Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 261

Thread: Anatolian Hypothesis: Lord Renfrew still a partial holdout

  1. #101
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class

    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,397
    Points
    6,589
    Level
    24
    Points: 6,589, Level: 24
    Level completed: 8%, Points required for next Level: 461
    Overall activity: 7.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    Quote Originally Posted by Olympus Mons View Post
    Halalp,
    There were natural barriers in Anatolia. There was a thick forrest that separated the Barcin Region (south) to the people living in south Black sea shores (like eg Fikirtepe) ,reason why agriculture jumped over thrace and somehow south Balkans. And yes, that is key and you are very correct. This is may take, just to reiterate.

    1. Mesolithic pop, from Balkans/thrace, during 7th millennia moved on east to south shores of black sea and like Iron gates they had lots of R1b. Hence the “srange” highly pastoral life style of Ovogorata, fikirtepe, Hogostihim, etc (conolly et al 2012)
    2. During 6th millennia they materialize in the form of Shulaveri-Shomu in south Caucasus. So a population of R1b. We do not have Y-dna (yet) but already know that they were “diferent” in terms of MtDna. H2+152, H15a1 and I1…. Not at all a local boys in Anatolia/Caucasus. This Mtdna is later associated with Steppe/yamnaya.
    3. When Shulaveri disappeared from south Caucasus in the beginning of 5th millennia (4900bc they were gone) some moved back to south shores Balck sea (hence KUM6 with Mtdna H2a) and some, lots, just like you said, move up north from Kuban river region. I truly don’t know if they already had much CHG (KUM6 shows they did, but not that much) but they did mingle with a “completely” CHG pop that might be in Kuban river and surroundings. Because from Kotias to Shulaveri there is a period where the south Caucasus shows not many people. Anyways Lazaridis still talks about CHG/Iran Neolithic)

    However, these guys show up, 500-1000 years later mixed in so many steppe cultures, most still understudied, some ending up as Yamnaya. That is the reason why Steppe R1b sub clades, died in Steppe! But not language. Highly pastoral dads do not teach language. Their mothers do. That is why Y-dna was lost there, but not their language. Exogamy ruled.

    1. So by these time (4900BC) you already have a PIE population, with R1b-(L23+) , moving into steppe, also moving back to Anatolia (north)… and other places, but that is a different story.
    But it doesn't really make sense, because if R1b was in Thrace and Northern Anatolia in the time of Neolithic, they would come in Europe with all the other Neolithic y-dna haplogroups and be part of the EEF. It looks more like the Iron Gates HG were pushed north in Baltic and Steppic area and by there have a reexpansion by a population ( older than Yamnaya ) somehwere in Ciscaucasia / North Caspian with the newly CHG component. You are right for the specific mtdna haplogroups, but admit that R1b-Z2013 or R1b-L23 would be in Ciscaucasia they could be largely influenced by the Shulaveri-Shomu Culture. Also Shulaveri-Shomu have a lot of cultural trait that are totally absent from the steppe, like cremation in a giant Jar.

  2. #102
    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 halfalp View Post
    But it doesn't really make sense, .... totally absent from the steppe, like cremation in a giant Jar.
    Hi ,
    No, It makes all the sense.
    a. Don’t know where you go that idea. Shulaveri burial were all in crouch position in inhouse pits (except one, in a large pit with several inhumations also in crouch positions.
    b. You didn’t read carefully - Agricultural initial spread from Anatolia, skipped, jumped over, hopped, over Thrace and north Anatolia. North Anatolia/thrace, strangely enough, had agricultural sort of late. It went from Barcin into Greece and further way. It even looks like there was a back migration into north Anatolia of agricultural coming from the Balkans (7th M). That is what I said. That back migration came from Balkans (Bulgaria) an shores of Black sea.
    That is why I say that the back migration is the “SPELT” migration. Because you find Spelt in the Balkans (like in Vinca), at the same time you find Spelt with the Shulaveri in south Caucasus. Spelt, always follow SPELT

  3. #103
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class

    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,397
    Points
    6,589
    Level
    24
    Points: 6,589, Level: 24
    Level completed: 8%, Points required for next Level: 461
    Overall activity: 7.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    Quote Originally Posted by Olympus Mons View Post
    Hi ,No, It makes all the sense.a. Don’t know where you go that idea. Shulaveri burial were all in crouch position in inhouse pits (except one, in a large pit with several inhumations also in crouch positions. b. You didn’t read carefully - Agricultural initial spread from Anatolia, skipped, jumped over, hopped, over Thrace and north Anatolia. North Anatolia/thrace, strangely enough, had agricultural sort of late. It went from Barcin into Greece and further way. It even looks like there was a back migration into north Anatolia of agricultural coming from the Balkans (7th M). That is what I said. That back migration came from Balkans (Bulgaria) an shores of Black sea. That is why I say that the back migration is the “SPELT” migration. Because you find Spelt in the Balkans (like in Vinca), at the same time you find Spelt with the Shulaveri in south Caucasus. Spelt, always follow SPELT
    There is no way, that two different population were neighbour in a place like Anatolia without influence themselves. But i guess everything's gonna be clear when the Caucasus study gonna be out. I can feel for sure that there is no way that transcaucasia before Yamnaya was R1b, just because of the history of haplogroup J in general. But hey ! who fought Baltic and Iron Gates HG were R1b before the studies, so who knows.

  4. #104
    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 halfalp View Post
    There is no way, that two different population were neighbour in a place like Anatolia without influence themselves. But i guess everything's gonna be clear when the Caucasus study gonna be out. I can feel for sure that there is no way that transcaucasia before Yamnaya was R1b, just because of the history of haplogroup J in general. But hey ! who fought Baltic and Iron Gates HG were R1b before the studies, so who knows.
    Fst between Neolithic anatolia and Neolithic Iran was as big as a german and a Japanese today. And they lived for millennia 100 miles apart.

    I agree. we will see. But I am sure we will have lots more surprises before all this is clear.

  5. #105
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    17-03-16
    Posts
    526
    Points
    5,076
    Level
    21
    Points: 5,076, Level: 21
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 474
    Overall activity: 30.0%


    Country: Greece



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    I wrote the following, which is partly relevant:
    https://adaemon.wordpress.com/2018/01/05/the-horse-the-wheel-and-r-s-p-beekes/

    ‘Comparative Indo-European Linguistics – An Introduction’ is a book written originally by Robert S.P. Beekes.

    Its second edition is revised and corrected by Michiel de Vaan.The book has a ‘primarily didactic character’ (see the Preface of the second edition) and that according to Michiel de Vaan means that someone shouldn’t expect to find references for all claims made. That is an interesting idea.

    The Chapter 3 (p. 35-54) of the second edition is titled ‘The Culture and Origin of the Indo-Europeans’.It is generally based on the idea that we can use the ‘PIE vocabulary’ (reconstructed forms based on words that have survived but often not in all daughter languages and sometimes with shifted meaning). That seems almost ok if it is done with caution but we will see what it means for them.

    No Cities
    “Indo-Europeans”, they say, “didn’t have cities” even though “There is one word which seems to mean a similar concept, *p(o)lH- (Skt. pū́r, Lith. pilìs, Gr. pólis)”, they “know that this word in the beginning only referred to an enclosed space, often situated on high ground (cf. Greek akrópolis), where people retreated in times of danger.”They don’t mention how they know it though but I won’t focus on it. It would suffice to say though that we find the meaning ‘city’ in Greek, Sanskrit, Thracian (see the suffix -para often found in Thracian toponyms). Along with the data from Baltic languages (Lithuanian pilis, for example, means palace, castle, stronghold) we may reconstruct an original meaning ‘enclosed settlement’.

    Houses made from wood
    After informing us that the word for house was *dom and that “from that root we also have Goth. timrjan ‘to carpenter'”, they say that “without any doubt, the houses must have been made from wood”. That “without any doubt… must have been” seems interesting. No argument is used here. Now, I don’t know what materials ‘Indo-Europeans’ could have used but their certainty comes out of nowhere. At least, no linguistic argument can be used.

    Cows and horses
    Concerning domestic animals they say that “the most important domesticated animal was the cow *gweh3us" but also “hardly less important was the sheep *h3euis, we also know the word for ‘lamb’ *h2egwno" etc. How do they know that ‘the most important domesticated animal was the cow?’

    And why don’t they use a linguistic argument to support it (here they could say for example that the word survives in many daughter languages).

    Another claim out of nothing is the following “The horse was certainly the animal which more than any other characterized the Indo-Europeans”. What type of linguistic data can prove that statement to be true? No such data exist or can exist.

    The same is true about the statement “The favorite domestic animal was without any doubt the ‘dog’, *ḱuōn”. Even though that is something very easy to believe, linguistic data just show that a word that meant ‘dog’ existed.

    The wheel
    Again after mentioning the reconstructed words for ‘carry, ride’ and ‘wheel’ etc. they say: “There is no question that we are dealing here with massive (as opposed to spoked) wheels, that is to say, wheels which were made out of one whole piece of wood ,such as that found in DeEese in Drenthe in the northeast of the Netherlands (from about 2400 B.C.), or with wheels made of planks of wood.”

    And if I have doubts what is the argument that will convince me? I have to trust the Dutch scholars that the wheels Indo-Europeans had were like those found in in DeEese in Drenthe from about 2400 B.C.A large part of what they write concerning the culture of ‘Indo-Europeans’ are speculations based on their preconceived ideas and fantasies.

    They have to admit some things though, for example that ‘Indo-Europeans’ seem to have been acquainted with agriculture, that words for weapons or gold and silver (at least) can’t be reconstructed etc., because otherwise the ideological character of the book would have been too evident.

    The ideological character of the book is evident also because after or before even mentioning theories they don’t agree with like those of Gamkrelidze and Ivanov or Renfrew they write things like “but this theory is in fact very improbable”, “extremely improbable is the theory of the British archaeologist…” etc.

    When they mention things Theodor Poeschke or Karl Penka wrote (they connected Indo-Europeans to blond and blue-eyed people) they don’t make any similar assessments but just say “We see here how considerations originating in physical anthropology played a role”(Whatever may follow that remark, in parentheses, probably serves as a diversion)

  6. #106
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class

    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,397
    Points
    6,589
    Level
    24
    Points: 6,589, Level: 24
    Level completed: 8%, Points required for next Level: 461
    Overall activity: 7.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    Quote Originally Posted by Olympus Mons View Post
    Fst between Neolithic anatolia and Neolithic Iran was as big as a german and a Japanese today. And they lived for millennia 100 miles apart.

    I agree. we will see. But I am sure we will have lots more surprises before all this is clear.
    Yes i know both were distinct population, but i dont understand your point, you assume Neolithic Iran were R1b ?

  7. #107
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class

    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,397
    Points
    6,589
    Level
    24
    Points: 6,589, Level: 24
    Level completed: 8%, Points required for next Level: 461
    Overall activity: 7.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    For me the flaw of the " Middle-Eastern " origin of R1b is that i can't conceive that, R1b from Central Asia -> Iran -> Transcaucasia -> Anatolia -> Balkans. If that scenario was the case, we would see way more Middle-Eastern maternal but also paternal lineage in Mesolithic Europe linking with R1b, wich is not the case. No population wanders in land in the search of the perfect Eden paradise, without stoping, they would stop at every place that would be a good living, once again they would take in passage a lot of Middle-Eastern maternal lineage. Look just at Neolithic Europe, G2a2 ok but also H2, E, T, F... Once again, we would see a lot of other Middle-Eastern paternal and maternal markers. Wich is not the case. The northern road doesn't have this flaw, because we assume that R haplogroup was the late paleolithic original Central Asian / Northern Asian paternal marker, that would have some classic paleolithic U maternal lineage markers like U2, U5a maybe U4 but also some siberian one, that we found in Mesolithic Eastern Europe like C. For me all this only show a classic case of " Neighboring ", Balkans and Anatolia exchanging some genetic and maybe Ciscaucasia and Transcaucasia doing the same, that after a lot of years reduced the genetic distant between europe and middle-east.

  8. #108
    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 halfalp View Post
    Yes i know both were distinct population, but i dont understand your point, you assume Neolithic Iran were R1b ?
    Point is: in neolithic/mesolithic very close by populations were very, very, different.
    And we have still very few samples.

  9. #109
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class

    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,397
    Points
    6,589
    Level
    24
    Points: 6,589, Level: 24
    Level completed: 8%, Points required for next Level: 461
    Overall activity: 7.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    Quote Originally Posted by Olympus Mons View Post
    Point is: in neolithic/mesolithic very close by populations were very, very, different.
    And we have still very few samples.
    Well not so close, we dont know the exact range of the CHG-like population wich could be all Transcaucasia and being a genetic border between Anatolian who receive WHG genetic input and Iran. The question is, is Anatolian Neolithic and Iran Neolithic the same population genetically as Anatolian and Iran Mesolithic.

  10. #110
    Regular Member Achievements:
    OverdriveVeteranThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Yetos's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-10-11
    Location
    Makedonia
    Posts
    5,209
    Points
    40,464
    Level
    62
    Points: 40,464, Level: 62
    Level completed: 9%, Points required for next Level: 1,186
    Overall activity: 31.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    G2a3a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    X2b

    Ethnic group
    Makedonian original
    Country: Greece



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    Each of them needs to be analysed by itself, but I'd say the possibilities are also the same if those words are also as similar and thus apparently not very ancient nor ancestral to the IE languages: loanwords from one IE language, substrate language a pre-IE language family, IE innovation to name a new concept or object (in that case, a tree found in their newly conquered territories) and eventually spread only through some dialects of IE (areal features, Sprachbound and all of that). I don't really think that all words shared by only a few IE languages or branches must go back to the very original PIE stage or to supposedly different PIE early languages.

    As for "hippos", the problem is only that this [h] is unexplained. Mycenaean Greek as you say did not have it. Greek, at least Attic Greek as it was also reminded for us, had "hippos" when the normally expected evolution from Mycenaean "íkkos" would've been simply "ippos", with no [h].

    same is with Latin and celtic

    equus
    Hepphew

    it is not the (h) BUT THE CHANGE Q->P which happens only in celtic and Greek

    so instead of 'unexplained' (h) I suggest search the change Q->P
    cause possibly even Latins were not a Yamnaa pop
    ΟΘΕΝ ΑΙΔΩΣ OY EINAI
    ΑΤΗ ΛΑΜΒΑΝΕΙΝ ΑΥΤΟΙΣ
    ΥΒΡΙΣ ΓΕΝΝΑΤΑΙ
    ΝΕΜΕΣΙΣ ΚΑΙ ΤΙΣΗ ΑΚΟΛΟΥΘΟΥΣΙ ΔΕ

    When there is no shame
    Divine blindness conquers them
    Hybris (abuse, opprombium) is born
    Nemesis and punishment follows.

    Εχε υπομονη Ηρωα
    Η τιμωρια δεν αργει.

  11. #111
    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 Yetos View Post
    same is with Latin and celtic

    equus
    Hepphew

    it is not the (h) BUT THE CHANGE Q->P which happens only in celtic and Greek

    so instead of 'unexplained' (h) I suggest search the change Q->P
    cause possibly even Latins were not a Yamnaa pop
    Sorry, I did not understand your point. The change kw > p had at least 2,500 years between Early Yamna and Gaulish, for example, to happen, and as for the Latins their early form *equos was astoundingly similar to the reconstructed PIE *hekwos.

    I did not get what you mean saying that "same is with Latin and Celtic". Latin and P-Celtic were distinct languages for perhaps 1,500-2,000 years when they were attested. And Proto-Celtic was almost certainly similar to Latin on the presence of *kw. After all, we still have Q-Celtic languages nowadays, where no change from kw > p happened at all.

    That indicates, of course, that the forms like *epos and others of that kind are very late innovations, dating to even after the breakup of Proto-Celtic, which was itself a relatively late language, possibly dating only to the Urnfield culture (around 1,200 BC, i.e. som 2,000 years later than Yamna). The change from [kw] to [p] was late both in SOME, only SOME Celtic languages, and even in Greek (Mycenaean Greek did not have this change yet). Also this simple shift does not indicate strongly a common descent or even a mutual influence. It is a very common, unsurprising change, and it also happened in Romanian from Vulgar Latin (aqua > apa), without any need for Greek or Celtic influence. It happened even earlier in Oscan distinguishing it from other Italic languages like Latin (L. quis vs. O. pis).

    P.S: What is this form *hepphew that you wrote? From what language is it? I can't identify it and it does not look Celtic. Celtic words for "horse" are all very straightforwardly derived from the PIE *hek'wos and Proto-Celtic reconstructed *ekwos: eb, ech, each, epos, ep, ekua-... I never saw a variant with [h], certainly not in Italic and Celtic.

  12. #112
    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
    However, these guys show up, 500-1000 years later mixed in so many steppe cultures, most still understudied, some ending up as Yamnaya. That is the reason why Steppe R1b sub clades, died in Steppe! But not language. Highly pastoral dads do not teach language. Their mothers do. That is why Y-dna was lost there, but not their language. Exogamy ruled.

    1. So by these time (4900BC) you already have a PIE population, with R1b-(L23+) , moving into steppe, also moving back to Anatolia (north)… and other places, but that is a different story.
    Can you explain this point again? I don't get: whose Y-DNA was lost there in the steppes? That of supposedly R1b Shulaveri-Shomu mixed with local steppe tribes? Or do you mean that at least some steppe R1b tribes belonged to rare subclades replaced by the R1b subclades of Shulaveri-Shomu that would eventually boom, but the Proto-Indo-European language of steppe natives survived due to their mothers teaching it to their mixed children? Isn't CHG introgression supposed to have been bigger through the maternal line and not the paternal one, suggesting that any "southerner"incomers came with a lot of women?

  13. #113
    Regular Member Achievements:
    OverdriveVeteranThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Yetos's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-10-11
    Location
    Makedonia
    Posts
    5,209
    Points
    40,464
    Level
    62
    Points: 40,464, Level: 62
    Level completed: 9%, Points required for next Level: 1,186
    Overall activity: 31.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    G2a3a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    X2b

    Ethnic group
    Makedonian original
    Country: Greece



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    Sorry, I did not understand your point. The change kw > p had at least 2,500 years between Early Yamna and Gaulish, for example, to happen, and as for the Latins their early form *equos was astoundingly similar to the reconstructed PIE *hekwos.

    I did not get what you mean saying that "same is with Latin and Celtic". Latin and P-Celtic were distinct languages for perhaps 1,500-2,000 years when they were attested. And Proto-Celtic was almost certainly similar to Latin on the presence of *kw. After all, we still have Q-Celtic languages nowadays, where no change from kw > p happened at all.

    That indicates, of course, that the forms like *epos and others of that kind are very late innovations, dating to even after the breakup of Proto-Celtic, which was itself a relatively late language, possibly dating only to the Urnfield culture (around 1,200 BC, i.e. som 2,000 years later than Yamna). The change from [kw] to [p] was late both in SOME, only SOME Celtic languages, and even in Greek (Mycenaean Greek did not have this change yet). Also this simple shift does not indicate strongly a common descent or even a mutual influence. It is a very common, unsurprising change, and it also happened in Romanian from Vulgar Latin (aqua > apa), without any need for Greek or Celtic influence. It happened even earlier in Oscan distinguishing it from other Italic languages like Latin (L. quis vs. O. pis).

    P.S: What is this form *hepphew that you wrote? From what language is it? I can't identify it and it does not look Celtic. Celtic words for "horse" are all very straightforwardly derived from the PIE *hek'wos and Proto-Celtic reconstructed *ekwos: eb, ech, each, epos, ep, ekua-... I never saw a variant with [h], certainly not in Italic and Celtic.

    ygorcs

    it is more simple
    there is a change when Yamnaas reach W and S Europe IE languages
    or another wave came at iron age that spoke different aspirations than the previous bronze age IE
    it is called Q->P change
    before Yamnaans the aspirations was Q after Yamnaas change to P
    understanding that, IE was spoken to S Europe


    as for the law you mention about 'e' and about the phonetic at the end

    watch this
    Latin minus (yodization?)
    Greek Μειον meion (no yodization)

    but Greek ippos but Epos
    Celtic Hepphew but Epona

    Mycenean ikkos (yodization)
    Latin equus (no yodization)

    what kind of phonetic law is the above?
    minus bur meion
    equus but ikkos
    we speak about phonetics not aspirations of inner IE language evolution
    so Latin shows yodization with nose vowel like n m even Italian do such compare - ini
    while Greek prefer ε η ο with μ ν
    and show yodization with older διγαμμα w,

    North Europe auruch
    S europe tauros


    watch this for the phonoental pronouncation

    Ὁ δ’ ἠλίθιος ὥσπερ πρόβατον βῆ βῆ λέγων βαδίζει! (Κρατινος ο Αθηναιος)
    a cow Μυκαται
    but a goat μηκαται




    Last edited by Yetos; 06-01-18 at 20:24.

  14. #114
    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 Yetos View Post
    ygorcs
    it is more simple
    there is a change when Yamnaas reach W and S Europe IE languages
    or another wave came at iron age that spoke different aspirations than the previous bronze age IE
    it is called Q->P change
    As I already said above, this change is too late to have anything to do with Yamna. Proto-Italic and Proto-Celtic, which were already too late to be still Yamna or Yamna going to the west and south (both of those proto-languages are just the few surviving remnants of a much earlier western or possibly central European IE, dating to around 1,200-1,000 BC, almost 2,000 years after Yamna). And both Proto-Italic and Proto-Celtic HAD *KW (*qu) and many Celtic and Italic languages RETAINED THE QU- form (see Latin and Irish). ​Only some of them, way after the breakup of PIT and PCE, changed the *kw into a *p. That happened milennia after Yamna and well into the Iron Age. So, I don't think you can derive any hypothesis from this late and, actually, very repeatedly occurring sound change.

  15. #115
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    70
    Posts
    4,406
    Points
    40,005
    Level
    61
    Points: 40,005, Level: 61
    Level completed: 74%, Points required for next Level: 345
    Overall activity: 13.0%

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

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    Sorry, I did not understand your point. The change kw > p had at least 2,500 years between Early Yamna and Gaulish, for example, to happen, and as for the Latins their early form *equos was astoundingly similar to the reconstructed PIE *hekwos.

    I did not get what you mean saying that "same is with Latin and Celtic". Latin and P-Celtic were distinct languages for perhaps 1,500-2,000 years when they were attested. And Proto-Celtic was almost certainly similar to Latin on the presence of *kw. After all, we still have Q-Celtic languages nowadays, where no change from kw > p happened at all.

    That indicates, of course, that the forms like *epos and others of that kind are very late innovations, dating to even after the breakup of Proto-Celtic, which was itself a relatively late language, possibly dating only to the Urnfield culture (around 1,200 BC, i.e. som 2,000 years later than Yamna). The change from [kw] to [p] was late both in SOME, only SOME Celtic languages, and even in Greek (Mycenaean Greek did not have this change yet). Also this simple shift does not indicate strongly a common descent or even a mutual influence. It is a very common, unsurprising change, and it also happened in Romanian from Vulgar Latin (aqua > apa), without any need for Greek or Celtic influence. It happened even earlier in Oscan distinguishing it from other Italic languages like Latin (L. quis vs. O. pis).

    P.S: What is this form *hepphew that you wrote? From what language is it? I can't identify it and it does not look Celtic. Celtic words for "horse" are all very straightforwardly derived from the PIE *hek'wos and Proto-Celtic reconstructed *ekwos: eb, ech, each, epos, ep, ekua-... I never saw a variant with [h], certainly not in Italic and Celtic.
    What makes you so sure of independant evolution Kw-/P in Europe (at least)? it seems all the pops or parts of pops who knowed this evolution have had very possible contacts around Hungary at beginning of IA or between Urnfields and IA. I would be more prudent here.
    No offense, jus a point.

  16. #116
    Regular Member Achievements:
    OverdriveVeteranThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Yetos's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-10-11
    Location
    Makedonia
    Posts
    5,209
    Points
    40,464
    Level
    62
    Points: 40,464, Level: 62
    Level completed: 9%, Points required for next Level: 1,186
    Overall activity: 31.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    G2a3a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    X2b

    Ethnic group
    Makedonian original
    Country: Greece



    Guys
    I love you both

    Now you came to my words

    we know that Mycenians were not a Yamnaa pop
    their language is estimate all know when
    and till when still very active and not influenced

    the change Q->P
    starts at least at known languages (we do not know early Thracian)`
    with Mycenean to Greek
    and in West Europe later
    that indicates another wave of Yamnaans or ystero-yamnaans or yamnaa apogonoi (by the term I mean the IE branches that are born or continue relativity of early yamnaa and not other branches)
    adding more steppe admixture to Europe,

    language is a vivid thing, it evolutes, take an example of Homerick Mycenean to modern Greek
    a total continue evolution,
    But aspirations are liitle be conservative than the vocabulary evolution
    so each time big changes happened it is beacause a new dialect becomes lingua franga
    or newcomers come.

    thank you guys I love you

  17. #117
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    70
    Posts
    4,406
    Points
    40,005
    Level
    61
    Points: 40,005, Level: 61
    Level completed: 74%, Points required for next Level: 345
    Overall activity: 13.0%

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

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    I made the hypothesis (only that, not a theory) that the change could be the mark of new elites in Central Europe; but this does not prove or disprove these new elites came from far East or Steppes; it could even be the result of an ancient partly local pop adopting I-E or having adopted it freshly and taking weight in the political-economical game - just thoughts in absence of serious clues.

  18. #118
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    05-03-16
    Posts
    385
    Points
    3,326
    Level
    16
    Points: 3,326, Level: 16
    Level completed: 69%, Points required for next Level: 124
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Yugoslavia



    Quote Originally Posted by A. Papadimitriou View Post


    Cows and horses
    Concerning domestic animals they say that “the most important domesticated animal was the cow *gweh3us" but also “hardly less important was the sheep *h3euis, we also know the word for ‘lamb’ *h2egwno" etc. How do they know that ‘the most important domesticated animal was the cow?’

    And why don’t they use a linguistic argument to support it (here they could say for example that the word survives in many daughter languages).

    Another claim out of nothing is the following “The horse was certainly the animal which more than any other characterized the Indo-Europeans”. What type of linguistic data can prove that statement to be true? No such data exist or can exist.

    The same is true about the statement “The favorite domestic animal was without any doubt the ‘dog’, *ḱuōn”. Even though that is something very easy to believe, linguistic data just show that a word that meant ‘dog’ existed.
    I agree here and i could add that according to some daughter IE languages they did not distinguished between "horse" and "donkey".
    For example Welsh march, Breton marc’h, and Old English mearh Old Saxon merge, meriha (“mare”), Dutch merrie (“mare”), Old High German marah (“horse”).

    Compare
    Albanian magar("donkey"),Romanian măgar("donkey") borrowing in South Slavic magare,magarac("donkey") id. Alternatively from *margar, from *margë

    Another example
    Latin equus, PIE *h₁éḱwos (“horse”). Cognates include Ancient Greek (híppos), Sanskrit (áśva) compare Old Armenian էշ (ēš, “donkey”) from same root.

    Now the word "cavalry" riding of horses

    Latin Caballus Welsh ceffyl, Manx cabbyl,Scottish Gaelic and Irish capall.Also compared is Ancient Greek καβάλλης (kabállēs, “nag”), in turn possibly a borrowing from a Balkan, Anatolian, or northeast European language. Compare Turkish kaval, adjunct of at (“horse”),Slavic *kobýla.


    What kind of horses did "Indo Europeans" ride then?

    For the oxen i do think that was most important animal of IE people but that is another topic,since much more relevance is given to horse,chariot or wheel.

  19. #119
    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 MOESAN View Post
    What makes you so sure of independant evolution Kw-/P in Europe (at least)? it seems all the pops or parts of pops who knowed this evolution have had very possible contacts around Hungary at beginning of IA or between Urnfields and IA. I would be more prudent here.
    No offense, jus a point.
    Very nice hypothesis, I find it reasonable. You are right that I (we) should be more prudent dealing with all these reconstructions. However, we need to fine tune the chronology here to see if this scenario is really plausible. If the Italic tribes and the Celtic tribes were still all around Hungary way after the breakup of Proto-Celtic and Proto-Italic, and well into the development of such distinct languages as Oscan and Gaulish, that may make sense. Otherwise, I don't think we could explain well why early Italic and early Celtic became "P-shifted" in some places and not in other places, if they were supposedly under the same areal influence or, perhaps, the same elite dominance. Proto-Celtic and Proto-Italic do not show any kw > p, so we can't assume this is an old sound change, before the widespread Celtic and Italic migrations to places far away from Hungary or its surroundings - unless, of course, we find evidences for it.

    Since Celtiberian and Lusitanian, which are plausibly more conservative, "archaic" remnants of early Proto-Celtic migrations, also lack the kw > p change, I'd speculate that this is a latter change, from the times when Celtic (and possibly also Italic) languages were already dispersed in a very large territory, where the "Hungarian" influence would've been less strongly felt. But, anyway, perhaps just some branches of Celts and Italics, already divided and dispersed, were under this influence that led from *kw to *p.

    However, in any case, this must have very little or nothing to do with Greek "íkkos" > "ippos". This change happened nowhere near Hungary, but mostly in Attic Greek, and in an entirely different cultural and social environment. Also, the change was completely different in nature from the Celtic and Italic sound changes, since the channge to "p" only happened in some words under very specific conditions (before [a] and [o]). In other situations, the changes were very different, from *kw to [t] or [k]. It was apparently an independent process.
    Last edited by Ygorcs; 08-01-18 at 05:06.

  20. #120
    Baron Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    19-05-12
    Posts
    269
    Points
    5,927
    Level
    22
    Points: 5,927, Level: 22
    Level completed: 76%, Points required for next Level: 123
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Canada



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Yetos View Post
    Ι suggest find the new linguistic theoriesof Greenhill Atkinson Grayas
    also the last Lazarides paper about Myceneans
    Renfrew theories are better conserning the 'old IE' languages like Anatolian
    The well tested Greaco-Aryan even Greaco-Armenian CAN NOT BE EXPLAINED NEITHER BY KURGANNEITHER BY STEPPE THEORIES.
    and altough Yamnaa and Steppe seems very well in explanation of North Europe genetic and Linguistic
    THEY ARE TOTTALY OUT OF THINKING in South.so Renfrew's theory still is strong and well basedas expressed after 2011 by Greenhill Gray Atkinson

    consider only that Mycenean and probably Hettit
    the most typical bronze age civilizations
    that we know
    HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH YAMNAA

    even genetics say so,
    IE populations with very slow steppe admixtures
    show clearly that open steppe theories are wrong conserning South
    yet seem correct at N Europe

    Find the atopon on the word Horse
    which Antony is claiming

    Greek Celtic Ikkos Ippos Hepphew
    Germanic Ars Mars
    Aryan Cappa (Capadawa cappadaka)
    So if Antony is correct why the horse is different in South?
    should the main theme of the basic material of IE culture should the same?

    BUT IS NOT. WHY?

    Actually, there is Steppe admixture in the Mycenaean population that was not there during the Minoan period, the Mathieson paper you are inferring even stated as such. It wasn't a repopulation event, who thought it was anyways?

    Yamnaya is 3200 BC, these graves were what...1200 BC? Of course they are not directly related, but if we infer a Pontic-Caspian origin as the origin of the language, and to some extent, the people, it isn't really that far fetched to see commonalities.

  21. #121
    Baron Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    19-05-12
    Posts
    269
    Points
    5,927
    Level
    22
    Points: 5,927, Level: 22
    Level completed: 76%, Points required for next Level: 123
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Canada



    1 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    No, it wasn't a fifth steppe ancestry; it varied from 4% to 18%. You can't derive a 20% average from that. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but facts are facts.

    Nor did the authors venture a conclusion as to whether it arrived directly from the steppe or from Anatolia. They said they needed more data if you'll remember.

    I do agree that the farmer hypothesis seems dead in the water. It's too far back in time, for one thing.
    Steppe ancestry can't come from Anatolia, at least not originally. I suppose there can be an immediate position, perhaps somewhere in NW Anatolia or Bulgaria, but it's unlikely to be indigenous to that region. There is a EHG component to "Steppe" ancestry, and the earliest farmers from Anatolia are lacking this component, making it difficult to put forward a farming + Anatolian source for the "Steppe" portion of ancestry that suddenly appears in the Mycenaean graves, and is even accentuated in one of them.

  22. #122
    Elite member Achievements:
    VeteranThree FriendsRecommendation Second Class25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    14-11-10
    Posts
    2,504
    Points
    28,134
    Level
    51
    Points: 28,134, Level: 51
    Level completed: 54%, Points required for next Level: 516
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1a1a1
    MtDNA haplogroup
    HV2a1 +G13708A

    Ethnic group
    Kurdish
    Country: Germany



    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    No, it wasn't a fifth steppe ancestry; it varied from 4% to 18%. You can't derive a 20% average from that. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but facts are facts.

    Nor did the authors venture a conclusion as to whether it arrived directly from the steppe or from Anatolia. They said they needed more data if you'll remember.

    I do agree that the farmer hypothesis seems dead in the water. It's too far back in time, for one thing.
    Correct, especially considering the fact that the Hunters and Gatherers in the Balkans have a genetic profile that looks somewhere inbetween WHG and EHG. So what we see here as "Steppe" ancestry could very well be Balkan H&G ancestry dripping into a Farmer population (Minoans) from the west while at the same time CHG ancestry was arriving in Greece through Anatolia.

    Another possibility is that a population very Armenia_BA like (predominantly CHG/Ana_Neo with some EHG admixture) moved into Greece and mixed with the Myceneans in this case the population size of these Indo European arrivals must have been more significant.

    And than is the theory that a group directly from Yamnaya moved into Greece and this group must have been only a seventh of the size of the locals. I don't know if it is realistic to believe that a goup of only a seventh the size could have such a impact. Especially considering the fact that back in time the technological advantage in warfare can't have been that huge. The only way this theory could work in my eyes is when the IE didn't arrive in Greece from Yamnaya but a culture nearby in "chinese whisper" fashion. And this culture must have been predominantly Anatolian_Neo themselves.

    The second theory has the advantage that it would be much more realistical for people to imagine a large enough group influencing another group to speak their language and adapt some of their culture.

    I mean even if you take some of the more prominent cases of Elite dominance in history. The Elite group was at least 1/3 of the size of the locals. See Turks (whom's linguistic ancestors would resemble Qashgai or at least Turkmens) or Iberians in America. The only cases where Elite dominance worked with a much smaller size of people started during and after the Industrialization, when the gap in technology had risen significantly.

    And than if there is any case of Elite dominance coming from a Yamnaya type of group. Why would these Elite guys belong to the paternal line of the locals?
    Last edited by Alan; 08-01-18 at 13:11.

  23. #123
    Baron Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    19-05-12
    Posts
    269
    Points
    5,927
    Level
    22
    Points: 5,927, Level: 22
    Level completed: 76%, Points required for next Level: 123
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Canada



    Quote Originally Posted by Alcuin View Post
    A lot of people have proposed that, especially with regards to Indo-European and Afro-Asiatic, though as far as I know the latter's latest proposed coalescence time would be pretty much bang on the 12,000 years ago that farming took off in the Near East.

    Where would isolates such as Basque, which it is occasionally claimed forms part of a larger language group with the above families, fit in? Are similarities really limited to a few cognates here and there? Was the proto-Afro-Euro-Dravidian tongue spoken in one of the Ice Age refugia in Southern Europe or the Balkans, with some of this group's descendants developing agriculture in Anatolia and the Levant?
    Basque and other Iberian languages were probably introduced to Iberia during the Neolithic period and were carried on as a legacy of the maternal continuity of the penninsula. As we saw the neolithic genomes were very Basque like by modern standards and demonstrated that current distribution of the Y chromosome means little. More to come in 2018, let's see.

  24. #124
    Baron Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    19-05-12
    Posts
    269
    Points
    5,927
    Level
    22
    Points: 5,927, Level: 22
    Level completed: 76%, Points required for next Level: 123
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Canada



    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Yamnaya would turn out to be blonde, horse riding nomads. WRONG.

    Not trying to be a pain in the ass but I believe one of the R1b-Z2103 and the I2-M223 "Yamnayans" carried copies of the common blonde hair mutation.

  25. #125
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    15,581
    Points
    297,440
    Level
    100
    Points: 297,440, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron1981 View Post
    Not trying to be a pain in the ass but I believe one of the R1b-Z2103 and the I2-M223 "Yamnayans" carried copies of the common blonde hair mutation.
    Wow, you could have fooled me.

    Why don't you run all their pigmentation snps through the kind of forensic algorithms that are used every day, and see whether one such mutation, combined with their lack of other depigmentation snps, results in a prediction of blonde hair. I'll save you the trouble. It won't. How many times does this have to be explained to you? By all means knock yourself out running the results from every single sample through the algorithm and let me know the percentages for blonde, blue-eyed steppe cowboys.

    The Indo-Europeans had at least 40% Caucasus ancestry. and were darker than any modern Europeans. The people living in their yurts or whatever north of them are a different story.

    I think it's time to retire the "Indo-Europeans For Dummies" book version of history.

    Steppe ancestry can't come from Anatolia, at least not originally. I suppose there can be an immediate position, perhaps somewhere in NW Anatolia or Bulgaria, but it's unlikely to be indigenous to that region. There is a EHG component to "Steppe" ancestry, and the earliest farmers from Anatolia are lacking this component, making it difficult to put forward a farming + Anatolian source for the "Steppe" portion of ancestry that suddenly appears in the Mycenaean graves, and is even accentuated in one of them.
    Where, pray tell, did I ever espouse in any way the theory of the Neolithic spread of the Indo-European language into Europe? I'll save you the trouble on that one too. Nowhere. In fact, I specifically said that theory was dead in the water. Must I constantly be wasting time responding to straw man arguments?


    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

Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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