Anatolian Hypothesis: Lord Renfrew still a partial holdout

[Olympus Mons]

Indo-European languages expansion is clearly linked with Yamnaya both genetically and archeologically. For exemple, Lusitanians and Celts for exemple have exactly, exactly the same anthropomorphic stelae as Yamnaya and this cultural tradition was already in Sredny Stog. Also we found some mtdna DNA from transcaucasus in steppe yes, but we also found some steppe mtdna in the same time range in transcaucasus some U4a, as far as North Mesopotamia, so it's clear that at this time, mobility, in case of mtdna was solid.

So, you find the same same anthropomorphic stelae in Saudi Arabia in the 4th Millennia bc... do you think is from Yamnaya? Not something deriving from the many antropomorphic figure so common, and actually a characeristic (even in Wiki) of the Shulaveri Shomu 6th millennia? actually the same for West black sea balkans 7th millennia? --- Yamnaya is a botched work, that is what it is. It will not end well.

 

[Ygorcs]

So, you find the same same anthropomorphic stelae in Saudi Arabia in the 4th Millennia bc... do you think is from Yamnaya? Not something deriving from the many antropomorphic figure so common, and actually a characeristic (even in Wiki) of the Shulaveri Shomu 6th millennia? actually the same for West black sea balkans 7th millennia? --- Yamnaya is a botched work, that is what it is. It will not end well.

According your very theory, isn't Yamnaya the northern branch derived from the northward Shulaveri-Shomu migration? So how is Yamnaya a "botched work"? At the very least, even if your hypothesis is 100% correct, Yamnaya would be the ancestor of all northern branches of IE. So I can't see what's your big problem with Yamnaya and PIE association.

 

[Olympus Mons]

According your very theory, isn't Yamnaya the northern branch derived from the northward Shulaveri-Shomu migration? So how is Yamnaya a "botched work"? At the very least, even if your hypothesis is 100% correct, Yamnaya would be the ancestor of all northern branches of IE. So I can't see what's your big problem with Yamnaya and PIE association.

...a botched work in the sense of yamnaya as the sole source of "yamnaya component" in western europeans. Other players will arise.There are 2000 years missing human dispersal that will dwindle away some of this fixation with yamnaya.

 

[halfalp]

So, you find the same same anthropomorphic stelae in Saudi Arabia in the 4th Millennia bc... do you think is from Yamnaya? Not something deriving from the many antropomorphic figure so common, and actually a characeristic (even in Wiki) of the Shulaveri Shomu 6th millennia? actually the same for West black sea balkans 7th millennia? --- Yamnaya is a botched work, that is what it is. It will not end well.

Hum, i didnt know about those arabian stelae, but they are in correlation with some pictural art, who represent some horse riders, so i think the 4000bc is falsly date. Edit : On this site it clearly makes mention of Bronze Age, http://www.arabian-archaeology.com/arch4bronze.htm so 4000 BC, even if i saw also this date, seems very strange, mostly that those kurgan stelae are clearly of the same origin and not just a broad term.

 

[MOESAN]

IMO archaism in language when shared by opposite points of a linguistic continuum of dialects shows a previous separation of the concerned "ends" BUT doesn't permit us to date seriously this separation; it only shows us the concerned regions had no more contacts between them and with other more central places of linguistic innovations. Economical and political contexts can isolate a region for some time without it would need thousands of years. Gaëlic also shows archaisms shared with I-I dalects, very more than P-Celtic, if I rely on what I red. Explanation? At Bronze-Iron transition, the center of activities were in Central Europe, not in the Atlantic squirts.

 

[Olympus Mons]

IMO archaism in language when shared by opposite points of a linguistic continuum of dialects shows a previous separation of the concerned "ends" BUT doesn't permit us to date seriously this separation; it only shows us the concerned regions had no more contacts between them and with other more central places of linguistic innovations. Economical and political contexts can isolate a region for some time without it would need thousands of years. Gaëlic also shows archaisms shared with I-I dalects, very more than P-Celtic, if I rely on what I red. Explanation? At Bronze-Iron transition, the center of activities were in Central Europe, not in the Atlantic squirts.

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.

 

[MOESAN]

to Yetos, concerning meanings close to 'wheel' concept:
I did not open a thread in linguistic, spite I know it's hair splitting

too much analysis for wheel
but forgetting that except kυκλος
greek [FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]ε[/FONT]λιξ / helix
supposed western IE *wel- : « to roll », « to wind up » (?) - greek eluô / ellô← weluô – helix-helicos « spiral » - latin : volvere, volutum, volutare and their derived words in romance langages and in loanwords in non-romance ones (french : voûte, volute, volubile, vautrer, évoluer, + eventually val, vallée, avaler ... - germanic : wallow, well, to welter, welle : « flood », « cylinder », wellig « wavy », wallen « to wave », « to boil »...

helix : problem of the H- ; but irish seilid (it supposes an archaic greek noun in *Sel- see Helix : could be broken off into **se + *elik-os ? Only hazard ? No clue with me but S- without subsequent vowel was a very common additive consonnant in head of words in IE -


κοχλιας / kohlias « screw vida »(?vida?)
AND
kοχλιας : « snail » - latin cochlea (surely from greek) -
it has given latin coclea « snail », « spiral staircase » - cocleatium « spoon » -> french cuiller (cuillère), spanish cuchara – breton kogle/kloge/kogloa « ladle » …
I wonder if this greek word could not be broken off into *koX + *elias. A seemingly IE root exists in greek kogkhê « shell » ; + internal -n- : latin concha / conchylium « shell(fish) » , see old-french : coche : -id- - modern french : conque, coque, coquille… meaning of « shell » ...
could an old **kogkh’ had given **koX in a composed word ? In this case there is no *kol- either k^wol- in this word… but it could be supposed a compound of **kogkh-elia-(s) ??? the *eli as in (h)eli-kos ? Only a guess, because the ancient PIE *(w)el would have been accentuated, theorically.



if someone has the right answer? Taranos or one other?

 

[Yetos]

to Yetos, concerning meanings close to 'wheel' concept:
I did not open a thread in linguistic, spite I know it's hair splitting

too much analysis for wheel
but forgetting that except kυκλοςgreek ελιξ / helix
supposed western IE *wel- : « to roll », « to wind up » (?) - greek eluô / ellô← weluô – helix-helicos « spiral » - latin : volvere, volutum, volutare and their derived words in romance langages and in loanwords in non-romance ones (french : voûte, volute, volubile, vautrer, évoluer, + eventually val, vallée, avaler ... - germanic : wallow, well, to welter, welle : « flood », « cylinder », wellig « wavy », wallen « to wave », « to boil »...

helix : problem of the H- ; but irish seilid (it supposes an archaic greek noun in *Sel- see Helix : could be broken off into **se + *elik-os ? Only hazard ? No clue with me but S- without subsequent vowel was a very common additive consonnant in head of words in IE -


κοχλιας / kohlias « screw vida »(?vida?)
AND
kοχλιας : « snail » - latin cochlea(surely from greek) -
it has given latin coclea « snail », « spiral staircase » - cocleatium « spoon » -> french cuiller (cuillère), spanish cuchara – breton kogle/kloge/kogloa « ladle » …
I wonder if this greek word could not be broken off into *koX + *elias. A seemingly IE root exists in greek kogkhê « shell » ; + internal -n- : latin concha / conchylium « shell(fish) » , see old-french : coche : -id- - modern french : conque, coque, coquille… meaning of « shell » ...
could an old **kogkh’ had given **koX in a composed word ? In this case there is no *kol- either k^wol- in this word… but it could be supposed a compound of **kogkh-elia-(s) ??? the *eli as in (h)eli-kos ? Only a guess, because the ancient PIE *(w)el would have been accentuated, theorically.



if someone has the right answer? Taranos or one other?

in fact κοχλιας and πολος is more complicated
have you notice the S Slavic with the rest Slavic form,
it takes the aspiration of Greek polos,
and I do not know how old it, maybe is not from PIE, but I think it is found in Latin pro+pellere
So Keklos or to Keln gives also polos, but also kepts the original K G X Γ sound

For your info Κοχλιας in Cretan idiom is Χοχλιος Hohlios,
I do not know if Cretan adopted it such, or a proto form for example Helix was Hehlix.

your notice is very good, +1 from me,
But what about Latin pellere in propeller. that P compare Greek polos and S Slavic Vij and Polz and Bulgarian villov okhliuv
you suggest to be a kind of kogkh+peller?
I am not that expet,
and I know you are better than me in such,
but that problem, you know it is enough to reconsider about first homeland of IE,
no matter Anatolian to some, considered away from Greek

So what you write as *konkhe is what we fibd in Greek as κογχη.
it also means a curved surface, compare κελυφος (shell) κοχυλι the ancient Gr κογχυλιον,
so κογχυλιον kept γ and κοχλιας reject it ?

κογχυλιον

so your suggestion is to be from konkh + eli
possibly with eli you mean ελισσομαι ελιγμος? Ι maneuver,
But that eli-x has a laryngeal g or a double ss

But what about κελυφος = shell,
I don't see any *konkh- here?

 

[Ygorcs]

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.

I don't think it necessarily means something. In linguistics it is very well known that very often the more central regions where the language has been spoken for much more time are the most innovative, while the newer areas resulting from the expansion of the language tend to be more conservative and preserve more archaisms. That's very easily demonstrable nowadays with the countries that result from the European colonization. Though the dialects in the homeland and in the "new" regions where those European languages are spoken have been evolving by their own, the dialects spoken in the Americas are mostly more conservative, particularly in phonology, than those spoken in Europe. American English preserves many aspects of 17th century dialects of the UK.

So, the fact that Lusitanian preserves more archaisms doesn't necessarily mean it's been spoken there for a much longer time. It may actually even mean the opposite.

 

[Olympus Mons]

I
So, the fact that Lusitanian preserves more archaisms doesn't necessarily mean it's been spoken there for a much longer time. It may actually even mean the opposite.

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.

 

[MOESAN]

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.

 

[MOESAN]

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.

 

[halfalp]

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.

 

[MOESAN]

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.

 

[halfalp]

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.

 

[Ygorcs]

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.

 

[Olympus Mons]

..... 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?

 

[Ygorcs]

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.

 

[Olympus Mons]

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!

 

[Ygorcs]

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.