Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 2 of 17 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 406

Thread: Where did the Anatolian branch of Indo-European originate?

  1. #26
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran5000 Experience Points
    LABERIA's Avatar
    Join Date
    05-09-15
    Posts
    2,005
    Points
    5,353
    Level
    21
    Points: 5,353, Level: 21
    Level completed: 61%, Points required for next Level: 197
    Overall activity: 16.0%


    Ethnic group
    Albanian
    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Johane Derite View Post
    Also its false to assert some sort of linguistic consensus as if this issue is entirely resolved and that this new data is totally not corroborating linguistic evidence. Check the discrepancies between these:







    And about the so called reconstructions of words for geography here is another clear example with a word as central as "Sea"

    From the book "The Indo-European Controversy" :

    "Another controversial PIE reconstruction is the root *mori, which presumably
    means ‘sea’. If this term is indeed traceable all the way back to PIE, then
    by the logic of linguistic paleontology one might assume that the speakers of
    PIE must have lived near a large body of water of some type. Note, however,
    that the relevant cognates come from the northwestern Indo-European
    languages: Lithuanian māres, Old Church Slavonic morje, Latin mare, Old
    Irish muir, Gothic marei. No relevant cognates are found in the Anatolian,
    Tocharian, Greek, Armenian, Albanian, or even Indo-Iranian branches of the
    family. The Greek word thalassa ‘sea’, for example, almost certainly comes
    from a pre-Indo-European substrate. As a result of such absences, the root
    *mori cannot be reliably reconstructed all the way back to PIE. It is possible
    that the Indo-European branches that lack a word for ‘sea’ once had it but later
    lost it, perhaps by acquiring it from the local substratum language, as has been
    proposed for the Greek thalassa (as discussed in Chapter 7). Alternatively, it is
    possible that the root *mori ‘sea’ was coined by – or borrowed into – the
    common ancestor of a particular branch of the Indo-European family.
    As it turns out, determining whether a word that is absent in many descendant
    languages stems from PIE is often a difficult matter. In the case of ‘sea’, the issue
    is further complicated by the fact that even in the Germanic and Celtic languages
    we find other roots meaning the same thing, as evident in the English word sea
    itself. Moreover, some of the roots for ‘sea’ can also refer to other types of water
    bodies. For example, the German cognate of the English sea, See can refer to
    either ‘lake’ or ‘sea’, whereas German Meer refers to either ‘sea’ or ‘ocean’
    while the Dutch word meer generally means ‘lake’. Scottish Gaelic loch refers to
    either ‘fresh-water lake’ or ‘salt-water sea inlet’. Similarly, Russian more, just
    like its English counterpart sea, can also refer to a large landlocked body of
    water, such as the Aral Sea, the Caspian Sea, the Dead Sea, or the Sea of Galilee.
    Thus, it is possible that PIE speakers were familiar not with the sea in the sense
    of the ocean, but rather with a large interior body of water"
    I want to quote an Albanian linguist, Xhevat Lloshi, one of the best here in Albania, from his last study:
    Periudhat historike të shqipes
    Historical periods of Albanian language
    Fjalët e gjuhëve i.e. dëshmojnë për zonat e përhapjes dhe kushtet e jetesës. Kanë fjalë të përbashkëta për dimrin, por jo përdetin (domethënë nuk janë formuar në treva bregdetare), për drurët (ahu, dru) dhe kafshët (ariu, ujku), që dëshmojnë për zona pyjore; dinin të numëronin të paktën deri në njëqind dhe emërtimi i numrit 100 shërben për dallimin centum(lat.) – satem (avestisht), i cili ndodhi me ndarjen e tyre. Kishin nisur të bënin jetë të ngulur, rrisnin grurin, mbanin bagëti, endnin leshin, përdornin harkun e shigjetën. Para se të ndaheshin e njihnin pak punimin e metaleve, duke filluar me bakrin. Kishin kaluar në familjen patriarkale, siç e dëshmojnë termat e farefisnisë, njihnin prijësa, besonin në hyjni dhe kishin disa përfytyrime etike.
    Sorry for the Gg translation:
    The words of the IE languages testify to the areas of distribution and living conditions. They had in common words for the winter, but not for the sea (i.e. they are not formed in the shores), for trees (beech, wood) and animals (bear, wolf) that testify to forest areas; they knew to count at least until one hundred and the denomination of number 100 serves to distinguish centum (lat.) - satem (avestan), which occurred with their separation. They had started to do a sedentary life, grow wheat, keep cattle, woven the wool, use the bow and arrow. Before they were separated, they knew little metal work, starting with copper. They had passed into the patriarchal family, as the terms of kinship testify, knew leaders, believed in divinity, and had some ethical imaginations.
    Johane, you can read the entire study here in Albanian:
    https://www.academia.edu/5700700/Per...%C3%AB_shqipes
    17 Dec.
    Paget to the Council.

    Now the Council's letters seem to imply (words quoted) that the King will keep no strangers save the Albanoys.

    Cales, 17 Dec. 1545. Signed.


  2. #27
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    12-03-18
    Posts
    106
    Points
    1,437
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,437, Level: 10
    Level completed: 44%, Points required for next Level: 113
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: United States



    Game over for steppe homeland of PIE?
    https://ibb.co/cRsTfd

    source:https://zenodo.org/record/1240524#.WvSquqSFNaS

  3. #28
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    Promenade's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-01-16
    Posts
    288
    Points
    4,459
    Level
    19
    Points: 4,459, Level: 19
    Level completed: 53%, Points required for next Level: 191
    Overall activity: 2.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-U106 R-L1
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1e

    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by Cpluskx View Post
    Game over for steppe homeland of PIE?
    https://ibb.co/cRsTfd

    source:https://zenodo.org/record/1240524#.WvSquqSFNaS
    "The EHG ancestry detected in individuals associated with Yamnaya (3000-2400 BCE) and the Maykop Culture (3700-3000 BCE) (in prep.) is absent from our Anatolian specimens"

    Wow finally dna from Maykop... also they reaffirm Namazga introduced EHG to South Asia before later steppe migrations, but they are unlikely to have been Indo-European speakers.

    It says "Anatolian languages established themselves in Anatolia by gradual infiltration and cultural assimilation" but from where? It seems like they're hinting from contact with Maykop, but at the same time they're saying "late Maykop" is not old enough.

  4. #29
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,716
    Points
    241,695
    Level
    100
    Points: 241,695, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by holderlin View Post
    It wasn't spoken all over Anatolia until classical times.
    There you go again. First of all, attestation is not "age" of a language. Second of all, some of them were attested in Hittite texts. Perhaps you should do some reading on the topic.

    https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknF...languages.html


    Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci

  5. #30
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-12-15
    Posts
    404
    Points
    5,463
    Level
    21
    Points: 5,463, Level: 21
    Level completed: 83%, Points required for next Level: 87
    Overall activity: 25.0%


    Country: Canada



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Again, I hope next time they use the samples of old anthro research.

    Senyurek (1951d, pp. 614-15) concludes that "the majority of the Chalcolithic and Copper Age inhabitants of Anatolia were dolichocephals of mainly Eurafrican and Mediterranean types, and that the brachycephals, probably representing the invaders, were rare in these periods. This study has further supported the conclusion that the earliest inhabitants of Anatolia were longheaded, and that the brachycephals came in subsequently. "The craniological evidence indicates that an invasion of brachycephals into Anatolia took place during the Chalcolithic period and that it was followed by a second invasion, bringing in the brachycephalic elements to Alaca Huyuk and other Copper Age sites, probably at about the middle of the Copper Age. The next invasion of brachycephals, which was more important and extensive than the previous ones, occurred at about 2000 B.C. This was made by the Hittites who were predominantly of the classical Alpine type."
    Last edited by johen; 11-05-18 at 02:00. Reason: I cannot delete one of posts

  6. #31
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-12-15
    Posts
    404
    Points
    5,463
    Level
    21
    Points: 5,463, Level: 21
    Level completed: 83%, Points required for next Level: 87
    Overall activity: 25.0%


    Country: Canada



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Again, I hope next time they use the samples of old anthro research.

    Senyurek (1951d, pp. 614-15) concludes that "the majority of the Chalcolithic and Copper Age inhabitants of Anatolia were dolichocephals of mainly Eurafrican and Mediterranean types, and that the brachycephals, probably representing the invaders, were rare in these periods. This study has further supported the conclusion that the earliest inhabitants of Anatolia were longheaded, and that the brachycephals came in subsequently. "The craniological evidence indicates that an invasion of brachycephals into Anatolia took place during the Chalcolithic period and that it was followed by a second invasion, bringing in the brachycephalic elements to Alaca Huyuk and other Copper Age sites, probably at about the middle of the Copper Age. The next invasion of brachycephals, which was more important and extensive than the previous ones, occurred at about 2000 B.C. This was made by the Hittites who were predominantly of the classical Alpine type."
    Last edited by johen; 11-05-18 at 02:00. Reason: I cannot delete one of posts

  7. #32
    Baron Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    10-06-12
    Posts
    332
    Points
    7,281
    Level
    25
    Points: 7,281, Level: 25
    Level completed: 47%, Points required for next Level: 269
    Overall activity: 3.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-BY593
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U5b2a2

    Country: Canada-Ontario



    Funny- no one made a fuss- about Bell Beaker with 0% steppe and one Bell Beaker with the highest steppe reading in szigetszentmiklos burials.
    (I2787 R1b-Z2103+)----[I2741-I2]
    http://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.ca...antas-six.html

  8. #33
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Community Award

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,695
    Points
    25,247
    Level
    48
    Points: 25,247, Level: 48
    Level completed: 70%, Points required for next Level: 303
    Overall activity: 17.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Johane Derite View Post
    Also its false to assert some sort of linguistic consensus as if this issue is entirely resolved and that this new data is totally not corroborating linguistic evidence. Check the discrepancies between these:







    And about the so called reconstructions of words for geography here is another clear example with a word as central as "Sea"

    From the book "The Indo-European Controversy" :

    "Another controversial PIE reconstruction is the root *mori, which presumably
    means ‘sea’. If this term is indeed traceable all the way back to PIE, then
    by the logic of linguistic paleontology one might assume that the speakers of
    PIE must have lived near a large body of water of some type. Note, however,
    that the relevant cognates come from the northwestern Indo-European
    languages: Lithuanian māres, Old Church Slavonic morje, Latin mare, Old
    Irish muir, Gothic marei. No relevant cognates are found in the Anatolian,
    Tocharian, Greek, Armenian, Albanian, or even Indo-Iranian branches of the
    family. The Greek word thalassa ‘sea’, for example, almost certainly comes
    from a pre-Indo-European substrate. As a result of such absences, the root
    *mori cannot be reliably reconstructed all the way back to PIE. It is possible
    that the Indo-European branches that lack a word for ‘sea’ once had it but later
    lost it, perhaps by acquiring it from the local substratum language, as has been
    proposed for the Greek thalassa (as discussed in Chapter 7). Alternatively, it is
    possible that the root *mori ‘sea’ was coined by – or borrowed into – the
    common ancestor of a particular branch of the Indo-European family.
    As it turns out, determining whether a word that is absent in many descendant
    languages stems from PIE is often a difficult matter. In the case of ‘sea’, the issue
    is further complicated by the fact that even in the Germanic and Celtic languages
    we find other roots meaning the same thing, as evident in the English word sea
    itself. Moreover, some of the roots for ‘sea’ can also refer to other types of water
    bodies. For example, the German cognate of the English sea, See can refer to
    either ‘lake’ or ‘sea’, whereas German Meer refers to either ‘sea’ or ‘ocean’
    while the Dutch word meer generally means ‘lake’. Scottish Gaelic loch refers to
    either ‘fresh-water lake’ or ‘salt-water sea inlet’. Similarly, Russian more, just
    like its English counterpart sea, can also refer to a large landlocked body of
    water, such as the Aral Sea, the Caspian Sea, the Dead Sea, or the Sea of Galilee.
    Thus, it is possible that PIE speakers were familiar not with the sea in the sense
    of the ocean, but rather with a large interior body of water"
    As far as I can see, the only - but relevant - consensus in all those hypothetical trees of the divergence of PIE is that Anatolian split first and/or in any case is not particularly closely related to any other attested IE branch. And that observation, virtually consensual among linguists, does matter now that we're discussing a possible "dual" nature (not only in terms of geography/homeland, but also possibly of chronology) of the IE family.

  9. #34
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Community Award

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,695
    Points
    25,247
    Level
    48
    Points: 25,247, Level: 48
    Level completed: 70%, Points required for next Level: 303
    Overall activity: 17.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Promenade View Post
    "Among comparative linguists, a Balkan route for the introduction of Anatolian IE is generally considered more likely than a passage through the Caucasus, due, for example, to greater Anatolian IE presence and language diversity in the west"
    I don't think this reason is particularly strong, though it is certainly plausible. That's mainly because in the very same region, present-day Turkey, the historically documented Turkic-speaking immigration also affected the western part of Anatolia much more intensely than the eastern part of Anatolia or Transcaucasia, even though we know for a fact that the Seljuk Turks came from the east and entered Anatolia from present-day Azerbaijan and Iran, mostly bypassing eastern Anatolia to concentrate much more heavily in Western/Central Anatolia and, especially after they defeated the Byzantines for good, the southwestern Aegean provinces. That historic movement of people into Anatolia shows that not necessarily migrations difuse gradually and evenly through the territory as they move westward, they often bypass entire regions or are kicked out from areas nearer to their original focus of dispersal.

  10. #35
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered10000 Experience PointsThree Friends
    Johane Derite's Avatar
    Join Date
    21-06-17
    Posts
    900
    Points
    12,101
    Level
    33
    Points: 12,101, Level: 33
    Level completed: 22%, Points required for next Level: 549
    Overall activity: 26.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13>Z5018>FGC33625
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U1a1a

    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    As far as I can see, the only - but relevant - consensus in all those hypothetical trees of the divergence of PIE is that Anatolian split first and/or in any case is not particularly closely related to any other attested IE branch. And that observation, virtually consensual among linguists, does matter now that we're discussing a possible "dual" nature (not only in terms of geography/homeland, but also possibly of chronology) of the IE family.
    Accidently disliked your comment
    "As we have already stressed, the mass evacuation of the Albanians from their triangle is the only effective course we can take. In order to relocate a whole people, the first prerequisite is the creation of a suitable psychosis. This can be done in various ways." - Vaso Cubrilovic

  11. #36
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,716
    Points
    241,695
    Level
    100
    Points: 241,695, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by Cpluskx View Post
    Game over for steppe homeland of PIE?
    https://ibb.co/cRsTfd

    source:https://zenodo.org/record/1240524#.WvSquqSFNaS
    I think everyone should read this very carefully, both to review the linguistics part of this debate (and refresh what is known about the Anatolian languages), and to see how this Willerslev group (which also includes Allentoft), is leaning. We already know how Krause is leaning.

  12. #37
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    holderlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-12-14
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    761
    Points
    7,381
    Level
    25
    Points: 7,381, Level: 25
    Level completed: 67%, Points required for next Level: 169
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: USA - Washington



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    There you go again. First of all, attestation is not "age" of a language. Second of all, some of them were attested in Hittite texts. Perhaps you should do some reading on the topic.

    https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknF...languages.html
    OK, so saying that it was "all over Anatolia" means something very specific, and I don't think you can say that in 2500BC. Could be true, but as far as I can tell it's likely not.

    The evidence strongly suggests IE intrusion into Anatolia over pre-existing Hatti speaking groups that were attested at least by around 2500BC, then Hittites absorb these people 1000 years later. 1000 years.

  13. #38
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    holderlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-12-14
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    761
    Points
    7,381
    Level
    25
    Points: 7,381, Level: 25
    Level completed: 67%, Points required for next Level: 169
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: USA - Washington



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    As far as I can see, the only - but relevant - consensus in all those hypothetical trees of the divergence of PIE is that Anatolian split first and/or in any case is not particularly closely related to any other attested IE branch. And that observation, virtually consensual among linguists, does matter now that we're discussing a possible "dual" nature (not only in terms of geography/homeland, but also possibly of chronology) of the IE family.
    I was going to say the same thing. Most of those tree are complete BS, and they do not accurately represent the current dispute among academics.

  14. #39
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,716
    Points
    241,695
    Level
    100
    Points: 241,695, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by holderlin View Post
    OK, so saying that it was "all over Anatolia" means something very specific, and I don't think you can say that in 2500BC. Could be true, but as far as I can tell it's likely not.

    The evidence strongly suggests IE intrusion into Anatolia over pre-existing Hatti speaking groups that were attested at least by around 2500BC, then Hittites absorb these people 1000 years later. 1000 years.
    For goodness' sakes that's absolute bunk, pulled out of your own imagination. You have no way of knowing that's what happened.

    You need to read about the Anatolian languages and about the Hittites. Start by reading the article from some of the contributors to this paper. All of these "Anatolian" languages probably differentiated in place.
    https://zenodo.org/record/1240524#.WvUE-4gvzIX

    All Indo-European migrants eventually admixed to some degree with the "locals". Still, the way that arrival is tracked is by the presence of "steppe" in the autosome, whether it's Europe or Central Asia or India. Isn't that what all the analysis is about? What do you think we've all been tracking for the last couple of years?

    Only with Anatolia we don't need to find any trace of steppe? This takes special pleading and biased reasoning to a whole new level.

    We may find that steppe in royal Hittite samples or elsewhere. I don't care one way or another, but if it's not found anywhere in Bronze Age Anatolian samples it's game over. Period.

  15. #40
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,230
    Points
    41,054
    Level
    62
    Points: 41,054, Level: 62
    Level completed: 55%, Points required for next Level: 596
    Overall activity: 40.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    There you go again. First of all, attestation is not "age" of a language. Second of all, some of them were attested in Hittite texts. Perhaps you should do some reading on the topic.
    https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknF...languages.html
    fact is that Hittite was insignificant till they conquered the Hatti ca 1900 BC

    and the 'Hittite' samples, nobody knows whether they are actualy Hittite or Hatti, but autosomal they probably had mixed

  16. #41
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    holderlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-12-14
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    761
    Points
    7,381
    Level
    25
    Points: 7,381, Level: 25
    Level completed: 67%, Points required for next Level: 169
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: USA - Washington



    3 out of 5 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    For goodness' sakes that's absolute bunk, pulled out of your own imagination. You have no way of knowing that's what happened.

    You need to read about the Anatolian languages and about the Hittites. Start by reading the article from some of the contributors to this paper. All of these "Anatolian" languages probably differentiated in place.
    https://zenodo.org/record/1240524#.WvUE-4gvzIX

    All Indo-European migrants eventually admixed to some degree with the "locals". Still, the way that arrival is tracked is by the presence of "steppe" in the autosome, whether it's Europe or Central Asia or India. Isn't that what all the analysis is about? What do you think we've all been tracking for the last couple of years?
    Well it's far less bunk than a South Caucuses PIE, that's for sure. What part exactly?

    I thought you weren't talking to me anymore.

    I've done a lot of reading on this, including that paper, which by the way is hardly a comprehensive review. I actually found the Tocharian section more interesting.

    The evidence cited isn't antithetical to what I'm saying, in fact it may even support it. The Kanes records are only a few hundred years earlier than attested Hittite, which I'm fine with, and the Elba records with the IE names from 2500BC are very sparse. Hardly evidence of being "all over Anatolia" such that any bronze age sample will likely be speaking Anatolian. And Hittite doesn't envelope the region until around 1500 BC, which is in fact 1000 years after these initial records of what seem to be mostly Hattic words, or indecipherable.

    As to their other conclusions, like Proto-Anatolian needing to have differentiated by 3500-3000BC in Anatolia, they have made some leaps on the way to this. I understand why they're saying this, and I think it could easily be the case, but It could have certainly started to differentiate outside of Anatolia as well.

    The intrusive nature of Hittite has wide acceptance, and I've read the papers and I can see why. It's not just me making up stuff. The Hattians show every sign of being seated in Anatolia, and I even think their pantheon is firmly rooted in 8000 year old Anatolian farmers evidenced by figure representations of known Hattian gods, which is amazing.

    And yes I understand the search for steppe genes in all of this, but this particular bit of it didn't really need reference to steppe anything. I'm only saying that it looks like Anatolian is intrusive to Anatolia, and that we can't say that it was so common and widespread by 2500BC that we were likely to draw an Anatolian speaking sample. The evidence suggests the opposite.

    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Only with Anatolia we don't need to find any trace of steppe? This takes special pleading and biased reasoning to a whole new level.
    No, we would still like to see some steppe, but Anatolian does seem to exemplify an exception to a model that has been cross verified 6 ways from Sunday for all other IE languages, especially Indo-Iranian. So you're absolutely right that it deserves special consideration, but there's nothing biased or pleading about it. Just because this special consideration isn't suddenly throwing out the steppe model entirely doesn't mean that it's any more wrong than the South Caucuses speculation. At least with what we currently know.

    And, I keep going back to that Yamnaya grave with 50% Anatolian Farmer. If a proper Yamnaya grave can have 50% EEF, then I'm not so sure we need Steppe in Anatolian speakers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    We may find that steppe in royal Hittite samples or elsewhere. I don't care one way or another, but if it's not found anywhere in Bronze Age Anatolian samples it's game over. Period.
    What on earth do you mean "game over"? I'm not competing in whatever weird thing you've gotten caught up in. None of this is anything but interesting to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    I don't care one way or another
    Oh I think you do

  17. #42
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three Friends1 year registered5000 Experience Points
    IronSide's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-10-16
    Age
    24
    Posts
    883
    Points
    8,064
    Level
    26
    Points: 8,064, Level: 26
    Level completed: 86%, Points required for next Level: 86
    Overall activity: 71.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2c2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    T2e1

    Country: United Arab Emirates



    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    I am person X, I hold the following belief:

    Hittites will have higher EHG than Anatolia Chalcolithic and Bronze Age, if a future sample doesn't have that, then it is a Hatti person, not Hittite, as long as we don't find EHG, we don't find the Hittites.

    My position is unfalsifiable. because I believe ...

  18. #43
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    17-03-16
    Posts
    501
    Points
    4,446
    Level
    19
    Points: 4,446, Level: 19
    Level completed: 49%, Points required for next Level: 204
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Greece



    Quote Originally Posted by holderlin View Post
    It wasn't spoken all over Anatolia until classical times.


    If Anatolia is that then there were IE languages all over it or at least that is a position that can be supported.
    In the North East there were Hattian speakers and Colchians east of Trabzon towards Georgia but at least in Hattian regions there were IE speakers too. (And nothing is known about the language of Colchians, although Georgians claim them)

  19. #44
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class

    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,370
    Points
    5,750
    Level
    22
    Points: 5,750, Level: 22
    Level completed: 40%, Points required for next Level: 300
    Overall activity: 8.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    I think that rather than search EHG in anatolia we should try to found the ancestral population of the anatolian samples that we have, or with wich it get the most closer. If anatolians samples for exemple match with anatolian neolithic, so they can't be IE's by deduction. If they match with something CHG, are they more Kura-Araxes or another culture ? Anatolia was full of hurrians a non related indo-european nation, so if every anatolian samples from chalcolithic or bronze age anatolia have the same origin, once more by deduction it can be IE's. Or are we gonna start to say that every CHG-like populations had different languages from different families ?

  20. #45
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    17-03-16
    Posts
    501
    Points
    4,446
    Level
    19
    Points: 4,446, Level: 19
    Level completed: 49%, Points required for next Level: 204
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Greece



    Quote Originally Posted by halfalp View Post
    I think that rather than search EHG in anatolia we should try to found the ancestral population of the anatolian samples that we have, or with wich it get the most closer. If anatolians samples for exemple match with anatolian neolithic, so they can't be IE's by deduction. If they match with something CHG, are they more Kura-Araxes or another culture ? Anatolia was full of hurrians a non related indo-european nation, so if every anatolian samples from chalcolithic or bronze age anatolia have the same origin, once more by deduction it can be IE's. Or are we gonna start to say that every CHG-like populations had different languages from different families ?
    That is not true.

    Quote Originally Posted by IronSide View Post
    I am person X, I hold the following belief:
    Quote Originally Posted by IronSide View Post
    Hittites will have higher EHG than Anatolia Chalcolithic and Bronze Age, if a future sample doesn't have that, then it is a Hatti person, not Hittite, as long as we don't find EHG, we don't find the Hittites.
    My position is unfalsifiable. because I believe ...
    Yes. I think I will do the opposite. If they find a sample with EHG or R1-something I will say it is a Hattian.
    Inverting their unfalsifiable claims is a little funny.

  21. #46
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    12-03-18
    Posts
    106
    Points
    1,437
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,437, Level: 10
    Level completed: 44%, Points required for next Level: 113
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: United States





    Location of Armi where Indo European was discovered at 2500 BC.



    And these are the location of Anatolian languages later in Anatolia. Slow expansion from North Syria to the southern coast of Anatolia?

  22. #47
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    18-03-17
    Posts
    217
    Points
    1,160
    Level
    9
    Points: 1,160, Level: 9
    Level completed: 5%, Points required for next Level: 190
    Overall activity: 5.0%


    Ethnic group
    swiss,italian
    Country: Germany



    from wiki.
    "The scholar Petra Goedegebuure has proposed that before the conquest of the Hittites, an Indo-European language, probably Luwian, had already been spoken alongside the Hattic language for a long time."


    disribution of luwian inscriptions from 2000 to 1000bc.

  23. #48
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,716
    Points
    241,695
    Level
    100
    Points: 241,695, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by holderlin View Post
    Well it's far less bunk than a South Caucuses PIE, that's for sure. What part exactly?

    I thought you weren't talking to me anymore.

    I've done a lot of reading on this, including that paper, which by the way is hardly a comprehensive review. I actually found the Tocharian section more interesting.

    The evidence cited isn't antithetical to what I'm saying, in fact it may even support it. The Kanes records are only a few hundred years earlier than attested Hittite, which I'm fine with, and the Elba records with the IE names from 2500BC are very sparse. Hardly evidence of being "all over Anatolia" such that any bronze age sample will likely be speaking Anatolian. And Hittite doesn't envelope the region until around 1500 BC, which is in fact 1000 years after these initial records of what seem to be mostly Hattic words, or indecipherable.

    As to their other conclusions, like Proto-Anatolian needing to have differentiated by 3500-3000BC in Anatolia, they have made some leaps on the way to this. I understand why they're saying this, and I think it could easily be the case, but It could have certainly started to differentiate outside of Anatolia as well.

    The intrusive nature of Hittite has wide acceptance, and I've read the papers and I can see why. It's not just me making up stuff. The Hattians show every sign of being seated in Anatolia, and I even think their pantheon is firmly rooted in 8000 year old Anatolian farmers evidenced by figure representations of known Hattian gods, which is amazing.

    And yes I understand the search for steppe genes in all of this, but this particular bit of it didn't really need reference to steppe anything. I'm only saying that it looks like Anatolian is intrusive to Anatolia, and that we can't say that it was so common and widespread by 2500BC that we were likely to draw an Anatolian speaking sample. The evidence suggests the opposite.



    No, we would still like to see some steppe, but Anatolian does seem to exemplify an exception to a model that has been cross verified 6 ways from Sunday for all other IE languages, especially Indo-Iranian. So you're absolutely right that it deserves special consideration, but there's nothing biased or pleading about it. Just because this special consideration isn't suddenly throwing out the steppe model entirely doesn't mean that it's any more wrong than the South Caucuses speculation. At least with what we currently know.

    And, I keep going back to that Yamnaya grave with 50% Anatolian Farmer. If a proper Yamnaya grave can have 50% EEF, then I'm not so sure we need Steppe in Anatolian speakers.



    What on earth do you mean "game over"? I'm not competing in whatever weird thing you've gotten caught up in. None of this is anything but interesting to me.



    Oh I think you do
    Now you're a mind reader.

    OK, have it your way, the spread of IE languages to Anatolia is the only situation in which we're not going to track "steppe" ancestry to prove it. Why? Because that would falsify the "proto-IE had to start on the steppe, it can't owe anything to any other place." It's clearly not enough that all the later languages spread from the steppe.

    And, we don't even know that steppe won't show up. Perfectly fine with me if it does. However, IF IT DOESN"T, it falsifies that part of the "kurgan" theory. Only people like you think that's such a biggie.

    This is precisely why I don't participate as much in these kinds of discussions (steppe, PIE etc.) as I used to, and let so many stupid, unsupported posts slide: it's boring and irritating in equal measure to debate "true believers" on EITHER side. It's like a freaking religion. On some sites you get crap like "Oh, no, you got me wrong: my HEART is with the steppe theory." Your HEART? Freaking get a life, people.

  24. #49
    Regular Member Achievements:
    5000 Experience PointsVeteran
    berun's Avatar
    Join Date
    24-11-15
    Posts
    1,083
    Points
    8,654
    Level
    27
    Points: 8,654, Level: 27
    Level completed: 84%, Points required for next Level: 96
    Overall activity: 10.0%


    Country: Spain - Catalonia



    I need time to look better, but discussing if BA Anatolian samples were locals or true Hittites is losing time if IA Anatolian has truly 0 steppe watermark.
    "What I've seen so far after my entire career chasing Indoeuropeans is that our solutions look tissue thin and our problems still look monumental" J.P.Mallory

    "The ultimate homeland of the group [PIE] that also spread Anatolian languages is less clear." D. Reich

  25. #50
    Regular Member Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Sile's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-09-11
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,120
    Points
    29,699
    Level
    52
    Points: 29,699, Level: 52
    Level completed: 96%, Points required for next Level: 51
    Overall activity: 37.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 -Z19945..Jura
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a1 ..Pannoni

    Ethnic group
    North Alpine Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by A. Papadimitriou View Post


    If Anatolia is that then there were IE languages all over it or at least that is a position that can be supported.
    In the North East there were Hattian speakers and Colchians east of Trabzon towards Georgia but at least in Hattian regions there were IE speakers too. (And nothing is known about the language of Colchians, although Georgians claim them)


    The anatolian IE languages before the green and yellow semitic language push

    The euboen alphabet came from north levant prior to west-semitic change

    The white in the direction of NW are thraci/phygian languages
    có che un pòpoło no 'l defende pi ła só łéngua el xe prónto par èser s'ciavo

    when a people no longer dares to defend its language it is ripe for slavery.

  26. #51
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    holderlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-12-14
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    761
    Points
    7,381
    Level
    25
    Points: 7,381, Level: 25
    Level completed: 67%, Points required for next Level: 169
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: USA - Washington



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Now you're a mind reader.

    OK, have it your way, the spread of IE languages to Anatolia is the only situation in which we're not going to track "steppe" ancestry to prove it. Why? Because that would falsify the "proto-IE had to start on the steppe, it can't owe anything to any other place." It's clearly not enough that all the later languages spread from the steppe.

    And, we don't even know that steppe won't show up. Perfectly fine with me if it does. However, IF IT DOESN"T, it falsifies that part of the "kurgan" theory.
    I have no emotional attachment to any of this. I'm just very familiar with all of the evidence, and it's annoying when people ignore it for the sake of a conjured theory based on a VERY small amount of supporting data in comparison.

    I do agree that these Anatolian genomes are supportive of a non-EHG mediated movement into Anatolia. Definitely. It's plain as day. I'm not ignoring anything. I'm just not sure that it's enough to mean what everyone's trying to claim. That's all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    This is precisely why I don't participate as much in these kinds of discussions (steppe, PIE etc.) as I used to, and let so many stupid, unsupported posts slide: it's boring and irritating in equal measure to debate "true believers" on EITHER side. It's like a freaking religion. On some sites you get crap like "Oh, no, you got me wrong: my HEART is with the steppe theory." Your HEART? Freaking get a life, people.
    Yes I agree. Do not mistake me for these types.

    Here's the genomes by the way. I don't think anyone's posted them yet.






    And the relevant PCA


Page 2 of 17 FirstFirst 123412 ... 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
  •