Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011
Results 251 to 261 of 261

Thread: Anatolian Hypothesis: Lord Renfrew still a partial holdout

  1. #251
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    70
    Posts
    4,404
    Points
    39,556
    Level
    61
    Points: 39,556, Level: 61
    Level completed: 39%, Points required for next Level: 794
    Overall activity: 26.0%

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

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    Yetos, your prose is a bit 'chopped' and "short-cutting" for me - I would enjoy a more explicite language.
    That said, your knowing of Greek is interesting for me; I'm not a linguist, just I'm interested and I know what I know and ignore what I ignore; but to not polluate this thread with linguistic I propose you to open a thread in the right place? Just a suggestion.

  2. #252
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    70
    Posts
    4,404
    Points
    39,556
    Level
    61
    Points: 39,556, Level: 61
    Level completed: 39%, Points required for next Level: 794
    Overall activity: 26.0%

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

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by Olympus Mons View Post
    We take the cool aid we want. Whatever is your poison its fine. As long as ones reserves some self doubt that himself can be wrong.
    Regarding archaism, I am just stating the experts in lusitanian believe and we must remember the language is one of the few that remain not catalog. It must mean something.

    Regarding centrality of central Europe.... only if one dwells in this sort of forums as we both do.
    For instance by know we "all think" that Bell Beakers were pivot in central europe, because thats what we discuss here due to aDna sequenced in labs.... forgetting that the vast, the overwhelming majority of bell beakers sites were actually near the sea, both Atlantic sea as well as mediterranean. So, the further from the oceans the less sites ... For which we have no aDna! If anything the ones in central europe were half breeds with CWC. this creates a psychological effect of centrality. Its the world we live in. Its fine.

    Have you seen any video of 5000 of Europe. It suffices....
    does it seem at any point that central Europe is nothing but a wasteland, a white spot of nothingness,uneventful area of Europe? does it look like thats where anything comes from to those areas where we see arising ancient civilizations?

    It just confuses me.
    I like your tone!
    First of all, do'nt think I don't appreciate some of your points of view. You can understand I'm not the man of brutal affirmations or negations.
    Concerning the periods of great activity and exchanges or of isolation, I'm afraid you did not understand my point: I was trying to make evident that at Unetice times and later, Central Europe was begun a place of high activity; and that a bit after, between Urnfields and Iron/Hallstatt I think the second wave of Celtic and Italic dialects (the ones in P- I think, spite this view is debated) is the result of a part of these tribes stayed closer to Central Europe/South-East Central Europe, where the activity was dense. the more Atlantic (and West-Mediterranean) parts were AT THOSE TIMES, rather outside (not deseted but outside), what can explain more archaism in language. To me Lusitanian is only the preceding wave of IE dialects, just before the first archaic Celtic and Italic speaking waves, maybe akin to Ligurians and some Northwestern IE dialects; so maybe arrived there around the 3000 BC, not by force very earlier. I dont deny activity could have been denser on Atlantic shores before the Late Bronze/Iron age, and I DON'T FOCALIZE ON CENTRAL EUROPE BECAUSE I AM THIS OR THAT, believe me!
    Concerning DNA of western Europe (Atlantic) I agree with you we lack anDNA, but it's not my fault.
    Don't consider that every supposed "technical" detail I rise up is the proof I 'm completely against your hypothesis, it isn't the case. I'm just puzzled to date, and sceptical.

  3. #253
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class

    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,397
    Points
    6,601
    Level
    24
    Points: 6,601, Level: 24
    Level completed: 11%, Points required for next Level: 449
    Overall activity: 8.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    Dont want to say what you all have to do, but none of you being proper linguists, this topic start to look like a flat-earth hypothesis debate. Everyone gonna give some kind of arguments that lead to a logical sense, but at the end, it's just individualist ideas. I like to think that, if you know that nobody gonna convince you, even before it starts well you should start to think, if you can convince the other and if you think you can, unfortunetaly i think your overestimate yourself.

  4. #254
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    70
    Posts
    4,404
    Points
    39,556
    Level
    61
    Points: 39,556, Level: 61
    Level completed: 39%, Points required for next Level: 794
    Overall activity: 26.0%

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

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by halfalp View Post
    Dont want to say what you all have to do, but none of you being proper linguists, this topic start to look like a flat-earth hypothesis debate. Everyone gonna give some kind of arguments that lead to a logical sense, but at the end, it's just individualist ideas. I like to think that, if you know that nobody gonna convince you, even before it starts well you should start to think, if you can convince the other and if you think you can, unfortunetaly i think your overestimate yourself.
    I did the right suggestion a bit before you. I was only answering Yetos about its doubts about reconstruction of words and their possible implication in localization of PIE, proposing some possible solutions concerning words, no more. That said, you' re right here. Nevertheless, more generally, the concern of supposed age of presence of languages here and there is relevant to this thread.

  5. #255
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class

    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,397
    Points
    6,601
    Level
    24
    Points: 6,601, Level: 24
    Level completed: 11%, Points required for next Level: 449
    Overall activity: 8.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    Quote Originally Posted by MOESAN View Post
    I did the right suggestion a bit before you. I was only answering Yetos about its doubts about reconstruction of words and their possible implication in localization of PIE, proposing some possible solutions concerning words, no more. That said, you' re right here. Nevertheless, more generally, the concern of supposed age of presence of languages here and there is relevant to this thread.
    Yep you are right, we know that Yamnaya was the source of all modern indo-european languages and we know that indo-european languages have loanwords or just words in common, borrowing or giving to other language families and i think this is the only thing we gonna have about indo-european languages. If it's corpus came from anatolia or iran or steppe or if its a paleolithic continuity, we never gonna know, actually, wathever you take in mind, we never gonna know, the big stones of indo-european language hypothesis have been put in earth for few years now and i dont know why people try to explain some early split with some random mutations wich is the core of the humanity and even life, things evolved, only languages wright stay intact, but vehicular language always evolved. Now, some people gonna re-argue for a lot of reasons what was study for years by eminent linguists.

  6. #256
    Moderator Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Most Popular

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,727
    Points
    26,994
    Level
    50
    Points: 26,994, Level: 50
    Level completed: 45%, Points required for next Level: 556
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Olympus Mons View Post
    Lets apply that to all linguistics, shall we? Where would that lead us? Celtic being actually the oldest PIE? So all PIE is from ireland? :)
    "doesn't necessarily mean" is very complicated in this sort of discussion where nobody really "knows" anything.
    Very wrong comparison, especially because my point is exactly that there can be more innovative or more conservative dialects in the homeland - or not. This argument is simply too weak to be meaningful to a discussion about the Urheimat of PIE. Conservative phonology has very little or nothing to do with being closer to the homeland of a language, and every linguist knows that through many, many examples. You simply can't telll about the origins of a language based on which dialect is the most conservative. This depends on many circumstances, including mere chance. Also, Celtic is not particularly conservative (compare with Balto-Slavic) nor particularly innovative (compare with Armenian) among the IE languages, and the scientific consensus never had Celtic arising in Ireland, but in Central Europe. So, your comment, honestly, is entirely meaningless in terms of linguistics.

  7. #257
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    04-09-16
    Posts
    491
    Points
    1,935
    Level
    12
    Points: 1,935, Level: 12
    Level completed: 29%, Points required for next Level: 215
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Portugal



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    ..... So, your comment, honestly, is entirely meaningless in terms of linguistics.
    I would imagine it is.
    The problem with yours is that you raise endless possibilities, multitude of options, that applied to, for all purposes, a world of unknowns and feeble connection between linguistics and archaeology ina context of such a thing as the aDna (the reason why are here) renders it meaningless as well, does it not?

  8. #258
    Moderator Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Most Popular

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,727
    Points
    26,994
    Level
    50
    Points: 26,994, Level: 50
    Level completed: 45%, Points required for next Level: 556
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Olympus Mons View Post
    I would imagine it is.
    The problem with yours is that you raise endless possibilities, multitude of options, that applied to, for all purposes, a world of unknowns and feeble connection between linguistics and archaeology ina context of such a thing as the aDna (the reason why are here) renders it meaningless as well, does it not?
    No, because unlike you I am presenting the multitude of options exactly to demonstrate how weakly supported these associations are, and not trying to make any claim about the urheimat of PIE based on simply a few phonetic archaisms of a language spoken some 2,500-3,000 years after PIE even existed, when linguistics has already reached a consensus that phonetic innovations or archaisms are not directly related to one's distance or closeness to the urheimat. So, most definitely, no, i doesn't render my comment meaningless, because I'm not making any hypothesis out of thin air. Now, if we keep discussing only about genetics or about really useful clues from linguistics (like the cultural vocabulary), we'll have more worthy hypotheses to discuss about.

  9. #259
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    04-09-16
    Posts
    491
    Points
    1,935
    Level
    12
    Points: 1,935, Level: 12
    Level completed: 29%, Points required for next Level: 215
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Portugal



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    No, because unlike you I am presenting the multitude of options exactly to demonstrate how weakly supported these associations are, and not trying to make any claim about the urheimat of PIE based on simply a few phonetic archaisms of a language spoken some 2,500-3,000 years after PIE even existed. So, most definitely, no, i doesn't render my comment meaningless, because I'm not making any hypothesis out of thin air.
    I, on the other hand, postulate things that will become a proposition of true or false in relativly short period of time. And postulate propositions trumps very easily endless “error Detection” statements, does it not?
    Propositions are important, because are true or false and never both.

    1. Will the Shulaveri yield Y-dna (R1b) and autosomes that enable them to be a source to steppe of language and people as well as to other places in Europe, or not.
    2. Will Merimde beni Salama, return Y-dna (r1b) and autosomes that enable them to be linked to Shulaveri and as well as one of the sources of people (massively) arriving to Iberia in 3500bc or not.
    3. Will VNSP, Zambujal and proper bell beakers in Portugal yield R1b-M269-P312 or not!


    I make bold predictions, and because of it God knows how easy and close I might be of being completely wrong, but propositions all the same – They will be true or false, never both!

  10. #260
    Moderator Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Most Popular

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,727
    Points
    26,994
    Level
    50
    Points: 26,994, Level: 50
    Level completed: 45%, Points required for next Level: 556
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Olympus Mons View Post
    I, on the other hand, postulate things that will become a proposition of true or false in relativly short period of time. And postulate propositions trumps very easily endless “error Detection” statements, does it not?
    Propositions are important, because are true or false and never both.

    1. Will the Shulaveri yield Y-dna (R1b) and autosomes that enable them to be a source to steppe of language and people as well as to other places in Europe, or not.
    2. Will Merimde beni Salama, return Y-dna (r1b) and autosomes that enable them to be linked to Shulaveri and as well as one of the sources of people (massively) arriving to Iberia in 3500bc or not.
    3. Will VNSP, Zambujal and proper bell beakers in Portugal yield R1b-M269-P312 or not!


    I make bold predictions, and because of it God knows how easy and close I might be of being completely wrong, but propositions all the same – They will be true or false, never both!
    Calm down, I didn't even make any claims (positive or negative) about all these propositions that you wrote now. What does all of it have to do with linguistic conservativeness in Lusitanian? No direct nor logic relation at all. I'm just telling you that pointing out archaisms of Lusitanian as evidence for its being older than other branches or closer to the source of Indo-European languages in Europe is weak agument, considering that there is no proved relation between archaic/conservative and original/authentic/urheimat in historical linguistics. Now, if you don't care about what professionals in that field say and think that anything goes to prove your propositions, okay, it's your right, but it's also other people's right to point out the irrelevance of this particular argument (not others that you have).

    Don't get offended because just some of your propositions are not perceived as even plausible. You should welcome such observations at least if you want your hypothesis to look solid and well reasoned, and not just a massive and unconnected combination of mere possibilities.

    By the way, as I already told earlier I also tend to think that Shulaveri-Shomu is one of the most probable sources of the R1b and the CHG shift in PIE peoples on the steppe, but I will not agree blindly with everything you say or propose just because you may, in my opinion, be actually right in your main (and boldest) claim.

  11. #261
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    04-02-18
    Posts
    110
    Points
    1,652
    Level
    11
    Points: 1,652, Level: 11
    Level completed: 34%, Points required for next Level: 198
    Overall activity: 5.0%


    Country: USA - Connecticut



    Hunting and gathering starts when a date is close enough to taste. Yet at times we have to speculate. What surprising is for how long an idea exist in the next day it could be a notion.
    I'm trying to connect as many pieces as I can find but at times I'm sure that being new easily makes mistakes.

    Another look at the genetic structure of Yamnaya


    Yamnaya and other similar Eneolithic/Bronze Age herder groups from the Eurasian steppe were mostly a mixture of Eastern European Hunter-Gatherers (EGG) and Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers (CHG). But they also harbored minor ancestry from at least one, significantly more westerly, source that pulled them away from the EHG > CHG north/south genetic cline. This is easy to show with formal statistics (for instance, refer to the qpAdm output here) and illustrate with a decent Principal Component Analysis (PCA).

    Over the past couple of years I've come to the conclusion that this minor westerly input probably came from the Carpathian Basin (modern-day Hungary) or somewhere nearby, like the Balkans (see here).

    However, this inference was based on just a handful of Neolithic samples from the Carpathian Basin. Now, thanks to Lipson et al. 2017, I have genotype data from tens of individuals from several different Neolithic and Copper Age cultures from the region. So let's revisit the issue by plugging these new samples into qpAdm, and also using the very latest qpAdm methods as described in scientific literature (with Ethiopia_4500BP as the base pright sample to 15 other ancient pright groups and individuals).

    Below are the results, best to worst, sorted by taildiff. For comparison, I ran extra models with ancient populations from other parts of Europe and also West Asia. It's interesting and, I'd say, important to note that the West Asian reference groups produce amongst the worse statistical fits (bolded). What this suggests is that Yamnaya did not harbor extra West Asian ancestry on top of its CHG input. And, by the way, please note that I'm only using Yamnaya_Samara in these runs because I prefer UDG-treated, and thus higher quality, ancient samples.

Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011

Posting Permissions

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