Reich and Krause in the same boat

There's still the problem of R1a and their satem. I find it hard to believe that R1a gradually "turned IE" as far north as the Urals simply because of the prestige of the language in the open steppe down south. I think R1a and R1b were neighbors somewhere east of the Caspian, with R1a up north around Aral, and R1b somewhere in Turkmenistan. Their languages must have been close or the same. R1a moved northwest round the Caspian and went satem. R1b went round the south Caspian with stops around Lake Van and/or the Kura valley, and picked Southwest-Asian and Caucasus admixture on the way. Shulaveri Shomu fits in well.
Whether some R1b went west as Hittites while or before the others crossed the Caucasus to the steppe, I have no idea. But it would certainly explain why IE hittites had no steppe vocab (for which I'll take your word).

There are too many overlapping innovations and/or archaisms that are shared between certain satem and certain centum languages, that is regardless of whether they were subject to that phonetic change or not, to sustain the hypothesis that they had broken up and become distant from each other so early. I think the satem development was simply an areal feature that caught on in some adjacent areas and not in other areas. We can't be sure that it meant anything deeper than that, especially because, apart from the centum x satem distinction, there are several other distinctions between different IE branches that cross that binary boundary, what suggests that the centum and satem were both near the same source area. Probably only the Anatolian branch diverged so early that it can be really said to be very distinctive from all the others, especially in grammar, which is a part of the language that takes more time to change significantly (sound changes, even profound ones, can happen in less than 200 years, e.g. the Great Vowel Shift of English).
 
@johen, Tocharian and Anatolian languages share words but above all such words provide evidence of an inner evolution from PIE words, just like French from Latin, by that such languages are considered IE. The dates provided arent right.

But we can think about the other cases in ancient East Asia
Even if old chinese really had lots of PIE to be developed into modern chinese, the PIE cannot be Proto-chinese. And Dravidian can not be a Proto-japanese also, even if they have common words of 300 to 600 as I remember.

But then Susumu Ohno, a renowned linguist and classicist, came along and popularized the theory that Japanese was overwhelmingly influenced by Dravidian languages, particularly Tamil, brought to these shores some 2,000 years ago during the Yayoi Period (500 B.C. to 300 A.D.), when the Japanese began rice-paddy cultivation.


For example in china:

Dyēus--->Deus (PIE)---> tees(old chinese) ---> di (northern chinese now), dai(soutern chinese now)

Huang Di people means emperor people(or nation), which chinese called the chinese bronze people as:

Unlike the Yangshao and Hemudu people, who came from southern China, the Huang Di nation came from west of China, from the western part of the Eurasian continent. They conquered the native people of the Yellow River and the Yangtze River, who possessed a developed agricultural culture. By combining their own imported cultural factors with those of the native culture, the Huang Di people gradually developed a splendid new civilization in the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties. They superseded the original native people to take the leading role on the stage of Chinese history. That the Huang Di nation was a branch of the archaic Indo-European people is one of the most remarkable facts thus far known to human history. But a large number of Indo-European words in Old Chinese language clearly attest to this fact. The relics left by the Huang Di people are related to the Longshan Culture in the archaeological chronicle, and the civilization of the Xia, Shang, Zhou, and Qin秦 dynasties were its successors.27 Evidence for this claim comes from two sources: the first uses the evidence of ancient documents to show that the Zhou people, and thus the Yellow Emperor’s nation, were originally a nomadic people, and the second is to reveal that there were a large number of Indo-European words in the Zhou language, using the evidence of historical linguistics. The third is the similarity in religion between the Huang Di people and Proto-Indo-European. As to the last point, please refer to the author’s paper “Old Chinese ‘帝*tees’ and Proto-Indo-European ‘*deus’: Similarity in Religious Ideas and a Common Source in Linguistics” (Zhou 2005).

The Shang Dynasty too bears strong characteristic features of stock-breeding nobility (cf. Chang 1970, pp.79 and p.266 footnote). Since the language reflected in its oracular inscriptions did not differ from that of classical literature of the first millennium B.C., we may state that the dominance of Indo-European vocabulary in Chinese was already consolidated in the second half of the second millennium B.C. Probably since the middle of the third millennium B.C., unfavorable climatic changes took place in Northern Eurasia and caused perpetual waves of southword emigration of stock-farmers. Parallel to the emergence of the Chinese Empire and the Chinese language in East Asia, there were also invasions of Indo-European warriors to the Agean and Adriatic area, to Syro-Palestina and even to Egypt around 2500-2200 B.C. (cf. Gimbutas 1970, pp. 191). Sino-Platonic Papers, 7 (January, 1988) 39
http://sino-platonic.org/complete/spp007_old_chinese.pdf
 
There are too many overlapping innovations and/or archaisms that are shared between certain satem and certain centum languages, that is regardless of whether they were subject to that phonetic change or not, to sustain the hypothesis that they had broken up and become distant from each other so early. I think the satem development was simply an areal feature that caught on in some adjacent areas and not in other areas. We can't be sure that it meant anything deeper than that, especially because, apart from the centum x satem distinction, there are several other distinctions between different IE branches that cross that binary boundary, what suggests that the centum and satem were both near the same source area. Probably only the Anatolian branch diverged so early that it can be really said to be very distinctive from all the others, especially in grammar, which is a part of the language that takes more time to change significantly (sound changes, even profound ones, can happen in less than 200 years, e.g. the Great Vowel Shift of English).

Well, this is your field of specialization, so I'll take your word for it. Still, archaisms, by definition, can but be "shared" by daughter tongues. And innovations, at least lexical ones, can be borrowings, due to lack of extant words for new realities. I used to think old English Hlaf and Russian Khleb were cognates, until I learnt the Russian word had been borrowed from Old German. The whole planet today uses "telephones" and "computers". The word came with the thing. Satem and Centum were close neighbors, at least to the west of Yamna, with, in some areas, layers of either superposed on top of each other several times (eg, Poland : CWC, Unetice, Slavic). Common traits might derive from intricate mutual influences, more recent than the centum/satem split (?).
 
@Maciamo.
Enough with this horse talk and steppe. There isnt a single Shulaveri Shomu site that does not have horse bones.
And some say that earliest horse with bit wear is 4000bc less then 50 miles from where shulaveri places existed before.
Even a while back someone remember that north Iran way back had wheels made of wood. So, enough. :)

Many forget that there are many books addressing that there are many horse bones dated to prior 4000bc in the Kura valley (ie shulaveri land). Better put. The lowlands in eastern shulaveri (azerbaijan) in Alimeteki, it was a plain full of horses....
 
johen, you might have into account allways sound changes affecting words, usualy primary ones as those like god or horse can be shared by other languages, just an interesting example, English has cow and beef, both words have the same IE origin, but the first follows usual English sound laws and the second comes from French boeuf, which is the normal evolution of Latin bovis.
 
So you think that originally, before admixing with mostly CHG peoples, the R1b Shulaveri-Shomu were mostly EHG, in order to explain the mainly EHG/CHG makeup of later Yamnaya people? Would they have avoided any intermixing with the Anatolian/Early European farmers for milennia since they migrated from the Balkans?

a. I dont know. Even if in rhe past I have said that I will not be surprised if shulaveri shows some EHG, most likely they were more similar to people from Iron gates mesolithic.

b. If its correct that neolithic north anatolia was divided from south by a very thick forest...then it explains why barcin and initial spread of agriculture jumped initially over Thrace and Balkans. Also means that these people moved around west and south black sea freely...with relatively low EEF admix (around 20- 30% i would guess).

c. From shulaveri diaspora to yamnaya, 3000 years have passed. 3000 years! Sample enough those 3000 years and we will find all sort of mixes. Admixes from that point on became frantic. Everybody was banging everyone (love? Rape? Snatch and slave?)
 
a. I dont know. Even if in rhe past I have said that I will not be surprised if shulaveri shows some EHG, most likely they were more similar to people from Iron gates mesolithic

There is zero chance Shulaveri-Shomu were similar to Iron gates mesolithic people, we have the before and after Indoeuropeanization of several peoples and can triangulate what Shulaveri-Shomu was like autosomally:

1YUyvht.jpg
 
Last edited:
There is zero chance Shulaveri-Shomu were similar to Iron gates mesolithic people, we have the before and after Indoeuropeanization of several peoples and can triangulate what Shulaveri-Shomu was like autosomally View attachment 9898


your attachment isn't working : / Try uploading to imgur.com and linking here
 
There is zero chance Shulaveri-Shomu were similar to Iron gates mesolithic people, we have the before and after Indoeuropeanization of several peoples and can triangulate what Shulaveri-Shomu was like autosomally View attachment 9899

What are you talking about?
 
All we know about Shulaveri, prior to caucasus admixture and even so early 5800bc, and in armenia (the Aratashen ones), so not the georgian ones that must have had heavy admixture with CHG descendents, is that they had Mtdna H2a, H15a1a and I1...not at all comom in the area and later seen in steppe.
 
Fixed. Thanks.
You can check it now.
Give me a break.
These days everyone has a problem with the concept of space/TIME.

But please do elaborate your view...with.dates in mind.
 
Why do people try to cram PIE in precisely the same location as the most likely Caucasian language homeland? What do they have against Caucasian?

The main problem here (among countless others) is that non IE languages are historically attested in these regions very early on, by 2000BC at the latest. If these regions were the PIE homeland they would almost certainly still be speaking IE in 2000BC during a time when IE speakers were still expanding in all directions away from their homeland. Given how things shook out, if PIE was seated in the South Caucuses you would have expected to see Indo-Iranian speakers all throughout the Caucuses and Iranian plateau by 3000-2000BC. Mesopotamian populations would certainly have historical records of bumping up against IEs since the earliest written records, but we don't see this. We see no IE until 1600BC with the sparse records of the Hittites and they don't really emerge onto the historical scene in the near east until around 600BC with the Persians. There's no way this would have been the case if PIEs were seated in the South Caucuses.

And we already have proven that Iranian/Indo-Iranian speakers come from BA steppe populations, so if they came from the South Caucuses they would have needed to move to the steppe first then expanded everywhere else without so much as a whisper in Mesopotamian historical records. As if they decamped to the steppe in the middle of the night and convinced Caucasian speakers to take their place, just to confuse forum posters in 2018.

Hurr Durr Hittite! Yes, Hittite is still somewhat of a mystery, but this is one exceptional outlier in a broader picture, and we still need the right samples to really say one way or another what the genetics say about Hittite speakers. Another thing about the Hittites is that they were notorious for absorbing all of the cultures that they imposed themselves on. They were called the people of 1000 gods for this reason, so their cultural identity by 1600BC may have little resemblance to their actual origins.
 
Why do people try to cram PIE in precisely the same location as the most likely Caucasian language homeland? What do they have against Caucasian?

The main problem here (among countless others) is that non IE languages are historically attested in these regions very early on, by 2000BC at the latest. If these regions were the PIE homeland they would almost certainly still be speaking IE in 2000BC during a time when IE speakers were still expanding in all directions away from their homeland. Given how things shook out, if PIE was seated in the South Caucuses you would have expected to see Indo-Iranian speakers all throughout the Caucuses and Iranian plateau by 3000-2000BC. Mesopotamian populations would certainly have historical records of bumping up against IEs since the earliest written records, but we don't see this. We see no IE until 1600BC with the sparse records of the Hittites and they don't really emerge onto the historical scene in the near east until around 600BC with the Persians. There's no way this would have been the case if PIEs were seated in the South Caucuses.

And we already have proven that Iranian/Indo-Iranian speakers come from BA steppe populations, so if they came from the South Caucuses they would have needed to move to the steppe first then expanded everywhere else without so much as a whisper in Mesopotamian historical records. As if they decamped to the steppe in the middle of the night and convinced Caucasian speakers to take their place, just to confuse forum posters in 2018.

Hurr Durr Hittite! Yes, Hittite is still somewhat of a mystery, but this is one exceptional outlier in a broader picture, and we still need the right samples to really say one way or another what the genetics say about Hittite speakers. Another thing about the Hittites is that they were notorious for absorbing all of the cultures that they imposed themselves on. They were called the people of 1000 gods for this reason, so their cultural identity by 1600BC may have little resemblance to their actual origins.

Yeah that's problematic. Here is my map showing the oldest attested languages in the Middle East:

https://s30.postimg.org/5f5wtbnan/Languages_of_ME.png

As you can see, there is simply not much space for Proto-Indo-Europeans to cram them there:

Languages_of_ME.png
 
Yeah that's problematic. Here is my map showing the oldest attested languages in the Middle East:

https://s30.postimg.org/5f5wtbnan/Languages_of_ME.png

As you can see, there is simply not much space for Proto-Indo-Europeans to cram them there:

Languages_of_ME.png

Because apparently that is the problem david Reich said archeology has with geneticists and I would add commenters in that kind of blogs such as us...
You all have a freaking problem with concepts of space and time.
Imagine I am right and Pie was born in shulaveri...Shulaveri completly disappeared by 5000bc. Something came and that something was different.
So there were PIE speakers that just become a minority. Maybe part of Kura araxes, just a maybe. But for sure they flee to steppe, to south shores of black sea, maybe into western coast of black sea.
Anyways, all those taking the place from shulaveri will speak caucasian or even mandarim.. What is the problem?
 
xd5kc5.png


CHG and Anatolian farmer proportions pretty close to my PCA.

hajji Firuz has undeniable links to shulaveri. Pottery, architecture, burials, etc. All description on books of it states the linkage with transumamce pastorals from Shulaveri
south Caucasus. But still is a guy deep in the iran neolithic land. Just wait until proper Shulaveri from georgia/azerbaijan are tested before we make our minds. Space and time.
 
hajji Firuz has undeniable links to shulaveri. Pottery, architecture, burials, etc. All description on books of it states the linkage with transumamce pastorals from Shulaveri
south Caucasus. But still is a guy deep in the iran neolithic land. Just wait until proper Shulaveri from georgia/azerbaijan are tested before we make our minds. Space and time.
https://blogs.sapo.pt/cloud/file/eb...usmons/2016/From Shulaveri to Bell beaker.pdf

May i ask you, are you a diagnose schizophrenic ? It's not a pejorative question or an ad hominem attack from my part, i ask because i have a friend that, somehow, in others subjects, act like you.
 
Giving you a proper answer would get me banned. However will tell you to grow up and grow a pair. Haven't we agree not to exchange anymore? Just have some self respect.
Oh yes, i forget about that.
 

This thread has been viewed 23803 times.

Back
Top