Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 14 of 26 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... LastLast
Results 326 to 350 of 645

Thread: Central and South Asian DNA Paper

  1. #326
    Regular Member Achievements:
    OverdriveVeteranThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Yetos's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-10-11
    Location
    Makedonia
    Posts
    5,196
    Points
    39,519
    Level
    61
    Points: 39,519, Level: 61
    Level completed: 37%, Points required for next Level: 831
    Overall activity: 8.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    G2a3a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    X2b

    Ethnic group
    Makedonian original
    Country: Greece



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    That hypothesis is actually about the origins of the early PIE, or maybe even its direct ancestor, in order to account for the seeming typological and lexical connections of PIE with some Caucasian language families, mainly Northwestern Caucasian and Kartvelian. "Mixed" wouldn't be the most technical term, for I think the assumption was that a Caucasian (or maybe Iranian?) language was imposed onto a local North Eurasian population, with its native language becoming a relevant substrate in the vocabulary and maybe also grammar. The core structure of the language of course wouldn't "mix", unless PIE were a creole, but it definitely has no characteristics of a true creole.

    But all that process would've happened thousands of years BEFORE the PIE expansion, in the very beginning, so there was more than enough time for growing complexity and innovations in PIE - and in fact if you consider the Anatolian IE branch "archaic", that is, more conservative and not full of simplifying innovations, it does seem like the language of Indo-Europeans became increasingly complex and inflected along the time, because Anatolian IE lacks the later masculine/feminine genders and especially it lacks the much more complicated and sophisticated system of verbal tenses and aspects of non-Anatolian Late PIE.
    That is Question No #1 the Hettit primitive language
    Question #2 is Tocharian
    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.

  2. #327
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,273
    Points
    42,819
    Level
    63
    Points: 42,819, Level: 63
    Level completed: 90%, Points required for next Level: 131
    Overall activity: 16.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by Yetos View Post
    That is Question No #1 the Hettit primitive language
    Question #2 is Tocharian
    is there any reason why Tocharian shouldn't be linked with Afanasievo?

  3. #328
    Satyavrata Achievements:
    Three FriendsRecommendation First ClassVeteran50000 Experience PointsTagger First Class
    Maciamo's Avatar
    Join Date
    17-07-02
    Location
    Lothier
    Posts
    8,691
    Points
    688,579
    Level
    100
    Points: 688,579, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 13.0%


    Ethnic group
    Italo-celto-germanic
    Country: Belgium - Brussels



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Saetrus View Post
    You know what the R1a branch actually correlates extremely well with? Scythians. What Herodotus wrote about Scythians' origins makes more sense now than ever before:

    "The wandering Scythians once dwelt in Asia, and there warred with the Massagetae but with ill success; they therefore quitted their homes, crossed the Araxes, and entered the land of Cimmeria."

    "From the time of their origin, that is to say from the first king Targitaos, to the passing over of Dareios against them [512 BC], they say that there is a period of a thousand years and no more."

    So around 1500BC an Indoeuropean group from Iran moves into the Steppe and becomes the ruling elite of the non-IE R1a locals, within the next 1000 years the locals learn satem IE speech of the ruling class (including Baltoslavic).

    Then from the 2nd century BC to the 4th century AD there is the massive Indo-Scythian migration into Pakistan, Afghanistan and India that finally brought R1a into that region. The original Indo-Iranians who were mostly J2 (But also some L, G, R1b) had Indoeuropeanized that region long before the R1a Scythian invasion though.

    Actually the extent of Scythia only correlates with one of many R1a branches, namely R1a-Z93, and even then only a part of Z93, as that haplogroup is also found throughout the Middle East and South Asia. Within Central Asia, regions like Turkmenistan, western Uzbekistan and northern Afghanistan (Hazaras) have more R1b than R1a. So quite frankly I wonder why you even bring it up.
    My book selection---Follow me on Facebook and Twitter --- My profile on Academia.edu and on ResearchGate ----Check Wa-pedia's Japan Guide
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "What is the use of living, if it be not to strive for noble causes and to make this muddled world a better place for those who will live in it after we are gone?", Winston Churchill.

  4. #329
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience Points1 year registered
    Balkanite's Avatar
    Join Date
    07-06-17
    Posts
    175
    Points
    2,209
    Level
    13
    Points: 2,209, Level: 13
    Level completed: 20%, Points required for next Level: 241
    Overall activity: 3.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    J2b2-L283

    Country: Ireland



    Quote Originally Posted by Saetrus View Post
    You know what the R1a branch actually correlates extremely well with? Scythians. What Herodotus wrote about Scythians' origins makes more sense now than ever before:

    "The wandering Scythians once dwelt in Asia, and there warred with the Massagetae but with ill success; they therefore quitted their homes, crossed the Araxes, and entered the land of Cimmeria."

    "From the time of their origin, that is to say from the first king Targitaos, to the passing over of Dareios against them [512 BC], they say that there is a period of a thousand years and no more."

    So around 1500BC an Indoeuropean group from Iran moves into the Steppe and becomes the ruling elite of the non-IE R1a locals, within the next 1000 years the locals learn satem IE speech of the ruling class (including Baltoslavic).

    Then from the 2nd century BC to the 4th century AD there is the massive Indo-Scythian migration into Pakistan, Afghanistan and India that finally brought R1a into that region. The original Indo-Iranians who were mostly J2 (But also some L, G, R1b) had Indoeuropeanized that region long before the R1a Scythian invasion though.
    This would actually make sense for some branches of R1a. From what i have read in history books, most scholars place the early baltoslavs somewhere near indo-iranian tribes. So it correlates well.

    Although if i remember correct a lot of baltoslavs Y dna is CWC related, so don't know how that fits.
    I think the steppe and eastern europe has changed Y landscape several times since roman times, so its kinda a hard area to reconstruct without ancient dna from all periods and all places there.

  5. #330
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,273
    Points
    42,819
    Level
    63
    Points: 42,819, Level: 63
    Level completed: 90%, Points required for next Level: 131
    Overall activity: 16.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    "The wandering Scythians once dwelt in Asia, and there warred with the Massagetae but with ill success; they therefore quitted their homes, crossed the Araxes, and entered the land of Cimmeria."

    "From the time of their origin, that is to say from the first king Targitaos, to the passing over of Dareios against them [512 BC], they say that there is a period of a thousand years and no more."

    So around 1500BC an Indoeuropean group from Iran moves into the Steppe and becomes the ruling elite of the non-IE R1a locals, within the next 1000 years the locals learn satem IE speech of the ruling class (including Baltoslavic).

    would the origin of the Scyths not rather be the Altaï Mountains?

  6. #331
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    05-03-16
    Posts
    385
    Points
    3,234
    Level
    16
    Points: 3,234, Level: 16
    Level completed: 46%, Points required for next Level: 216
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Yugoslavia



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    The "original" Scythians,probably came from central Asia in Iron age and were nomadic tribes,they ruled the area for period of time in Ukraine where Cimmerians have been,similar story told by Herodotus.Later the name Scythians was applied to many tribes of various languages including Thracians,Goths,Bulgarians.The region was known as Scythia also,even thought they dissapeared,the region retained it's name.

    In my oppion those "original" Scythians that came from Central Asia and their descendants are mostly today Tatars,like Volga Tatars,they have lineages associated with them including R1a-Z93.
    They were "Turkified".

  7. #332
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    17-03-16
    Posts
    519
    Points
    5,049
    Level
    20
    Points: 5,049, Level: 20
    Level completed: 99%, Points required for next Level: 1
    Overall activity: 12.0%


    Country: Greece



    1 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Saetrus View Post
    You know what the R1a branch actually correlates extremely well with? Scythians. What Herodotus wrote about Scythians' origins makes more sense now than ever before:

    "The wandering Scythians once dwelt in Asia, and there warred with the Massagetae but with ill success; they therefore quitted their homes, crossed the Araxes, and entered the land of Cimmeria."

    "From the time of their origin, that is to say from the first king Targitaos, to the passing over of Dareios against them [512 BC], they say that there is a period of a thousand years and no more."

    So around 1500BC an Indoeuropean group from Iran moves into the Steppe and becomes the ruling elite of the non-IE R1a locals, within the next 1000 years the locals learn satem IE speech of the ruling class (including Baltoslavic).
    In order to interpret what he says properly, you first have to place the Massagetae. 'Massagetae' are often placed East of Caspian (I don't know based on what) but this text, apparently places them in Caucasus. Also, the term Asia was originally used just for the West coasts of Turkey. Here it probably means something close to the modern term 'West Asia'. So, the 'wandering Scythians' dwelt in the regions south of Caucasus before the conflict with the Massagetae, according to the text.

    (Later sources identified the Massagetae with the Alans or the Huns. Today, some people may try to connect them to the Goths, or the Getae in Balkans or the Gutians in Iran. I think, Georgian scholars have supported they were the Moschoi of other sources, who are often thought to have been a Kartvelian tribe)

    Concerning, the language Scythians were speaking, no text survives. That means they could have spoken anything. Most etymologies given to personal names etc. are speculative. If they really came from Iran though their language could have had Iranian elements even if they didn't have anything to do with the proto-Iranians in the first place. The identification of the language as 'Eastern Iranian' is based on the work of Abaev who was an Ossetian nationalist who wanted to make Ossetians descendants of the Scythians which is something most likely not true.

  8. #333
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    05-03-16
    Posts
    385
    Points
    3,234
    Level
    16
    Points: 3,234, Level: 16
    Level completed: 46%, Points required for next Level: 216
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Yugoslavia



    Well the queen Tomyris of the Massagetae build the town of Tomis according to Jordanes present day Constanta in Romania.

    She in many accounts was known to defeated Cyrus the Great.

    "After achieving this victory (against Cyrus the Great) and winning so much booty from her enemies, Queen Tomyris crossed over into that part of Moesia which is now called Lesser Scythia - a name borrowed from Great Scythia -, and built on the Moesian shore of the Black Sea the city of Tomi, named after herself."


    I do not know how they from east of Caspian could have come in Romania,however Thracian Getae and Massagetae could be related,even only culturaly.

  9. #334
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    05-03-16
    Posts
    385
    Points
    3,234
    Level
    16
    Points: 3,234, Level: 16
    Level completed: 46%, Points required for next Level: 216
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Yugoslavia



    Quote Originally Posted by A. Papadimitriou View Post
    The identification of the language as 'Eastern Iranian' is based on the work of Abaev who was an Ossetian nationalist who wanted to make Ossetians descendants of the Scythians which is something most likely not true.
    Concerning Ossetians in my opinion they are probably descendant of the Alans (Aryans).Who in turn to some later historians were known as Massagetae prior.It is confusing mostly because of contacts between this ancient people like Getae,Massagetae,Alans or "Goths",some authors call the Huns as former Massagetae.

  10. #335
    Baron Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    10-06-12
    Posts
    345
    Points
    7,838
    Level
    26
    Points: 7,838, Level: 26
    Level completed: 48%, Points required for next Level: 312
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-BY593
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U5b2a2

    Country: Canada-Ontario



    Samara-R1b-M73 hunter gatherer and R1b-Z2103 kurgans fit reasonably well in Elshanka pottery region. 7000 BC+/-





    Component ANE also fits reasonably well in the same region.---Ancestral North Eurasian (ANE): Upper-Paleolithic genomes from the Lake Baikal region of Siberia, identified as Malta, Afontogora 2, and Afontogora 3, dated to 17 to 24 kya, when Mammoths roamed the area, form the ANE cluster.

  11. #336
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    70
    Posts
    4,348
    Points
    36,248
    Level
    58
    Points: 36,248, Level: 58
    Level completed: 67%, Points required for next Level: 402
    Overall activity: 41.0%

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

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    I don't know, I'd say that during many events in history the vast majority of the people in fat switched their languages quite easily, and only increasingly smaller and scattered pockets resisted until the final extinction... And I'm also really skeptical of this hypothesis (certainly not uncontroversial) that there is necessarily a simplification of morphology and syntax right after the adoption of a language by many originally different peoples, becoming the lingua franca and a bit later the native language of a wide area and large population.

    It seems to me to rely too much on what happened in Western Europe and a few other cases, too, but that is certainly not a general trend and maybe the chronological correlation isn't that strong between the assimilation of foreign peoples and the simplification of the language. For instance, the period of really massive adoption of English by foreigners wasn't after the Norman conquest, but before with the assimilation of the Celts and a bit later of the Norse, yet Old English still had a very complex grammar.

    Norse, by the way, is an interesting example of an opposite evidence: it went through the same intense simplification of syntax and morphology as English, but it developed organically among people who mostly already spoke a North Germanic language since many generations earlier, not assimilating huge foreign populations.

    Another example that demonstrates that this hypothesis of "foreign people adopting the language > they don't speak it properly > the language gets simplified" is a bit too simplistic is that the bulk of the loss of morphological and syntactic complexities in Latin happened mainly after the 4th century and especially after the 6th century AD, when by that time the vast majority of the people had been Romanized for several generations, even centuries, and only small pockets of other languages resisted (yes, including the example you have about the Gaulish language in the 5th century AD, when it was clearly a fringe rural language). The really intense simplification of the grammar, even in Vulgar Latin, seems to have happened when Latin had already stood the test centuries earlier, but then internal processes, like phonological changes that levelled out some previous distinctions in declensions, caused the whole system to crumble.

    Besides, people who already speak languages with complex morphology and syntax wouldn't find anything very "alien" in a complex system like that of PIE or, later, Sanskrit or Latin, and eventual simplification could've been, as many linguists assert, simply an internal, systemic evolution that, still according to them, happens in the very long term in most languages forming a pendulum ranging from more analyctical to more syntactic or even agglutatinative.

    For example, we can see that Magyar, which is still extremely complex in grammar, was successfully imposed onto the local population by a small elite minority that soon left few genetic and even cultural impacts. Another example is the expansion of Russian in North Asia, Turkish in Anatolia (Turkish is in fact more conservative - and complex - than some other Turkic languages still located in/near the steppes), Vedic Sanskrit in India (only much later in some old Prakrits the morphology and syntax would start to simplify a lot), etc.

    But just to finish this post let me just state that that whole hypothesis about "mixed" origins of PIE does not refer to the period of Late PIE when it began to expand, so I'm not assuming that those who spread PIE didn't form a "strong linguistic identity". They certainly did, but we can't say the same about their ancestors when the earliest forms of PIE appeared.

    That hypothesis is actually about the origins of the early PIE, or maybe even its direct ancestor, in order to account for the seeming typological and lexical connections of PIE with some Caucasian language families, mainly Northwestern Caucasian and Kartvelian. "Mixed" wouldn't be the most technical term, for I think the assumption was that a Caucasian (or maybe Iranian?) language was imposed onto a local North Eurasian population, with its native language becoming a relevant substrate in the vocabulary and maybe also grammar. The core structure of the language of course wouldn't "mix", unless PIE were a creole, but it definitely has no characteristics of a true creole.

    But all that process would've happened thousands of years BEFORE the PIE expansion, in the very beginning, so there was more than enough time for growing complexity and innovations in PIE - and in fact if you consider the Anatolian IE branch "archaic", that is, more conservative and not full of simplifying innovations, it does seem like the language of Indo-Europeans became increasingly complex and inflected along the time, because Anatolian IE lacks the later masculine/feminine genders and especially it lacks the much more complicated and sophisticated system of verbal tenses and aspects of non-Anatolian Late PIE.
    All of us and even specialists make assumptions more than anything -
    So I do:
    - ancient times without schools cannot be compared to strictly to modern times -
    - even today people don't change easily of language, even with leasons -
    - the colonial "great" languages have been taught by some parts of the pops for practical reasons (trade, job); very often the result is rather a lower level of language, as well for lexicon than for grammar - the level is good in high classes formed in school and "cooperating" with the "winners" -
    - the most of the time the language shift passes through a bilingual stage, with some porosity between both languages -

    - concerning Germanic, it has been proposed it was a badly transmitted form of I-E since its origin (perhaps it began "germanic" because of this transmission or kind of unbalanced osmosis -
    - concerning Celtic in the Isles, we have to be prudent: I'm not sure the Anglo-saxon was spoken by the whole not-Welsh not-Cornish not-Irish speaking regions of Britain before the Normans (BTW what often confuse Normans with later French people, and I think the romance influence and spread whih produced English was stronger with these last ones than before) -
    If I judge on the Icelandic Norse were by far more conservative than English concerning some aspects of morphology/ syntax - Even the continental Scandinavian languages are a bit more conservative than English
    - Magyar is maybe not a so clear example: I think the languages was learned generation after generation by transmission to a low % of new aggregated people, already long before reaching today Carpathian Basin where they assimilated the last ones - progressive integration (social promotion) does not produce the same result as massive brutal shift (to be proved anywhere) or as only militar service or superficial trade contacts -
    - but I agree certain changes in languages are not always the result of transmission/shift, but internal evolutions - that said these innovations are not always simplifications, but changes in grammatical strategies -
    ATW I avow I don't master completely these shifts questions - it would require a long study of every sort of cases -

  12. #337
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Community Award

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,722
    Points
    26,270
    Level
    49
    Points: 26,270, Level: 49
    Level completed: 72%, Points required for next Level: 280
    Overall activity: 39.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by A. Papadimitriou View Post
    In order to interpret what he says properly, you first have to place the Massagetae. 'Massagetae' are often placed East of Caspian (I don't know based on what) but this text, apparently places them in Caucasus. Also, the term Asia was originally used just for the West coasts of Turkey. Here it probably means something close to the modern term 'West Asia'. So, the 'wandering Scythians' dwelt in the regions south of Caucasus before the conflict with the Massagetae, according to the text.

    (Later sources identified the Massagetae with the Alans or the Huns. Today, some people may try to connect them to the Goths, or the Getae in Balkans or the Gutians in Iran. I think, Georgian scholars have supported they were the Moschoi of other sources, who are often thought to have been a Kartvelian tribe)

    Concerning, the language Scythians were speaking, no text survives. That means they could have spoken anything. Most etymologies given to personal names etc. are speculative. If they really came from Iran though their language could have had Iranian elements even if they didn't have anything to do with the proto-Iranians in the first place. The identification of the language as 'Eastern Iranian' is based on the work of Abaev who was an Ossetian nationalist who wanted to make Ossetians descendants of the Scythians which is something most likely not true.
    I won't say that Ossetians' main ancestry is still purely from Iron Age Scythians, but the evidences do reinforce the possibility that they are, in some relevant proportion, descendants of ancient Iron Age steppe (broadly Scytho-Sarmatian) populations of the steppes. There is also little evidence that, even if the earliest origin of the Scythian culture/language had come from Iran, they were still very "Iranian" (as in from the Iranian Plateau) by the later Iron Age, and actually had admixtures that we can broadly define as "North Eurasian" (Bronze Age steppe-like + Northeast Asian introgression). Even if Ossetians do not descend from "the" Scythians, they certainly are at the very least cultural descendants of an ancient Indo-European steppe culture, and that part of their ancestry does seem to have links to Bronze Age steppe cultures even now associated with the spread of Indo-Iranian.

    Some Caucasian people - and this study I refer below didn't even sample proper Ossetians, but just some neighboring Caucasian peoples - look like partial heirs to Scythians (or more technically speaking Iranic steppe peoples), and I'd certainly expect an Indo-European-speaking, Indo-Iranian-shifted population (in language) to be even more so. Other populations of Central Asia and the Caucasus, in the case of western Scythians, are probably descendants of those ancient nomads as this study concluded last year (that of course doesn't mean they derive entirely from them): https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14615

    From the western part of the Eurasian Steppe, samples discovered in the North Caucasus dating to the initial Scythian period (eighth to sixth century BCE), classical Scythians from the Don-Volga region (third century BCE), and Early Sarmatians from Pokrovka, southwest of the Ural (fifth to second century BCE), were included.

    we used ABC to fit a sample of Middle Bronze Age nomadic groups from western Siberia, most of them associated with the Andronovo culture, onto the preferred demographic model for the origin of Scythians. For this purpose—and based on low FST values between these groups—we combined 40 samples related to the Andronovo culture in the west Siberian forest steppe30 and nine samples from the same culture in the Krasnoyarsk region31, all of which were dated to the first half of the 2nd millennium BCE. The results provided very strong support for a linkage between these Middle Bronze Age groups and eastern Scythians (Supplementary Tables 16 and 17). However, these simulations were not able to fully capture the patterns of genetic diversity observed in the Bronze Age populations, suggesting that the true demographic history of the ancestry of Iron Age populations may have been more complex than considered here

    "Concerning the legacy of the Iron Age nomads, we find that modern human populations with a close genetic relationship to the Scythian groups are predominantly located in close geographic proximity to the sampled burial sites, suggesting a degree of population continuity through historical times. Contemporary descendants of western Scythian groups are found among various groups in the Caucasus and Central Asia, while similarities to eastern Scythian are found to be more widespread, but almost exclusively among Turkic language speaking (formerly) nomadic groups, particularly from the Kipchak branch of Turkic languages (Supplementary Note 1)."

  13. #338
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Community Award

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,722
    Points
    26,270
    Level
    49
    Points: 26,270, Level: 49
    Level completed: 72%, Points required for next Level: 280
    Overall activity: 39.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by MOESAN View Post
    - but I agree certain changes in languages are not always the result of transmission/shift, but internal evolutions - that said these innovations are not always simplifications, but changes in grammatical strategies -
    ATW I avow I don't master completely these shifts questions - it would require a long study of every sort of cases -
    Yes, that is what I believe. In some cases, the languages gains, instead of losing, complexity in some aspects while at the same time it loses in others (some linguists say that's been happening in Modern English in some interesting and usually neglected points of the grammar), and the general direction of the language's evolution may well be of slowly increasing complexity instead of simplification, provided that those are organic developments gradually sophisticated and learned progressively by the native speakers. So, I don't think that, except for the very specific case of creole languages, which are mostly a very modern phenomenon under very specific (and not so common) social circumstances, there is a necessary correlation between language shift and assimilation of many non-native speakers and a language's grammatical simplification, that is, that may happen, and it probably indeed happened in some cases, but not in all of them, and I'd say it is a much more likely outcome only if the languages of those assimilated people were already pretty much analyctical and without intricate morphology/syntax, otherwise they wouldn't find their new language very "alien" as it would in fact work using pretty much similar "grammatical strategies", as you say.

  14. #339
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    15-12-17
    Posts
    69
    Points
    1,103
    Level
    8
    Points: 1,103, Level: 8
    Level completed: 77%, Points required for next Level: 47
    Overall activity: 4.0%


    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by Balkanite View Post
    Although if i remember correct a lot of baltoslavs Y dna is CWC related, so don't know how that fits.
    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo View Post
    Actually the extent of Scythia only correlates with one of many R1a branches, namely R1a-Z93
    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    Well, but it doesn't really correlate well with the R1a in Central-East and Northern Europe
    No, not really, after Corded Ware was kicked out of central Europe R1a does not come back until after 1000AD. No R1a in iron age and medieval Poland:

    KO_55, Kowalewko (100-300 AD), I1a3a1a1-Y6626
    KO_45, Kowalewko (100-300 AD), I2a2a1b2a-L801
    KO_22, Kowalewko (100-300 AD), G2a2b-L30
    KO_57, Kowalewko (100-300 AD), G2a2b-L30
    ME_7, Markowice (1000-1200 AD), I1a2a2a5-Y5384
    NA_13, Niemcza, (900-1000 AD), I2a1b2-L621
    NA_18, Niemcza, (900-1000 AD), J2a1a-L26
    etc.

    So all R1a, not just R1a-Z93, was contained in Scythian territory until after the Slavic expansion made inroads back to central Europe.

    The importance of the 1500BC time Herodotus say Scythians invade the Steppe is that most estimates put Proto-Balto-Slavic branching out 3500 year ago, or at 1500BC, the exact same time. If Proto-Balto-Slavic descended from Corded Ware it would be 5000 years old instead.
    Last edited by Saetrus; 07-04-18 at 21:23.

  15. #340
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    17-03-16
    Posts
    519
    Points
    5,049
    Level
    20
    Points: 5,049, Level: 20
    Level completed: 99%, Points required for next Level: 1
    Overall activity: 12.0%


    Country: Greece



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    I won't say that Ossetians' main ancestry is still purely from Iron Age Scythians, but the evidences do reinforce the possibility that they are, in some relevant proportion, descendants of ancient Iron Age steppe (broadly Scytho-Sarmatian) populations of the steppes. There is also little evidence that, even if the earliest origin of the Scythian culture/language had come from Iran, they were still very "Iranian" (as in from the Iranian Plateau) by the later Iron Age, and actually had admixtures that we can broadly define as "North Eurasian" (Bronze Age steppe-like + Northeast Asian introgression). Even if Ossetians do not descend from "the" Scythians, they certainly are at the very least cultural descendants of an ancient Indo-European steppe culture, and that part of their ancestry does seem to have links to Bronze Age steppe cultures even now associated with the spread of Indo-Iranian.Some Caucasian people - and this study I refer below didn't even sample proper Ossetians, but just some neighboring Caucasian peoples - look like partial heirs to Scythians (or more technically speaking Iranic steppe peoples), and I'd certainly expect an Indo-European-speaking, Indo-Iranian-shifted population (in language) to be even more so. Other populations of Central Asia and the Caucasus, in the case of western Scythians, are probably descendants of those ancient nomads as this study concluded last year (that of course doesn't mean they derive entirely from them): https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14615[B]From the western part of the Eurasian Steppe, samples discovered in the North Caucasus dating to the initial Scythian period (eighth to sixth century BCE), classical Scythians from the Don-Volga region (third century BCE), and Early Sarmatians from Pokrovka, southwest of the Ural (fifth to second century BCE), were included.
    The term Scythian today is used for cultures that probably were speaking multiple languages. The population Greeks called Scythians self-identified as 'Skoloti', according to the sources. People in the past have used that to connect them to Scots or to Slavs etc.The Sarmatians are more strongly associated with Iranic people, especially Medes. Diodorus mentions a colony of the Medes in Don.Sarmatians, Scythians, Massagetae etc. look like distinct groups in the sources, even though that depends on the author.Giving an Iranian identity to all Iron Age steppic groups is an ideological position, imo.

  16. #341
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    Boreas's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-05-15
    Location
    Istanbul
    Posts
    686
    Points
    5,780
    Level
    22
    Points: 5,780, Level: 22
    Level completed: 46%, Points required for next Level: 270
    Overall activity: 3.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-YP346
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1b1b1

    Ethnic group
    Rumî
    Country: Turkey



    Quote Originally Posted by A. Papadimitriou View Post
    Also, the term Asia was originally used just for the West coasts of Turkey. Here it probably means something close to the modern term 'West Asia'.
    Is it? Wasn't the term for West Coats of Turkey "Anatolia"? Even the the first world maps shows Asia as a massive continent till India

    But if your reference is Roman Asia, you are right.

  17. #342
    Regular Member Achievements:
    7 days registered500 Experience Points

    Join Date
    31-03-18
    Posts
    78
    Points
    990
    Level
    8
    Points: 990, Level: 8
    Level completed: 20%, Points required for next Level: 160
    Overall activity: 48.0%


    Country: Germany



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Boreas View Post
    Is it? Wasn't the term for West Coats of Turkey "Anatolia"? Even the the first world maps shows Asia as a massive continent till India

    But if your reference is Roman Asia, you are right.
    I believe that for Herodotus Asia was more or less synonymous with the Persian empire at its maximum extent, plus the Arabian peninsula perhaps and sans the the parts west of the Bosporus. Siberia would have been Europe more likely.

  18. #343
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    17-03-16
    Posts
    519
    Points
    5,049
    Level
    20
    Points: 5,049, Level: 20
    Level completed: 99%, Points required for next Level: 1
    Overall activity: 12.0%


    Country: Greece



    Quote Originally Posted by Boreas View Post
    Is it? Wasn't the term for West Coats of Turkey "Anatolia"? Even the the first world maps shows Asia as a massive continent till India

    But if your reference is Roman Asia, you are right.
    Originally it was used probably for the Assuwa League in West Anatolia.

    The term didn't have any negative connotations and it wasn't associated with race, for example Ionians were called occasionaly 'Asiatic Hellenes'.

    The term 'Anatolia' wasn't used in Antiquity.

  19. #344
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Community Award

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,722
    Points
    26,270
    Level
    49
    Points: 26,270, Level: 49
    Level completed: 72%, Points required for next Level: 280
    Overall activity: 39.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Saetrus View Post
    No, not really, after Corded Ware was kicked out of central Europe R1a does not come back until after 1000AD. No R1a in iron age and medieval Poland:

    KO_55, Kowalewko (100-300 AD), I1a3a1a1-Y6626
    KO_45, Kowalewko (100-300 AD), I2a2a1b2a-L801
    KO_22, Kowalewko (100-300 AD), G2a2b-L30
    KO_57, Kowalewko (100-300 AD), G2a2b-L30
    ME_7, Markowice (1000-1200 AD), I1a2a2a5-Y5384
    NA_13, Niemcza, (900-1000 AD), I2a1b2-L621
    NA_18, Niemcza, (900-1000 AD), J2a1a-L26
    etc.

    So all R1a, not just R1a-Z93, was contained in Scythian territory until after the Slavic expansion made inroads back to central Europe.

    The importance of the 1500BC time Herodotus say Scythians invade the Steppe is that most estimates put Proto-Balto-Slavic branching out 3500 year ago, or at 1500BC, the exact same time. If Proto-Balto-Slavic descended from Corded Ware it would be 5000 years old instead.
    I agree with your first points, not your last observation. 5,000 years would be the very beginning of the expansion of the CWC horizon, and it would be still a completely undivided "Northern IE" that could've given birth not just to undivided Proto-Balto-Slavic but also - not immediately, I'm talking about descendants of CWC many centuries later - perhaps to Indo-Iranian. The dating of 1500 BC is for the split of Slavic and Baltic from their previous common ancestor, NOT from PIE directly.

    There is no reason for us to believe that Baltic and Slavic would've necessarily split from their common ancestor immediately before CWC expanded, the process of diversification of languages is a bit longer, and also Balto-Slavic could be and probably was just one among many similar languages, like Latin was one among many Italic languages, and La Tène Celtic one among many former Celtic languages, so for some historical reason Balto-Slavic prevailed over others and erased part of the "linguistic structure", it didn't have to be there as the common language of the entire territory since the beginning (as in fact an expansion of "Balto-Slavic Scythian" would've done, too). In fact, Baltic "proper" (the extant tongues, at least) and Slavic seem to have developed originally in a quite eastern location, roughly to the east/southeast of the present Baltic states, so it certainly didn't represent "the CWC language" even if it were a language derived from the CWC horizon.

    We can't simply assume that in the centuries of existence of CWC there was no language differentiation and no superseding of some weaker languages by more successful and expansive languages that, as such, would necessarily split further only much later, like Balto-Slavic by 1500 BC (actually, if Balto-Slavic indeed diverged into 2 different languages by 1500 BC we can reasonably presume that an early form of Balto-Slavic existed well into the CWC times, at least around 2500 BC, because languages don't appear, diverge and dissolve so fast).

  20. #345
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Community Award

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,722
    Points
    26,270
    Level
    49
    Points: 26,270, Level: 49
    Level completed: 72%, Points required for next Level: 280
    Overall activity: 39.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by A. Papadimitriou View Post
    The term Scythian today is used for cultures that probably were speaking multiple languages. The population Greeks called Scythians self-identified as 'Skoloti', according to the sources. People in the past have used that to connect them to Scots or to Slavs etc.The Sarmatians are more strongly associated with Iranic people, especially Medes. Diodorus mentions a colony of the Medes in Don.Sarmatians, Scythians, Massagetae etc. look like distinct groups in the sources, even though that depends on the author.Giving an Iranian identity to all Iron Age steppic groups is an ideological position, imo.
    They may well have been distinct ethnic and tribal groups, but still mostly Indo-Iranian (that certainly happened later when most of them became Turkic speakers, but still divided into many different groups), because there is, especially not in pre-civilized and semi-nomad cultures, a strict correlation between one's language and one's sentiment of belonging to a certain ethnic identity or cultural group. Those peoples could speak related but quite dissimilar languages (when we say they were Iranic, we're talking about a language family that by the Middle Ages had more than 2,500 years old) and still, despite that linguistic connection, have distinct origins, even slightly distinct cultural traits (not much, because there is indeed a remarkably high, at least higher than expected, cultural homogeneity in the Iron Age steppe cultures for such a huge area). Besides, I'm pretty sure that for most of them, when they established their identity, their tribal affiliations and alliances were muuuuch more important than culture-based feelings of belonging to a common national community just because they spoke similar languages or prayed to the same gods, and so on.

    By the way: I haven't seen, if there are any, results for Y-DNA of Iron Age people of the "core" region of the most possible earliest origins of Baltic and particularly Slavic tribes, that is, roughly the forest-steppe & forest zones of Belarus and Western Russia (which were also part of the CWC horizon, too)? I'd find that more interesting than results for Poland, since in any case nor Slavic nor Baltic seem to have come from there.

  21. #346
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteranTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsRecommendation First Class
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,329
    Points
    110,111
    Level
    100
    Points: 110,111, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z2109
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Milan.M View Post
    The "original" Scythians,probably came from central Asia in Iron age and were nomadic tribes,they ruled the area for period of time in Ukraine where Cimmerians have been,similar story told by Herodotus.Later the name Scythians was applied to many tribes of various languages including Thracians,Goths,Bulgarians.The region was known as Scythia also,even thought they dissapeared,the region retained it's name.

    In my oppion those "original" Scythians that came from Central Asia and their descendants are mostly today Tatars,like Volga Tatars,they have lineages associated with them including R1a-Z93.
    They were "Turkified".
    Actually, Scythians and Sarmatians were related to Eastern Europeans, though they had very high Baloch. Anyway, nothing like Turkic or Mongolian tribes.

    Modern M348213 i0247 M084152 PR3_I0575 Moder Moder Moder Moder
    Ukrainian scythian EarlySarmatian, Pokrovka, Russia 5th–2nd c. BCE Mongolian Turkmen Uzbek Uyghur
    Run time Run time 11 Run time 6 Run time Run time Run time Run time
    S-Indian 1 S-Indian 1 S-Indian - S-Indian 1 S-Indian 5 S-Indian 5 S-Indian 5
    Baloch 4 Baloch 25 Baloch 25 Baloch 5 Baloch 26 Baloch 18 Baloch 16
    Caucasian 13 Caucasian 8 Caucasian 6 Caucasian 5 Caucasian 30 Caucasian 17 Caucasian 13
    NE-Euro 64 NE-Euro 45 NE-Euro 51 NE-Euro 6 NE-Euro 10 NE-Euro 14 NE-Euro 12
    SE-Asian SE-Asian 1 SE-Asian 0 SE-Asian - SE-Asian 0 SE-Asian - SE-Asian -
    Siberian 3 Siberian 6 Siberian 4 Siberian 38 Siberian 7 Siberian 17 Siberian 15
    NE-Asian NE-Asian 1 NE-Asian - NE-Asian 39 NE-Asian 8 NE-Asian 20 NE-Asian 30
    Papuan Papuan - Papuan - Papuan - Papuan - Papuan - Papuan -
    American 1 American 3 American 2 American 1 American 1 American 1 American 1
    Beringian 1 Beringian 1 Beringian 1 Beringian 2 Beringian 1 Beringian 2 Beringian 2
    Mediterranean 13 Mediterranean 9 Mediterranean 11 Mediterranean 2 Mediterranean 4 Mediterranean 4 Mediterranean 2
    SW-Asian SW-Asian - SW-Asian - SW-Asian - SW-Asian 7 SW-Asian 2 SW-Asian -
    San San - San - San - San - San - San -
    E-African E-African - E-African - E-African - E-African - E-African - E-African -
    Pygmy Pygmy - Pygmy - Pygmy - Pygmy - Pygmy - Pygmy -
    W-African W-African - W-African - W-African - W-African - W-African - W-African -

    But were very related, and continuation of original Bronze Age Steppe inhabitants:
    M828815 Rise552 M217196 I0430, R1a Z93 M608028 RISE505 M348213 i0247 M084152 PR3_I0575
    Ulan iV, Yamnaya 4.5 kya Srubna 3.5kya Andronovo scythian EarlySarmatian, Pokrovka, Russia 5th–2nd c. BCE
    Run time 9.08 Run time 8.02 Run time 13.24 Run time 11.07 Run time 5.84
    S-Indian - S-Indian - S-Indian 0.54 S-Indian 0.67 S-Indian -
    Baloch 33.24 Baloch 19.86 Baloch 21.23 Baloch 24.99 Baloch 25.4
    Caucasian 6.58 Caucasian 2.35 Caucasian 2.4 Caucasian 7.68 Caucasian 5.72
    NE-Euro 56.02 NE-Euro 55.13 NE-Euro 56.39 NE-Euro 45.27 NE-Euro 50.53
    SE-Asian - SE-Asian - SE-Asian - SE-Asian 0.83 SE-Asian 0.28
    Siberian - Siberian - Siberian 1.93 Siberian 6.39 Siberian 4.24
    NE-Asian - NE-Asian - NE-Asian - NE-Asian 1.31 NE-Asian -
    Papuan - Papuan - Papuan - Papuan - Papuan -
    American 2.46 American 0.91 American 1.05 American 2.85 American 1.94
    Beringian 0.75 Beringian - Beringian 1.22 Beringian 1.4 Beringian 1.06
    Mediterranean - Mediterranean 21.67 Mediterranean 14.37 Mediterranean 8.62 Mediterranean 10.81
    SW-Asian - SW-Asian - SW-Asian - SW-Asian - SW-Asian -
    San - San - San - San - San -
    E-African - E-African 0.07 E-African - E-African - E-African -
    Pygmy - Pygmy - Pygmy 0.06 Pygmy - Pygmy -
    W-African 0.95 W-African - W-African 0.81 W-African - W-African -
    Be wary of people who tend to glorify the past, underestimate the present, and demonize the future.

  22. #347
    Regular Member Achievements:
    OverdriveVeteranThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Yetos's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-10-11
    Location
    Makedonia
    Posts
    5,196
    Points
    39,519
    Level
    61
    Points: 39,519, Level: 61
    Level completed: 37%, Points required for next Level: 831
    Overall activity: 8.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    G2a3a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    X2b

    Ethnic group
    Makedonian original
    Country: Greece



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Boreas View Post
    Is it? Wasn't the term for West Coats of Turkey "Anatolia"? Even the the first world maps shows Asia as a massive continent till India

    But if your reference is Roman Asia, you are right.

    1.
    Asia is the true correct form of Sunrise,
    Ανατολη Ανατολια means re-work from Ανα + τελω
    so Anatolia is a pure Greek word, meaning Sun is again in his 'job'
    while Asia is proto-form of Sunrise more ancient closer to LPIE
    maybe the Homeric Εως ???


    2.
    the first who mention the word Ασιη is Hesiodos
    IN HOMER THE WORD DOES NOT EXIST
    But the first who use it is Herodotos to describe the what is known as Asia minor of the time,
    NOTICE THE ARZAWA - ASSUWA LEAGE

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assuwa



    The yellow to the Left


    3.
    Homeric Aσις
    but it means mud, Ασια Γη = clay mud land,
    only for the areas around NW minor Asia can be used, around Troas 9Troy)


    The Assuwa leage





    The term Anatolia was used mainly by East Romans
    and ment the land on the other side of Vosporos

    So the first term was Asia and ment the West coach to Aegean Pelagos,
    Then that become minor Asia and Asia was including the Plateu
    When Asia become huge and continent, Anatolia was used to describe minor Asia and Anatolian Plateau

  23. #348
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    17-03-16
    Posts
    519
    Points
    5,049
    Level
    20
    Points: 5,049, Level: 20
    Level completed: 99%, Points required for next Level: 1
    Overall activity: 12.0%


    Country: Greece



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    They may well have been distinct ethnic and tribal groups, but still mostly Indo-Iranian.
    I don't know what proves that. They use things like toponyms, which could have been pre-Scythian, for example 'Cimmerian', or alternatively Sarmatian. Later there is also Greek presence in the coasts, possibly Thracian, maybe proto-Slavs were nearby etc.

    The following article describes more or less the situation. He describes things which are apparent to those familiar with the primary sources:
    https://borissoff.wordpress.com/2013...nian-language/

    (I may not agree with him on other things)

  24. #349
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Community Award

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,722
    Points
    26,270
    Level
    49
    Points: 26,270, Level: 49
    Level completed: 72%, Points required for next Level: 280
    Overall activity: 39.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by A. Papadimitriou View Post
    I don't know what proves that. They use things like toponyms, which could have been pre-Scythian, for example 'Cimmerian', or alternatively Sarmatian. Later there is also Greek presence in the coasts, possibly Thracian, maybe proto-Slavs were nearby etc.

    The following article describes more or less the situation. He describes things which are apparent to those familiar with the primary sources:
    https://borissoff.wordpress.com/2013...nian-language/

    (I may not agree with him on other things)
    I don't understand your point well. Sarmatians and even, according to some linguists, Cimmerians (though others would say they were an intermediary branch, possibly between Daco-Thracian and Indo-Iranian) ARE REGARDED as Indo-Iranian peoples, and the genetic evidence is that Western Scythians were clearly distinct from Eastern Scythians, so in any case they may even have become "Scythianized" (assuming Scythians weren't an Indo-Iranian branch), but their genetics would remain in the local population, they weren't just annihilated and completely replaced, as that study also suggests. Indo-Iranian is just a very general branch, it even subdivides into 3 extant language families, Indo-Aryan, Iranic and Nuristani.

    Also, I didn't say that anything PROVES that, but, yes, there are definitely reasonable indications. I mean, if basing a hypothesis at the very least on toponyms, hydronyms and people's names (which are at least linguistic "fossils", not just speculations) is not the best path to find the truth, what would be enough? If those things that suggest an Indo-Iranian origin of their language are insufficient or misleading, then what proves that they WERE NOT Indo-Iranian? Is there anything better than those evidences from a linguistic point of view? I mean, it's not enough to state that there are no proofs that they were Indo-Iranian, that's well known, it's necessary to have at least a few better evidences to rennder that hypothesis not just unproved (all of them are), but in fact less plausible than others. Otherwise, we just get stuck in a zero-sum game.

  25. #350
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    17-03-16
    Posts
    519
    Points
    5,049
    Level
    20
    Points: 5,049, Level: 20
    Level completed: 99%, Points required for next Level: 1
    Overall activity: 12.0%


    Country: Greece



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    I don't understand your point well. Sarmatians and even, according to some linguists, Cimmerians (though others would say they were an intermediary branch, possibly between Daco-Thracian and Indo-Iranian) ARE REGARDED as Indo-Iranian peoples, and the genetic evidence is that Western Scythians were clearly distinct from Eastern Scythians, so in any case they may even have become "Scythianized" (assuming Scythians weren't an Indo-Iranian branch), but their genetics would remain in the local population, they weren't just annihilated and completely replaced, as that study also suggests.
    They don't say it is 'Indo-Iranian' or at least some short of an Indo-European dialect but 'Eastern Iranian'. Can you mention 5 examples of etymologies you accept? If those are etymologies of personal names or toponyms are they linked to Scythians in the sources or to other groups (like Massagetae or Sarmatians) or maybe to no group at all?

Page 14 of 26 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... 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
  •