    Advisor LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,295

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z2109
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    Here is the list of archaeologically attested migrations out off pontic steppe, from mentioned paper. It will be interesting to see if future DNA tests will collaborate these movements as coming from same, fairly uniform genetic group. If they do, then it will be an overwhelming evidence of IE homeland.

    In contrast, the Pontic-Caspian homeland can be accommodated to the known relationships between the IE daughter branches because migrations are archaeologically documented to have occurred out of the Pontic-Caspian steppes into neighboring regions in the sequence and direction (Figure 2) that are demanded by the oldest three branchings of the IE tree (Ringe et al. 2002, p. 90). Pre-Anatolian separated to the west, into southeastern Europe, about 4200–4000 bce with the Suvorovo migration, the first archaeologically visible migration out of the steppes (Bicbaev 2010). Then Pre-Tocharian separated to the east, with the Afanasievo migration into the western Altai Mountains beginning about 3300 bce, the second archaeologically visible migration out of the Pontic-Caspian steppes, matching Ringe et al.’s and Winter’s (1998) expectation that Tocharian was the second branch to separate. After that, a cluster of western European branches separated to the west, into the Danube valley on the south side of the Carpathians with the Yamnaya migration up the Danube about 3100–2800 bce, and into southern Poland on the northern side of the Carpathians with the expansions of the Usatovo and the Tripolye C2 cultures about 3300–3000 bce (Ecsedy 1994, Mallory 1998,Klochko & Kośko 2009, Heyd 2011, Anthony 2013). These last separations match the proposal that the ancestors of Italic and Celtic (and perhaps pre-Germanic) could have separated in a rather complex phase of migrations and language spreads. The later spread of Indo-Iranian languages into Central Asia, Iran, and South Asia from the steppes after 2000 bce is the same in our hypothesis and in Plan B by Renfrew (1987, pp. 197–205), which he prefers (Renfrew 2002b, p. 6). A steppe homeland satisfies the archaeology-and-language relationship test by exhibiting archaeological evidence for migrations in the direction and sequence suggested by linguistic evidence
    Interestingly first migration is dated to 4,000 BC in pre Yamna times, into Balkans.

  7. #7
    Advisor bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,730


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    appearantly everyone sticks to his own favourite PIE theory

    IMO corded ware and andronovo are clearly expansions with origin in the Pontic Steppe
    in both expansions it is hard to deny that R1a was involved

    the origins and timing of the other expansions (Anatolian, Tocharian and R1b to western Europe) are less clear

  8. #8
    Regular Member Aberdeen's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-11-13
    Posts
    1,838

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I1
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H4

    Ethnic group
    Scottish, English and German
    Country: Canada-Ontario



    Quote Originally Posted by LeBrok View Post
    Here is the list of archaeologically attested migrations out off pontic steppe, from mentioned paper. It will be interesting to see if future DNA tests will collaborate these movements as coming from same, fairly uniform genetic group. If they do, then it will be an overwhelming evidence of IE homeland.



    Interestingly first migration is dated to 4,000 BC in pre Yamna times, into Balkans.
    Okay, so Sovorovo culture invaded the Balkans but is there proof that a group of nomads from a culture that hadn't yet managed to create chariots or bronze weapons managed to invade Anatolia? Anatolia would have already had a well developed culture, much more than the Balkans and would have been more heavily populated. It took the Greeks a long time to plant themselves in Anatolia. I'm not convinced a pre Bronze Age culture could have migrated from the Balkans to successfully invade Anatolia.

  9. #9
    Advisor LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,295

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z2109
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    Quote Originally Posted by Aberdeen View Post
    Okay, so Sovorovo culture invaded the Balkans but is there proof that a group of nomads from a culture that hadn't yet managed to create chariots or bronze weapons managed to invade Anatolia? Anatolia would have already had a well developed culture, much more than the Balkans and would have been more heavily populated. It took the Greeks a long time to plant themselves in Anatolia. I'm not convinced a pre Bronze Age culture could have migrated from the Balkans to successfully invade Anatolia.
    If I remember right from his lecture, they rode horses but didn't have wagons yet, nor were skilled in horse riding and using bow at same time. Invasions were due to depopulation of farmers more than skillful bronze warriors. It was the time of first collapse of farming, global cooling or something, but things returned to normal after couple of centuries. I don't think there was much presence and cultural change due to first invasion. Who knows if they got as far as Anatolia. David Anthony might be stretching the significance of it.

  10. #10
    Advisor bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,730


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by LeBrok View Post
    If I remember right from his lecture, they rode horses but didn't have wagons yet, nor were skilled in horse riding and using bow at same time. Invasions were due to depopulation of farmers more than skillful bronze warriors. It was the time of first collapse of farming, global cooling or something, but things returned to normal after couple of centuries. I don't think there was much presence and cultural change due to first invasion. Who knows if they got as far as Anatolia. David Anthony might be stretching the significance of it.
    if they are the same people, there was still more than 2000 years between the invasion in the Balkans and the Hitite empire.
    Troy was founded 5000 year ago, but we don't know whether the founders were IE

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    06-06-11
    Posts
    2,651

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1a*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    HV1b2

    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    This is the link to the paper itself
    http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/ful...-030514-124812

    Dienekes' take on it-Strong (?) Linguistic and Archaeological Evidence for Steppe Indo-Europeans:
    http://www.dienekes.blogspot.com/201...eological.html

    On a first, cursory reading I don't see much that is new, but it's nice to have it summarized.

    Dienekes is still not convinced, and holds to his Bronze Age spread of Indo-European languages from West Asia (a variant of the Grigoriev thesis).
    Thanks! But this info is not really new. David W. Anthony is only repeating himself without providing the new evidences. He wrote a book about this in 2007, but after that lots of new things were discovered and changed. Dienekes explains very well that David W. Anthony is interpreting the things in a very wrong way and that Anthony is making a lot of wrong assuptions by providing incorrect information. I couldn't do it better. Linguistics is actually not a real science. The perception and interpretation of the researchers could influence the outcome. Language is like art or like a painting, you can create your own world by using some imagination. They made not a long time ago a computer model and a computer calculated that PIE has to be somewhere in West Asia. Computer model has not feelings, but even computer models are biased, since they are constructed by men. Although less biased than people like David W. Anthony. DNA and genetics are far superior science than the linguistics, because it's based on tangible facts!

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    06-06-11
    Posts
    2,651

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1a*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    HV1b2

    Country: Netherlands



    DNA & genetic science is destroying the reputation of many people and is the best device to detect charlatans.

  13. #13
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    19,598


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    3 members found this post helpful.
    I've looked high and low as they say, and I've yet to find any archaeological trace of a migration from the Balkans into Anatolia for the relevant time period. There is, as Dienekes and Bicicleur pointed out, a 2,000 year gap until you get to the Hittites. I definitely think that "migration" to explain Anatolian is a stretch. Nor is there a good explanation for that 4,000 year gap between a migration to the Altai and the presence of Tocharian. In fact, I don't see where they've addressed any of the "clouds" mentioned by Mallory:
    http://www.jolr.ru/files/%28112%29jl...145-154%29.pdf

    As I've said before, I also think that much of what's written on the net about metallurgy in connection to the steppe is very simplistic and sometimes just flat out wrong. I very carefully re-read Anthony's book and the information he provides isn't as detailed or persuasive as I expected it to be from the reputation of the book.

    In the Dienekes post about this paper he references the Grigoriev books and papers. This is the link to one of them:
    Metallurgical Production in Northern Eurasia in the Bronze Age-
    https://www.academia.edu/3833400/Met...13._660_%D1%81

    The English language summary begins on page 654.

    It contains a lot of good information, although given his writing style it takes a bit of effort to organize the material in your mind. He's very helpful, in particular, in making clear the exact type of metallurgy that is found at each site. After reading the article it seems pretty clear to me that the metallurgy on the steppe was very derivative, and, in addition, it was very rudimentary until very late, into the Sintashta period, in fact. I'd be interested in hearing what the rest of you think about it.

    I think the section about the sudden appearance of an advanced form of metallurgy on the Volga, and then the disappearance of metallurgy in that area in the subsequent period is very intriguing.

    "The furnace of the Vera Island hasAnatolian analogies. But the most part of cultural features (megalithic tradition, some ceramictypes) point to Europe. However, in this period metallurgy had no further development in theUrals. Soon it degraded. Economy of hunters and shermen did not need it."

    Perhaps it marks the appearance of prospectors and metallurgists from the south for a brief period?

    Also intriguing are his comments about Yamnaya:
    After this ore smelting appeared in the Southern Urals, in Yamnaya culture. Its metalartifacts have an undoubted Circumpontic background and probable connections with the Northern Caucasus, although it is not known where here the smelting came from. The arsenicalloys were absent here, as well as slag. Technology was, probably, very archaic basing oncopper oxides and crucible smelts. But we cannot say now what it was: either regress of Caucasian technologies or borrowing from local Eneolithic metallurgy."

    I take that to mean that he feels that the metallurgy on the Steppe was rather primitive, and either was adopted from the Balkan neolithic cultures or Maykop.* If I'm interpreting it correctly, there was then a hiatus...
    "Most late in Europe, in the 3rd millennium BC, metallurgy penetrated the British Isles.In Northern Eurasia we have no evidence about smelting in this period, albeit there is a lotof metal in burials of Yamnaya and Catacomb cultures. A single known ore source of thistime was deposits in Ural sandstones. We see no serious technological transformations. But inthe west, in southern part of Eastern Europe, many metal objects were alloyed with arsenic,so they were not connected with the Southern Urals. It was especially typical of Catacombculture, and origin of this metal is unknown.In the late 3rd — early 2nd millennia BC, at the end of the Middle Bronze Age, a burstof metallurgical production started in Northern Eurasia. Its rst place was Sintashta culturein the Southern Urals where metallurgy penetrated from the Near East."

    So, can we infer from this that the metal objects in the Yamnaya and Catacomb culture burials were not, in fact, produced by them? That would put a rather different spin on the Yamnaya "Indo-Europeans" and their cultural package. It would also help to explain why there is no advanced metallurgy in early Corded Ware. It might be not only that the movement into Corded Ware areas was before the development of the "Yamnaya metallurgical package", or by related but not actually Yamnaya peoples, but that Yamnaya did not itself have the technological package, but merely bought (?) or traded (?) for the metal goods, and that the advanced metallurgy on the steppe didn't develop until much later in Sintashta (2000 BC) although still sourced from Anatolia. That's also, of course, where there is the first evidence for chariots, although four wheeled war wagons had already appeared south of the Caucasus.

    As to the genetics of all this, given all the movement of technology from the Balkans to the steppe attested to even by Anthony (agriculture, herding, metallurgy) and the movement of metallurgical technology from the south into the steppe documented by Grigoriev, it's easy to see how "farmer" type genes could have been injected into steppe populations. The long awaited paper, by analyzing the changes in the genomes over time, should help to pin down the precise sources. For example, Maykop influcence would only begin in the mid-4th millennium, yes? If a "Near Eastern" type signature shows up earlier on the eastern steppe, then we're looking at gene flow from the Caspian area sort of south to north I would think.

    The language issue is more problematical. One interesting aspect concerns the contacts between the Uralic languages and the Karvelian languages and Proto-European. Both the steppe hypothesis and the Anatolian hypothesis have to get over the hurdle of the presence of the Northeast and Northwest Caucasian languages in the Caucasus. That, and the late date for Maykop influence on the steppe is a problem for a hypothesis that Maykop was the Proto-Indo-European urheimat. If a "southern" folk movement of herders, let's say, that influenced the development of Indo-european came onto the eastern steppe, then that would neatly avoid the Caucasian speakers, and it would be older than a Maykop movement.

    Ed. * Maykop not Yamnaya
    Last edited by Angela; 04-02-15 at 23:10.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    13-07-14
    Posts
    309


    Country: Russian Federation



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by LeBrok View Post
    Interestingly first migration is dated to 4,000 BC in pre Yamna times, into Balkans.
    North Pontic(Maikop) Kurgan culture, migrated towards east Balkans(Bulgaria) in pre Yamna times
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/G.M201/permalink/10152753616688813/

  15. #15
    Regular Member Aberdeen's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-11-13
    Posts
    1,838

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I1
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H4

    Ethnic group
    Scottish, English and German
    Country: Canada-Ontario



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    I've looked high and low as they say, and I've yet to find any archaeological trace of a migration from the Balkans into Anatolia for the relevant time period. There is, as Dienekes and Bicicleur pointed out, a 2,000 year gap until you get to the Hittites. I definitely think that "migration" to explain Anatolian is a stretch. Nor is there a good explanation for that 4,000 year gap between a migration to the Altai and the presence of Tocharian. In fact, I don't see where they've addressed any of the "clouds" mentioned by Mallory:
    http://www.jolr.ru/files/%28112%29jl...145-154%29.pdf

    As I've said before, I also think that much of what's written on the net about metallurgy in connection to the steppe is very simplistic and sometimes just flat out wrong. I very carefully re-read Anthony's book and the information he provides isn't as detailed or persuasive as I expected it to be from the reputation of the book.

    In the Dienekes post about this paper he references the Grigoriev books and papers. This is the link to one of them:
    Metallurgical Production in Northern Eurasia in the Bronze Age-
    https://www.academia.edu/3833400/Met...13._660_%D1%81

    The English language summary begins on page 654.

    It contains a lot of good information, although given his writing style it takes a bit of effort to organize the material in your mind. He's very helpful, in particular, in making clear the exact type of metallurgy that is found at each site. After reading the article it seems pretty clear to me that the metallurgy on the steppe was very derivative, and, in addition, it was very rudimentary until very late, into the Sintashta period, in fact. I'd be interested in hearing what the rest of you think about it.

    I think the section about the sudden appearance of an advanced form of metallurgy on the Volga, and then the disappearance of metallurgy in that area in the subsequent period is very intriguing.

    "The furnace of the Vera Island hasAnatolian analogies. But the most part of cultural features (megalithic tradition, some ceramictypes) point to Europe. However, in this period metallurgy had no further development in theUrals. Soon it degraded. Economy of hunters and shermen did not need it."

    Perhaps it marks the appearance of prospectors and metallurgists from the south for a brief period?

    Also intriguing are his comments about Yamnaya:
    After this ore smelting appeared in the Southern Urals, in Yamnaya culture. Its metalartifacts have an undoubted Circumpontic background and probable connections with the Northern Caucasus, although it is not known where here the smelting came from. The arsenicalloys were absent here, as well as slag. Technology was, probably, very archaic basing oncopper oxides and crucible smelts. But we cannot say now what it was: either regress of Caucasian technologies or borrowing from local Eneolithic metallurgy."

    I take that to mean that he feels that the metallurgy on the Steppe was rather primitive, and either was adopted from the Balkan neolithic cultures or Maykop.* If I'm interpreting it correctly, there was then a hiatus...
    "Most late in Europe, in the 3rd millennium BC, metallurgy penetrated the British Isles.In Northern Eurasia we have no evidence about smelting in this period, albeit there is a lotof metal in burials of Yamnaya and Catacomb cultures. A single known ore source of thistime was deposits in Ural sandstones. We see no serious technological transformations. But inthe west, in southern part of Eastern Europe, many metal objects were alloyed with arsenic,so they were not connected with the Southern Urals. It was especially typical of Catacombculture, and origin of this metal is unknown.In the late 3rd — early 2nd millennia BC, at the end of the Middle Bronze Age, a burstof metallurgical production started in Northern Eurasia. Its rst place was Sintashta culturein the Southern Urals where metallurgy penetrated from the Near East."

    So, can we infer from this that the metal objects in the Yamnaya and Catacomb culture burials were not, in fact, produced by them? That would put a rather different spin on the Yamnaya "Indo-Europeans" and their cultural package. It would also help to explain why there is no advanced metallurgy in early Corded Ware. It might be not only that the movement into Corded Ware areas was before the development of the "Yamnaya metallurgical package", or by related but not actually Yamnaya peoples, but that Yamnaya did not itself have the technological package, but merely bought (?) or traded (?) for the metal goods, and that the advanced metallurgy on the steppe didn't develop until much later in Sintashta (2000 BC) although still sourced from Anatolia. That's also, of course, where there is the first evidence for chariots, although four wheeled war wagons had already appeared south of the Caucasus.

    As to the genetics of all this, given all the movement of technology from the Balkans to the steppe attested to even by Anthony (agriculture, herding, metallurgy) and the movement of metallurgical technology from the south into the steppe documented by Grigoriev, it's easy to see how "farmer" type genes could have been injected into steppe populations. The long awaited paper, by analyzing the changes in the genomes over time, should help to pin down the precise sources. For example, Maykop influcence would only begin in the mid-4th millennium, yes? If a "Near Eastern" type signature shows up earlier on the eastern steppe, then we're looking at gene flow from the Caspian area sort of south to north I would think.

    The language issue is more problematical. One interesting aspect concerns the contacts between the Uralic languages and the Karvelian languages and Proto-European. Both the steppe hypothesis and the Anatolian hypothesis have to get over the hurdle of the presence of the Northeast and Northwest Caucasian languages in the Caucasus. That, and the late date for Maykop influence on the steppe is a problem for a hypothesis that Maykop was the Proto-Indo-European urheimat. If a "southern" folk movement of herders, let's say, that influenced the development of Indo-european came onto the eastern steppe, then that would neatly avoid the Caucasian speakers, and it would be older than a Maykop movement.

    Ed. * Maykop not Yamnaya
    The problem with such a thoughtful and intelligent analysis right now is that it raises more questions than it answers, IMO. We definitely need to see the upcoming data, but I think we also need to see some DNA results from the Balkan farmers prior to 4000 BC.

  16. #16
    Elite member
    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    72
    Posts
    4,997

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Goga View Post
    Thanks! But this info is not really new. David W. Anthony is only repeating himself without providing the new evidences. He wrote a book about this in 2007, but after that lots of new things were discovered and changed. Dienekes explains very well that David W. Anthony is interpreting the things in a very wrong way and that Anthony is making a lot of wrong assuptions by providing incorrect information. I couldn't do it better. Linguistics is actually not a real science. The perception and interpretation of the researchers could influence the outcome. Language is like art or like a painting, you can create your own world by using some imagination. They made not a long time ago a computer model and a computer calculated that PIE has to be somewhere in West Asia. Computer model has not feelings, but even computer models are biased, since they are constructed by men. Although less biased than people like David W. Anthony. DNA and genetics are far superior science than the linguistics, because it's based on tangible facts!

    very astonishing views: linguistic is not a science??? some overinterpretations can produce wrong perspectives but as a whole it 's not the linguistic facts which are in doubt but the way people deduce things which cannot be deduced from these lingistic facts - every way to gather facts (archeology, genetics, linguistics, ...) can be misused by agendas or prejudices in their interpretations-

  17. #17
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    19,598


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    I just re-read my post, and perhaps I made a mistake when I said that Grigoriev might be implying that the metal objects found in later Yamnaya and Catacomb graves weren't produced by them, although it's a possibility. Perhaps it's more likely that he meant that there was no metallurgy nearer to the Urals at that time, what he calls northern Eurasia, but there was some in the western steppe areas. I really can't tell, because I don't read Russian, and the summary is rather poorly translated into English. Perhaps someone who reads Russian can enlighten us about it.

    Anyway, in broad terms I still don't think I 'm too far off in saying that if Grigoriev is correct, the Yamnaya people were hardly expert metallurgists.

    As to the urheimat, Mallory may be right that the steppe hypothesis is the "least bad" option, but it certainly has some issues, as do the others, of course.

    I'm also not as optimistic as Dienekes; I'm not so sure that the ancient dna will answer the questions definitively. People and languages don't always move in concert.

  18. #18
    Elite member
    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,384

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    I have to say, I've read the paper by Anthony and Ringe, and on the one hand I overall mostly agree with their positions, at least with the "core" vocabulary of PIE, on the other hand the paper has relatively little really new to it. However, I'll repeat what I said in the past, to the opponents of the Kurgan model: its upon you to demonstrate how the common terminology for horse, wheeled vehicle and axle ended up as a common lexical items in the various IE branches, if they were NOT part of the original PIE vocabulary.

  19. #19
    Elite member
    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    72
    Posts
    4,997

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by Goga View Post
    Thanks! But this info is not really new. David W. Anthony is only repeating himself without providing the new evidences. He wrote a book about this in 2007, but after that lots of new things were discovered and changed. Dienekes explains very well that David W. Anthony is interpreting the things in a very wrong way and that Anthony is making a lot of wrong assuptions by providing incorrect information. I couldn't do it better. Linguistics is actually not a real science. The perception and interpretation of the researchers could influence the outcome. Language is like art or like a painting, you can create your own world by using some imagination. They made not a long time ago a computer model and a computer calculated that PIE has to be somewhere in West Asia. Computer model has not feelings, but even computer models are biased, since they are constructed by men. Although less biased than people like David W. Anthony. DNA and genetics are far superior science than the linguistics, because it's based on tangible facts!

    Linguistic is a science like others - it's the wrong use of it that gives doubts - science need empiric and theoric methods, some theories are used as tools, and sometimes tools are bad, it's like that - that said, I agree with you that often scientists or scholars are ploughing out of end the same furrows -
    I 'm a bit confused when I read at the same times 2 so opposite theories like the I-Ean language being a steppic pastoral nomads language and being the language of people living near mountains and sea!!! here at least, 1 of the 2 is wrong, if not both! OR WE NEED TO SEARCH AN EURASIAN PLACE CLOSE TO STEPPES AND CLOSE TO MOUNTAINS WITH A BIG LAKE? and after all, people moved and a first stratum of vocabulary can perdure a long time after a change of place and in way of life - that could explain the caucasian and the uralic proximity of proto-I-E or I-E? it's true it ruins the accuracy of these kinds of linguistic markers for History, helas (I'm the first to reagret it)

  20. #20
    Elite member
    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    72
    Posts
    4,997

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    Sorry I correct myself, I wrote in a too enthusiastic condition (without alcohol, I say): No, in natural way of language transmission, a great change of way of life and environment, without any academy nor dictionaries, a too specialized lexicon tends to disappear or at least, tends to be changed its previous meanings, by a chain of analogies...

  21. #21
    Elite member
    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    72
    Posts
    4,997

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    I 'm too old; I answered two times to Goga repeating myself (but I gave some point to it this last time, I hope he will be pleased) -
    if it's not the alcohol, perhaps it's the need of it?
    it's true the interpretation of presence or absence of osme words and the question of their meanings transformations open the door to a broad spectrum of prejudicated affirmations! Let's have a good Sunday evening all of us!

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    24-02-15
    Posts
    245


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by LeBrok View Post
    If I remember right from his lecture, they rode horses but didn't have wagons yet, nor were skilled in horse riding and using bow at same time. Invasions were due to depopulation of farmers more than skillful bronze warriors. It was the time of first collapse of farming, global cooling or something, but things returned to normal after couple of centuries. I don't think there was much presence and cultural change due to first invasion. Who knows if they got as far as Anatolia. David Anthony might be stretching the significance of it.
    Native Americans mastered the art of riding a horse while shooting a bow in about 100 years, likely less.

    A collapse of farming happened in the Balkans when the steppe people arrived, it appears a similar thing happened in the Middle East. Climate change unfavorable for the Middle East didn't occur until 3000 BC which is when these horse tribes left the Middle East and Europe was invaded. R1a moved north bringing metal working technology? and R1b moved north from North Africa into Spain and the British Isles doing the same?

    The Bible associated apocalyptic events with horsemen though no clear written records.

  23. #23
    Advisor LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,295

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z2109
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    Quote Originally Posted by Expredel View Post
    Native Americans mastered the art of riding a horse while shooting a bow in about 100 years, likely less.
    How do you know it wasn't 300 years?

    A collapse of farming happened in the Balkans when the steppe people arrived, it appears a similar thing happened in the Middle East. Climate change unfavorable for the Middle East didn't occur until 3000 BC which is when these horse tribes left the Middle East and Europe was invaded. R1a moved north bringing metal working technology? and R1b moved north from North Africa into Spain and the British Isles doing the same?
    Nope, the farming collapsed first then invasions happen. Also metal working technology was known in Europe before invasions, which is attested by Cucuteni culture archaeology.

    The Bible associated apocalyptic events with horsemen though no clear written records.
    For that reason we should use bible as historical document.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •