Yeah I never said this. Nice try.
Nice try what?
Didn't you put Anatolian/West Asian highland together in one sentence as if there is no difference?
Either you have not much idea or you are just playing around.
This is the traditional definition of Anatolia
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/AnatolieLimits.jpg
The West Asian highlands theory which is rather connected to the region between the Zagros and Taurus mountains has nothing to do with this.
The Anatolian hypothesis believes in a early farmer origin, the West Asian pastoralist theory not. There are some thousand years in between.
Although the only real difference between the two is that one is extremely unlikely and one is impossible.
Thats what you claim, contrary to scientists and as usual you don't give any arguments to dismis it but keep claiming it is impossible without any reasoning.
If you did the same you wouldn't be confused as to what I actually posted, and what I did not.
It actually does refute the "West Asian pastoralist highlands" theory.
Nope you didn't give a
single reasonable argument. But nice try.
I never said this either.
But you claim the pastoralist lifestyle came to Yamna via "cattle stealing". So how else do you explain the 50% West Asian ancestry of Yamna? And the obvious cultural influx.
Did they stole their genes and everything else too? The most logical explanation is a migration nothing less.
Maykop is not a clone of Yamna. I don't necessarily disagree with most of your points here, except that the Leila Tepe comparison to the steppe is a huge reach for many of the same reasons that I would rule out Anatolia, or "West Asian pastoralist highlands" as a PIE homeland/language source or whatever people are trying to place there.
I wrote Yamna is a clone of Maykop, and for a large part it is. If you actually took a look at papers which appeared the last few years, you would know that Maykop has been partly build on cultural elements coming directly from NW Iran and Mesopotamia.
http://dienekes.blogspot.de/2013/06/the-maikop-singularity.html
I've actually emphasized the likely hood of his first possibility several times on these forums, however the resulting language is not consistent with one that would have arisen in the neolithic Near East, so I disagree with notion that the "proto-proto-language" (or whatever we're even talking about here) somehow originated among these "West Asian highland pastoralist".
The point is you are making the mistake that you think horse domestication in PIE is the ultimate proof that it emerged on the Steppes which is simply wrong, because by that time horse domestication was widespred and even known to ancient Sumerians by 3000 BC.
I doubt to that time there was any Steppe migration into Mesopotamia to explain this occurence. Even the first Chariots (Yes it doesn't matter if two or four wheeled because at the end of the day 2 wheels are just a modified version) occur in Western Asia.
http://sumerianshakespeare.com/media/9e52fba4c8055a72ffff80bfffffe415.jpg
OK you're just writing about languages for no reason here. No one's impressed.
Thats why I wrote
on a sidenote.
I addressed the Hittite question. Interesting theory, but inconsistent with the rest of the universe.
Thats your opinion.
And what is this little bit? I think you're the one who's confused. I'm well aware of the origin of Indo-Iranian languages and none of the useless prating you just posted has any bearing on my use of the Mitanni example.
My friend you called the language of the Mitanni Elite "Indic" simply out of the fact that you thought Indic is equivalent to Indo_Aryan. But there are Indo_Aryan tongues outside India. The only thing I get out from this, is you are using phrases you have catched up without actually background knowledge.
