Where did proto-IE language start?

Source of proto-Indo-European language

  • R1a

    Votes: 23 31.9%
  • R1b

    Votes: 22 30.6%
  • Cucuteni-Tripolye

    Votes: 10 13.9%
  • Caucasus-Mykop

    Votes: 17 23.6%

  • Total voters
    72
Don't take the Bible too seriously. If Ham was African then he is most likely Haplogroup E. Guess who his father is? Right it is Noah so he is also Haplogroup E as are all the others Shem and Japheth. It is all bogus.


Hokus Bogus at its best. If it wasn't so funny it would have been very sad. Its unbelievable the things people decided to believe :confused::grin:
 
ok you want a religious war?
Hey, this can give us a powerful clue about the inheritance of langue. Usually the dominant culture will give conquered or overrun people their language and their beliefs too. We know that Cucuteni were more of goddess loving and IE more of god loving, I'm not sure what was found in Yamnaya. Did Cucuteni had any kurgan burials? Some people say that Kurgan burials came from Maykop culture. Kurgans should fall under religion and tradition.
 
Gimbutas put PIE urheimat into Sredny Stog culture.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sredny_Stog_culture

On other side it got replaced by Yamna after 3,500 bce. On third side it made Corded Ware and battle axes 4-3.5k years ago.

So, this could be CW ancestors (not whole PIE). Early BSII speakers. Or PIE speakers whose children languages Satemised. R1a folk?
 
The thing is that whenever we find R1a and R1b in context of hunter gatherers, they are unmixed. We either find a group with only R1b or only R1a haplogroups.

It is normal thing, because HG groups are usually small, mostly families.
But as I showed you earlier, they are in the same region nearby each other.

This means that they had split and never mixed for a long long time, thousands of years ago.

Even if - they at the beginning could have one language and be one tribe.
Why it is so hard for you to accept?

The same is with Indians. Maybe they came 40, mabe 12, or maybe less thousands years ago, but when they did it,
they were probably speaking on one language, and were one tribe... so even if they cannot understand each other,
they are coming from one group of people, and their dialects are descendants from one pralanguage...

For that reason they couldn't have spoken the same language, even if they started with the same one 10 or 20 thousands years ago.

The same - maybe not, but dialects were of the same origin, which were later replaced by new dominant kurgan dialect.

And if we are talking of the last common stadium of IE, lingusts theorsied that common language could exist 4-40.000 years ago.

So it is not impossible according to your holy scientific guru's, that R1 tribe 10.000 or 20.000 y.a. wasn't speaking on PIE - as you was claiming earlier.

But as I said before - the same way one dialect could replaced others after some point of time, as for axampke Roman Lartin replaced other Italic languages.
These people are still Italics after all, as they were before... :)


This is long enough

In theory.
10 or 20 thousand years it is so huge period of time, and you even dont know which number is correct.

It is something like say: George Washington was living 10 or 20 thousands years ago.

So, when did he lived?:)

If language didn't evolve we all would still speak Adam and Eve language, or African language, depending what you believe.

So, if this is possible, that someone can belive in A&E, why did you banned a poll about similar question?

Instead we have hundreds of languages and thousands of dialects. And this points to rather fast evolution of languages.

So if you claimed that languages are fast evolving, then you make these tens or hundrets of thousands of years unemployed... :)
 
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Angela
I'm not convinced. Increasingly, I am beginning to think that Yamnaya and the whole initial Indo-European phenomenon may turn out to be a mainly, if not totally, R1b affair. It's R1a that has, in my opinion, the Uralic associations.
.



Another clue for this scenario is that there are R1b only (R1a-less) populations, like in Western Europe, but R1a is always accompanied with R1b. This could mean that IE culture came with R1b to R1a folks.
 

.



Another clue for this scenario is that there are R1b only (R1a-less) populations, like in Western Europe, but R1a is always accompanied with R1b. This could mean that IE culture came with R1b to R1a folks.
There is this tree as per one Russian user. Not sure how correct that is.
737e7a159e02.jpg
 
The Indo European langage may not be associated with any Y-DNA haplogroup so easily, because language is more likely maternal. It's more likely transmitted by mother because women took care of the children in the human family cell then it could be that IE is more linked to an Mt-haplogroup than anything-else. I always found bizarre that the Basque are mainly R1b and the language has nothing to do with IE language. It could be particular true if the family cell structure prevail in social relationship in primitive society of tribal type.
 
The Indo European langage may not be associated with any Y-DNA haplogroup so easily, because language is more likely maternal. It's more likely transmitted by mother because women took care of the children in the human family cell then it could be that IE is more linked to an Mt-haplogroup than anything-else.
That's usually the case, however in case of IE it wasn't so. You don't suppose IE invaders have send their women to every village in Europe to teach their language? And yet almost everybody speaks IE now.



I always found bizarre that the Basque are mainly R1b and the language has nothing to do with IE language. It could be particular true if the family cell structure prevail in social relationship in primitive society of tribal type.
The explanation is that not all R1b is of IE origin, not all subclades. We are starting finding R1b in bones of Mesolithic Europeans.
 
That's usually the case, however in case of IE it wasn't so. You don't suppose IE invaders have send their women to every village in Europe to teach their language? And yet almost everybody speaks IE now.



The explanation is that not all R1b is of IE origin, not all subclades. We are starting finding R1b in bones of Mesolithic Europeans.
Basque R1b belongs to R1b-L51 , it's not a basal R1b , R1b-L51 is found in Europe in early Bronze Age.
I am not sure that the language diffusion is necessarly linked to an invasion of a military elite. Let 's take a known recent example like the english language. Following the Norman invasion, the Latin and French languages took over at the beginning but the people kept talking their mother tongue and finaly the English mother tongue replaced the French and Latin every where just few centuries later. This is an example where People kept all the time talking their own maternal language.Even more, the children of mixed mariage between French men and Saxon women learned Saxon as maternal language because they were educated by their mother first. This is the main reason why the French language finaly disapeared of England. It's also true on the Norman 's side , they talked a local French, their maternal language, not Norse, the invader Dad 's language. Plenty of examples.
But it 's not alway true as I said if the social and economical environment is enough strong to sweep the maternal tongues than we can see some example where the Elite Language could take over. Nevertheless I am not sure that the military elite invasion was the main process of language diffusion all along the neolithic age.
 
Basque R1b belongs to R1b-L51 , it's not a basal R1b , R1b-L51 is found in Europe in early Bronze Age.
You are right. It's been some time I checked last time on Basque R1b. In Basque case it could have been strong maternal language which survived.

I am not sure that the language diffusion is necessarly linked to an invasion of a military elite. Let 's take a known recent example like the english language. Following the Norman invasion, the Latin and French languages took over at the beginning but the people kept talking their mother tongue and finaly the English mother tongue replaced the French and Latin every where just few centuries later. This is an example where People kept all the time talking their own maternal language.Even more, the children of mixed mariage between French men and Saxon women learned Saxon as maternal language because they were educated by their mother first. This is the main reason why the French language finaly disapeared of England. It's also true on the Norman 's side , they talked a local French, their maternal language, not Norse, the invader Dad 's language. Plenty of examples.
But it 's not alway true as I said if the social and economical environment is enough strong to sweep the maternal tongues than we can see some example where the Elite Language could take over. Nevertheless I am not sure that the military elite invasion was the main process of language diffusion all along the neolithic age.
One thing to consider is that suner or later one language will dominate another in close proximity. Often by way of elite class, commerce, education, and lingua franca bonding many minorities in bigger entity.
 
I am stunned how the maritime words like ship, boats navigation etc have commun roots with European languages. Ship is Nau in Sanskrit , Navis in Latin, Navire in French, Navigation in Sanskrit from नौगति naugathi.
According to the Kurgan theory nomad IE tribes came by land from the Northern Caucasian Steppe. They were not sailors at all. Then it 's very unlikely that these invaders comming by land replace words used by sailors in the harbour of the Indus valley and then we should not have commun roots in the maritime language with Indus valley people. This obviously not the case.
It looks like something severly fails in the Pontic Steppe origin of IE language.
 
I am stunned how the maritime words like ship, boats navigation etc have commun roots with European languages. Ship is Nau in Sanskrit , Navis in Latin, Navire in French, Navigation in Sanskrit from नौगति naugathi.
According to the Kurgan theory nomad IE tribes came by land from the Northern Caucasian Steppe. They were not sailors at all. Then it 's very unlikely that these invaders comming by land replace words used by sailors in the harbour of the Indus valley and then we should not have commun roots in the maritime language with Indus valley people. This obviously not the case.
It looks like something severly fails in the Pontic Steppe origin of IE language.
Last time I checked Caucasian Steppe borders Black and Caspian Seas, there are also huge rivers and lakes in the area. Why did you think they should mis words for a boat, ship, sea, wave, and other maritime vocabulary?
 
Last time I checked Caucasian Steppe borders Black and Caspian Seas, there are also huge rivers and lakes in the area. Why did you think they should mis words for a boat, ship, sea, wave, and other maritime vocabulary?
Because The Indus culture had already their own language in this domain , they had an important maritime culture and important harbour like Lothal with docks 5 thousand years ago. We have no evidence at all that Steppe people had any naval experience. In other hand Indus valley culture show numerous evidences in maritime domain.
Indus valley peoples were probably much more advanced than People from the Steppe in that domain at that time. I never see land invader with less maritime knowledge replacing an existing more efficient maritime culture what for?
 
Because The Indus culture had already their own language in this domain , they had an important maritime culture and important harbour like Lothal with docks 5 thousand years ago. We have no evidence at all that Steppe people had any naval experience. In other hand Indus valley culture show numerous evidences in maritime domain.
Indus valley peoples were probably much more advanced than People from the Steppe in that domain at that time. I never see land invader with less maritime knowledge replacing an existing more efficient maritime culture what for?
Are you saying that steppe people took maritime vocabulary from Dravidians and then migrated from India to end of Europe bringing this vocabulary? Why didn't they bring Dravidian DNA with them or elements of their culture?
 
I am stunned how the maritime words like ship, boats navigation etc have commun roots with European languages. Ship is Nau in Sanskrit , Navis in Latin, Navire in French, Navigation in Sanskrit from नौगति naugathi.
According to the Kurgan theory nomad IE tribes came by land from the Northern Caucasian Steppe. They were not sailors at all. Then it 's very unlikely that these invaders comming by land replace words used by sailors in the harbour of the Indus valley and then we should not have commun roots in the maritime language with Indus valley people. This obviously not the case.
It looks like something severly fails in the Pontic Steppe origin of IE language.

7 ka :
the Usatovo culture sent ships from the Black Sea to the Aegean Sea http://i.imgur.com/Rzg9r.png
Troj was probably IE

but you're right, it don't explain naval IE vocabulary in India
 
Are you saying that steppe people took maritime vocabulary from Dravidians and then migrated from India to end of Europe bringing this vocabulary? Why didn't they bring Dravidian DNA with them or elements of their culture?

I wonder if Indo-European language might come directly from Indus valley civilisation after all. Concerning Genetic hints , there are some basal R1b testers from Pakistan & India. May be Steppes people came to Indus Valley but I doubt they brought IE language with them.

We have a recent example: Steppe People were like the Barbarians invading the Roman Gaul by land crossing the Rhine in 406, and we all notice that French language kept mainly a Roman language with very few words borrowed from the Germans, because Roman Gaul were already in advance over the Invaders. Same thing between Steppes people and Indus Valley Civilsation.
I notice also some inconsistencies. The Kurgan theory predicts a 1000 BC Steppe turnover in Indus Valley, but Sanskrit writtings existed already much before 1000BC then Sanskrit could not derive from the IE brought by supposed Steppe invaders. The Rigveda is an old ancient Indian collection of Vedic Sanskrits texts older than 1000BC. The IE Sanskrit language were already there in Indus valley much before 1000BC and it was not a Dravidian language. Dravidian has nothing to do with the IE language, ship in Sanskrits is prounouced Nau, in Dravidian (Tamoul) it's Kappal with a Ka root.
The Steppe theory looks like leaking from every where.
 
I wonder if Indo-European language might come directly from Indus valley civilisation after all. Concerning Genetic hints , there are some basal R1b testers from Pakistan & India. May be Steppes people came to Indus Valley but I doubt they brought IE language with them.

We have a recent example: Steppe People were like the Barbarian invading the Roman Gaul by land and French language kept mainly a Roman language with very few words borrowed from the Germans, because Roman Gaul were already in advance over the Invaders. Same thing between Steppes people and Indus Valley.
I notice also some inconsistencies. The Kurgan theory predicts a 1000 BC Steppe turnover in Indus Valley, but Sanskrit writtings existed already before 1000BC then Sanskrits could not derive from the IE supposed Steppe invader. The Rigveda is an old ancient Indian collection of Vedic Sanskrits texts older than 1000BC. The IE Sanskrits language were already there in Indus valley much before 1000BC and it was not written in Dravidian. Dravidian has nothing to do with the IE language.
The Steppe theory leaks from every where.
Check subclades of R1b and R1a through Eurasia and their age. It is very hard to reconcile expansion of IE from India with them. Besides, we are missing Dravidian Autosomal DNA in Europe, plus many Indian haplogroups and subclades. Surely they would have hitchhiked with them all the way.
 
Check subclades of R1b and R1a through Eurasia and their age. It is very hard to reconcile expansion of IE from India with them. Besides, we are missing Dravidian Autosomal DNA in Europe, plus many Indian haplogroups and subclades. Surely they would have hitchhiked with them all the way.
I think It 's not easy to link a language to genetic based only on actual scarce data. But concerning the PIE origins, the Steppe scenario is already questionable and don't have easy answers to :
1 how does people from inland Steppe with no particular naval knowledge have replaced the langage of Indian experienced sailors, If not how come do we, European and India, have that langage in common?
2 how come the RigVeda was written in Sanskrit that is IE language during golden age of Indus Valey culture before the Steppe people supposed to bring IE language to the declining Indus valley culture after 1000BC ?
Also te RigVeda mention a lot of Naval episode it's not at all a Steppe people story, It's completly an Indus valley culture product transmited in Sanskrit an IE language, for example we could find animals like Elephant totaly unknown and meaningless to Steppe people.
 
how does people from inland Steppe with no particular naval knowledge have replaced the langage of Indian experienced sailors

The same way the rest of their language was replaced, I would imagine. It's not like all Indians lost the native terms, just (eventually) the majority.

As for Proto-Indo-European naval knowledge, we know they were familiar with boats, rowing, seas, waves, etc.

how come the RigVeda was written in Sanskrit that is IE language during golden age of Indus Valey culture before the Steppe people supposed to bring IE language to the declining Indus valley culture after 1000BC ?

I believe the migration was largely a done thing by 3,000 years ago. Dating the Rigveda to a few centuries before that poses no problem, especially as portions of it describe the conflict between incoming Aryans and the natives.

Also te RigVeda mention a lot of Naval episode it's not at all a Steppe people story, It's completly an Indus valley culture product transmited in Sanskrit an IE language, for example we could find animals like Elephant totaly unknown and meaningless to Steppe people.

Indo-Europeans weren't strangers to naval battles at that point in history, at least to the west. I don't see why it couldn't be so in the east, especially with the natives having such an advanced naval tradition to build on/co-opt.

As for elephants, what's meaningless on the steppe becomes quite relevant when the people you're fighting have tamed elephants, what? :unsure:
 

This thread has been viewed 182275 times.

Back
Top