Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 34

Thread: -3000 years old Anatolian personal names in Ebla ?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,499

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    1 members found this post helpful.

    -3000 years old Anatolian personal names in Ebla ?

    Hello, i heard that one of the many reason that Reich Labs puts PIE south of the caucasus, is that they apparently have found -3000 years old tablets from the antic Ebla showing some I-E and mainly Anatolian personal names, and also something about a city named Amri? but i cant found anything on that, is there any people who knows more about those discoveries?

  2. #2
    Regular Member Johane Derite's Avatar
    Join Date
    21-06-17
    Posts
    1,152

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

    Country: Albania



    2 members found this post helpful.
    G. Kroonen, G. Barjamovic, M. Peyrot, Linguistic supplement to Damgaard et al. 2018: Early Indo-European Languages, Anatolian, Tocharian and Indo-Iranian. 10.5281/zenodo.1240524 (9 May 2018).



    LINK: https://zenodo.org/record/1240524#.WyYzxaczZjG



    This is what anthrogenica user Ryukendo wrote about this supplement:

    The authors of the supplement summarise the literature on the topic:


    1) There is no consensus on the Balkan or Caucasian route for the Anatolian languages, though there are arguments that lead to a preference for the Balkan route among some linguists.
    2) The languages are diverged for at least a millenium before we get the written records of their varieties (Palaic, Luwian, Hittite etc)
    3) The linguistic evidence does not indicate mass migration or elite conquest, because the language characteristics are relatively in line with the language area, rather it appears "diffusional".
    4) New evidence is presented from the Eblaite state with personal names from "Armi" (we don't know where that is, probably a statelet under the control of Ebla) with Anatolian derivation, in the Turkey-Syria border, 500 years before the earliest attestation of the other Anatolian languages in 2500BC (which therefore push the split of the language group even further back). These personal names also appear in Assyrian records about trade with "Armi". These names occur contemporaneous with Yamnaya, so the hypothesis that even Anatolian derives from Yamnaya can be safely rejected.
    "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

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,499

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    Quote Originally Posted by Johane Derite View Post
    G. Kroonen, G. Barjamovic, M. Peyrot, Linguistic supplement to Damgaard et al. 2018: Early Indo-European Languages, Anatolian, Tocharian and Indo-Iranian. 10.5281/zenodo.1240524 (9 May 2018).


    LINK: https://zenodo.org/record/1240524#.WyYzxaczZjG



    This is what anthrogenica user Ryukendo wrote about this supplement:

    The authors of the supplement summarise the literature on the topic:


    1) There is no consensus on the Balkan or Caucasian route for the Anatolian languages, though there are arguments that lead to a preference for the Balkan route among some linguists.
    2) The languages are diverged for at least a millenium before we get the written records of their varieties (Palaic, Luwian, Hittite etc)
    3) The linguistic evidence does not indicate mass migration or elite conquest, because the language characteristics are relatively in line with the language area, rather it appears "diffusional".
    4) New evidence is presented from the Eblaite state with personal names from "Armi" (we don't know where that is, probably a statelet under the control of Ebla) with Anatolian derivation, in the Turkey-Syria border, 500 years before the earliest attestation of the other Anatolian languages in 2500BC (which therefore push the split of the language group even further back). These personal names also appear in Assyrian records about trade with "Armi". These names occur contemporaneous with Yamnaya, so the hypothesis that even Anatolian derives from Yamnaya can be safely rejected.
    Hey thanks ! i'm not sure to understand this " These personal names also appear in Assyrian records about trade with "Armi". These names occur contemporaneous with Yamnaya, so the hypothesis that even Anatolian derives from Yamnaya can be safely rejected. " Is Assyria contemporary with Yamna Culture ?

    They have found mtdna U4a dated to -3'000 to -2'500 in Mari very near to Ebla, this is a typical eastern european mtdna lineage, just saying.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,499

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    In one stance they say " we cannot for sure link Tocharian languages with Afanasievo Culture and Afanasievo Culture could have spoken various languages " and in the other they say " Some loanwords from Indo-Aryan are believe to come from BMAC [ wich doesn't have any writing known ] and absorbed by Vedic language ". Also, they say Yamnaya and Afanasievo are " said " to be genetically and culturally related, but both are not related with Botai Culture, wich are believe to be the original horse raiders in their mind, so i wonder how they explain migration from Yamnaya to Afanasievo, on herds with carts ? Then the say " the EHG individual in Namzaga Culture cannot be linked with Yamnaya but with Sintashta-Andronovo and earlier Corded Ware [ wich as we know is linked with Yamnaya ] but didn't the link between Sintashta-Andronovo and Corded Ware have been busted ? I do not understand anymore, are we talking about Indo-Hittite or not ?

  5. #5
    Moderator
    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    2,253


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by halfalp View Post
    Hey thanks ! i'm not sure to understand this " These personal names also appear in Assyrian records about trade with "Armi". These names occur contemporaneous with Yamnaya, so the hypothesis that even Anatolian derives from Yamnaya can be safely rejected. " Is Assyria contemporary with Yamna Culture ?

    They have found mtdna U4a dated to -3'000 to -2'500 in Mari very near to Ebla, this is a typical eastern european mtdna lineage, just saying.
    It's relatively contemporary with Yamnaya: the first Assyrians are attested about 2500-2600 BC, the last evidences of Yamnaya culture are also from around 2600 BC. The main thing, I believe, is that if there were specifically "Anatolian IE", and not "reconstructed Proto-Indo-European-like" names in the Middle East by 2500 BC, Anatolian IE couldn't have been derived from a Yamnaya dialect just a few centuries before that. If Yamnaya people really spoke an undivided PIE (including Anatolian and Tocharian), the language of Anatolian IEs in the Middle East would still look very similar to that (e.g. it would be more or less like American English versus 17th century British English). I don't know why the linguists say they're so certain those names are specifically "Anatolian", but if they know what they are doing, and considering that Anatolian is so distinctive in relation to reconstructed PIE, we can safely bet that PIE started to split in the Copper Age, many centuries before 2500 BC.

  6. #6
    Moderator
    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    2,253


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by halfalp View Post
    " the EHG individual in Namzaga Culture cannot be linked with Yamnaya but with Sintashta-Andronovo and earlier Corded Ware [ wich as we know is linked with Yamnaya ] but didn't the link between Sintashta-Andronovo and Corded Ware have been busted ?
    Did it really? I didn't know that. :-O

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,499

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    Did it really? I didn't know that. :-O
    Idk actually, but i've read here and there that Sintashta-Andronovo is now thinking to be more related to yamnaya properly than CWC, isn't ?

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,499

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    It's relatively contemporary with Yamnaya: the first Assyrians are attested about 2500-2600 BC, the last evidences of Yamnaya culture are also from around 2600 BC. The main thing, I believe, is that if there were specifically "Anatolian IE", and not "reconstructed Proto-Indo-European-like" names in the Middle East by 2500 BC, Anatolian IE couldn't have been derived from a Yamnaya dialect just a few centuries before that. If Yamnaya people really spoke an undivided PIE (including Anatolian and Tocharian), the language of Anatolian IEs in the Middle East would still look very similar to that (e.g. it would be more or less like American English versus 17th century British English). I don't know why the linguists say they're so certain those names are specifically "Anatolian", but if they know what they are doing, and considering that Anatolian is so distinctive in relation to reconstructed PIE, we can safely bet that PIE started to split in the Copper Age, many centuries before 2500 BC.
    I really dont think if you wanna follow the Indo-Hittite hypothesis that trying to include Tocharian in your schema is a safe bet. I could understand Hittite being originated from Anatolian, but saying that Tocharian was spoken south of the caucasus, roam north and straight was migrating in a eastern way seems very balsy.

  9. #9
    Moderator
    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    2,253


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by halfalp View Post
    I really dont think if you wanna follow the Indo-Hittite hypothesis that trying to include Tocharian in your schema is a safe bet. I could understand Hittite being originated from Anatolian, but saying that Tocharian was spoken south of the caucasus, roam north and straight was migrating in a eastern way seems very balsy.
    Did I say that? I said that Tocharian is also clearly too divergent to date from the late Yamnaya expansion. Yamnaya was almost certainly not the first PIE-speaking culture in the Pontic-Caspian steppe, it in fact was clearly a development from the latest stages of Sredny Stog II and Repin (late Khvalynsk). There is no need to choose either "Yamnaya, either some other culture south of the Caucasus" as the root of Tocharian. Tocharian is associated most probably with the Afanasievo culture, which is contemporaneous with even the earlier phase of Yamnaya, so it probably didn't come straight from its mature cultural stage, but from the same source of Yamnaya. The probable timeline is this one: Anatolian first; Tocharian centuries later; other IE branches centuries later (not necessarily at the same time). Those 3 expansions may have started from different places and under different cultural contexts.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,499

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    Did I say that? I said that Tocharian is also clearly too divergent to date from the late Yamnaya expansion. Yamnaya was almost certainly not the first PIE-speaking culture in the Pontic-Caspian steppe, it in fact was clearly a development from the latest stages of Sredny Stog II and Repin (late Khvalynsk). There is no need to choose either "Yamnaya, either some other culture south of the Caucasus" as the root of Tocharian. Tocharian is associated most probably with the Afanasievo culture, which is contemporaneous with even the earlier phase of Yamnaya, so it probably didn't come straight from its mature cultural stage, but from the same source of Yamnaya. The probable timeline is this one: Anatolian first; Tocharian centuries later; other IE branches centuries later (not necessarily at the same time). Those 3 expansions may have started from different places and under different cultural contexts.
    No i was talking at a third person, not you. And i was referencing the Copenhaguen team and Max Planck going for the specifically Indo-Hittite hypothesis. I was saying i could understand why we would see Anatolian languages originated south of the caucasus, but i cannot see Tocharian being spoken south of the caucasus, going north and then east, while those who stayed in the pontic steppe developped LPIE.

  11. #11
    Moderator
    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    2,253


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by halfalp View Post
    No i was talking at a third person, not you. And i was referencing the Copenhaguen team and Max Planck going for the specifically Indo-Hittite hypothesis. I was saying i could understand why we would see Anatolian languages originated south of the caucasus, but i cannot see Tocharian being spoken south of the caucasus, going north and then east, while those who stayed in the pontic steppe developped LPIE.
    Oh I see. IMHO, too, there is no reason to believe that any other branch but Anatolian did not derive from a LPIE dialect, even if an archaic one (where Tocharian probably split from) and not one of the latest stages of the language. As for Anatolian, its intense and probably early divergence leaves the possibilites more open to "unorthodox" scenarios outside the Pontic-Caspian steppe cultures.

  12. #12
    Elite member IronSide's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-10-16
    Age
    26
    Posts
    883

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2c2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    T2e1

    Country: United Arab Emirates



    from the linguistic supplement's conclusion:

    Furthermore, our genetic data cannot confirm a scenario in which the introduction of the Anatolian Indo-European languages into Anatolia was associated with the spread of EBA Yamnaya West Eurasian ancestry. The Anatolian samples contain no discernible trace of steppe ancestry at present. The combined linguistic and genetic evidence, therefore, have important implications for the “Steppe Hypothesis”in Southwest Asia.

    First, the lack of genetic indications for an intrusion into Anatoliarefutes the classical notion of a Yamnaya-derived mass invasion or conquest. However, it does fit the recently developed consensus among linguists and historians that the speakers of the Anatolian languages established themselves in Anatolia by gradual infiltration and cultural assimilation.

    Second, the attestation of Anatolian Indo-European personal names in 25th century BCE decisively falsifies the Yamnaya culture as a possible archaeological horizon for PIE-speakers prior to the Anatolian Indo-European split. The period of Proto-Anatolian linguistic unity can now be placed in the 4thmillennium BCE and may have been contemporaneous with e.g. the Maykop culture (3700–3000 BCE), which influenced the formation and apparent westward migration of the Yamnaya and maintained commercial and cultural contact with the Anatolian highlands (Kristiansen et al. 2018). Our findings corroborate the Indo-Anatolian Hypothesis, which claims that Anatolian Indo-European split off from Proto-Indo-European first and that Anatolian Indo-European represents a sister rather than a daughter language. Our findings call for the identification of the speakers of Proto-Indo-Anatolian as a population earlier that the Yamnaya and late Maykop cultures

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,499

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    Quote Originally Posted by IronSide View Post
    from the linguistic supplement's conclusion:
    Furthermore, our genetic data cannot confirm a scenario in which the introduction of the Anatolian Indo-European languages into Anatolia was associated with the spread of EBA Yamnaya West Eurasian ancestry. The Anatolian samples contain no discernible trace of steppe ancestry at present. The combined linguistic and genetic evidence, therefore, have important implications for the “Steppe Hypothesis”in Southwest Asia.
    First, the lack of genetic indications for an intrusion into Anatoliarefutes the classical notion of a Yamnaya-derived mass invasion or conquest. However, it does fit the recently developed consensus among linguists and historians that the speakers of the Anatolian languages established themselves in Anatolia by gradual infiltration and cultural assimilation.
    Second, the attestation of Anatolian Indo-European personal names in 25th century BCE decisively falsifies the Yamnaya culture as a possible archaeological horizon for PIE-speakers prior to the Anatolian Indo-European split. The period of Proto-Anatolian linguistic unity can now be placed in the 4thmillennium BCE and may have been contemporaneous with e.g. the Maykop culture (3700–3000 BCE), which influenced the formation and apparent westward migration of the Yamnaya and maintained commercial and cultural contact with the Anatolian highlands (Kristiansen et al. 2018). Our findings corroborate the Indo-Anatolian Hypothesis, which claims that Anatolian Indo-European split off from Proto-Indo-European first and that Anatolian Indo-European represents a sister rather than a daughter language. Our findings call for the identification of the speakers of Proto-Indo-Anatolian as a population earlier that the Yamnaya and late Maykop cultures
    I dont really understand the second point, why exactly IE personal names in the 25th century south of caucasus falsify the Yamnaya expansion hypothesis ? I dont think anything is falsify because technically Anatolian language could come from eastern steppe to middle-east from -6000 to -2000. But i think this is pretty much like the recent Argentina-Iceland match in the world cup, now they have a camera studio to verify everything, like for exemple if there is a penalty or not, there was a penalty for argentina, but the referee was so sure that the argentinian guy was simulating that, they didn't do anything " the var studio ". By that i mean, there is multiple conjecutral proofs about everything, but they are following the hypothesis from the lead reasearchers. It's one thing to say, " we believe " an other to say " it's false ".

  14. #14
    Moderator
    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    2,253


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by halfalp View Post
    I dont really understand the second point, why exactly IE personal names in the 25th century south of caucasus falsify the Yamnaya expansion hypothesis ? I dont think anything is falsify because technically Anatolian language could come from eastern steppe to middle-east from -6000 to -2000. But i think this is pretty much like the recent Argentina-Iceland match in the world cup, now they have a camera studio to verify everything, like for exemple if there is a penalty or not, there was a penalty for argentina, but the referee was so sure that the argentinian guy was simulating that, they didn't do anything " the var studio ". By that i mean, there is multiple conjecutral proofs about everything, but they are following the hypothesis from the lead reasearchers. It's one thing to say, " we believe " an other to say " it's false ".
    Don't confuse the "steppe expansion" theory with the "Yamnaya expansion". What these data possibly indicate is that the "Steppe IE" expansion didn't begin with Yamnaya. Given the genetic and archaeological data we have now (not just this Anatolian linguistic evidence), it's getting increasingly difficult to assert that "Undivided PIE" was last spoken by the Yamnaya people, and not that Yamnaya already spoke a very early branch of IE, and PIE is in fact to be found in former steppe cultures like Khvalynsk or Sredny Stog (maybe even both speaking different dialects of PIE). The dating for PIE and for the steppe expansion looks increasingly more like a Copper Age than a Bronze Age phenomenon.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,499

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    Don't confuse the "steppe expansion" theory with the "Yamnaya expansion". What these data possibly indicate is that the "Steppe IE" expansion didn't begin with Yamnaya. Given the genetic and archaeological data we have now (not just this Anatolian linguistic evidence), it's getting increasingly difficult to assert that "Undivided PIE" was last spoken by the Yamnaya people, and not that Yamnaya already spoke a very early branch of IE, and PIE is in fact to be found in former steppe cultures like Khvalynsk or Sredny Stog (maybe even both speaking different dialects of PIE). The dating for PIE and for the steppe expansion looks increasingly more like a Copper Age than a Bronze Age phenomenon.
    Yes, this is pretty much the Gimbutas hypothesis, that nothing can confirm or affirm, but they dont believe to the steppe expansion either. But i still dont understand why would IE personal names in the 25th Century in Ebla falsify the Yamnaya expansion hypothesis. Their only point to falsify that, would be " Anatolian languages are way more old " wich... is a pretty sensible argument.

  16. #16
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    08-03-18
    Posts
    4


    Country: Brazil



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by halfalp View Post
    Yes, this is pretty much the Gimbutas hypothesis, that nothing can confirm or affirm, but they dont believe to the steppe expansion either. But i still dont understand why would IE personal names in the 25th Century in Ebla falsify the Yamnaya expansion hypothesis. Their only point to falsify that, would be " Anatolian languages are way more old " wich... is a pretty sensible argument.


    The Ebla records prove that *Anatolian languages* couldn't have expanded from Yamna, not that LPIE didn't expand from Yamna. That's what the Damgaard paper supplement is saying.
    Last edited by luciano; 03-07-18 at 15:51.

  17. #17
    Elite member IronSide's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-10-16
    Age
    26
    Posts
    883

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2c2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    T2e1

    Country: United Arab Emirates



    Quote Originally Posted by luciano View Post
    The Ebla records prove that *Anatolian languages* couldn't have expanded from Yamna, not that LPIE didn't expand from Yamna.
    True, these records coupled with Ancient DNA evidence from BA Anatolia really supports the "Indo-Hittite" or "Indo-Anatolian" model, where the ultimate location of the proto language is south of steppe, east of Anatolia, the speakers that led to the Anatolian brance went west, and the rest developed from a northern migration and interaction with the EHG.

  18. #18
    Elite member IronSide's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-10-16
    Age
    26
    Posts
    883

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2c2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    T2e1

    Country: United Arab Emirates



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    Don't confuse the "steppe expansion" theory with the "Yamnaya expansion". What these data possibly indicate is that the "Steppe IE" expansion didn't begin with Yamnaya. Given the genetic and archaeological data we have now (not just this Anatolian linguistic evidence), it's getting increasingly difficult to assert that "Undivided PIE" was last spoken by the Yamnaya people, and not that Yamnaya already spoke a very early branch of IE, and PIE is in fact to be found in former steppe cultures like Khvalynsk or Sredny Stog (maybe even both speaking different dialects of PIE). The dating for PIE and for the steppe expansion looks increasingly more like a Copper Age than a Bronze Age phenomenon.
    Bronze Age Anatolians don't have EHG ancestry, both they and the Steppe people have CHG/Iran_N ancestry, that's where they intersect. if it was some other language group we would follow this line of reason, why are Indo-European languages an exception ?

  19. #19
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    08-03-18
    Posts
    4


    Country: Brazil



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by IronSide View Post
    True, these records coupled with Ancient DNA evidence from BA Anatolia really supports the "Indo-Hittite" or "Indo-Anatolian" model, where the ultimate location of the proto language is south of steppe, east of Anatolia, the speakers that led to the Anatolian brance went west, and the rest developed from a northern migration and interaction with the EHG.
    According to the Damgaard, 2018 paper supplement, IE spread from the pontic steppes, but the Anatolian languages moved in a acculturation process where EHG didn't impact Anatolia. But, that's their take it seems. You assertion has it's merits also, lets wait and see what new research says.

    So Anatolian could well be a remnant of the original asian indo-european languages. That same south caucasus place had lots of different languages, Hattian, Hurro-Urartian, Gutian, Kassite, Sumerian... I find it easier for IE coming from the steppes.

  20. #20
    Elite member IronSide's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-10-16
    Age
    26
    Posts
    883

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2c2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    T2e1

    Country: United Arab Emirates



    2 members found this post helpful.
    I thought Ancient DNA should have been especially able to answer these questions, from where did a specific group of people come from ?

    Can someone answer this: on what condition are we willing to accept that Anatolian speakers may not have come from the Steppe? What has to be true for that to be true ?

    Is a world where Anatolian speakers did not come from the Steppe even possible ?

    Is it testable ? is it falsifiable ?

    Is it Science ? or is it Religion ?

  21. #21
    Moderator
    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    2,253


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by IronSide View Post
    Bronze Age Anatolians don't have EHG ancestry, both they and the Steppe people have CHG/Iran_N ancestry, that's where they intersect. if it was some other language group we would follow this line of reason, why are Indo-European languages an exception ?
    Because of Anatolian IE's particularly divergent and seemingly archaic (or on the contrary too innovative) status in comparison with simply all the other IE branches, and because apart from BA Anatolia it is clear that a partially EHG population had everything to do with the expansion of PIE in every other region of Eurasia. The fact that there are also several (at least 4 or 5) other language families potential candidates to the position of "CHG-derived families", but very unlike Indo-European (which actually, at least apparently, shares much more with the Uralic of North Eurasia), is also an issue.

    Also, because CHG/Iran_N ancestry was already present in very high proportions in the Eneolithic, actually not very different from the CHG contribution in later cultures like Yamnaya, but PIE shared vocabulary (its latest undivided stage) can't be older than the Copper Age or even Early Bronze Age, so if it did come from the South Caucasus it happened very early on, before PIE is even supposed to have existed. If EHG is not found in any future sample in BA Anatolia, I'd place my bets on the once discarded but now revived Indo-Hittite hypothesis, that is, Anatolian being derived from a Para-IE sister language, not from the same language as "residual" PIE. The "problem" there would be that we have to find the specific time when CHG became so prevalent in the Pontic-Caspian steppe before the Eneolithic (~4200-4300 BC). If it was too early, then we'll have to explain how on earth the Anatolian IE and the Steppe IE remained so "close" (relatively speaking) that their connections were still recognizable in our modern era.

    It's simply contrary to the evidences to try to derive the bulk of the IE expansion from Transcaucasia instead of the Pontic-Caspian steppe. It would be even more misguided (due to chronology) than trying to find the source of the Romance-speaking expansion in the Americas in Lazio, not in the Iberian Peninsula.

  22. #22
    Elite member IronSide's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-10-16
    Age
    26
    Posts
    883

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2c2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    T2e1

    Country: United Arab Emirates



    @Ygorcs, good argument

    But isn't the Eneolithic Steppe samples of the last Maykop paper really just north of the Caucasus mountains ? not on the actual northern Steppe ? like in Samara or Khalynsk.

    The way I'm seeing it is for levels of CHG to reach "Yamnaya levels" in these locations is an additional southern migration, that is either Ciscaucasus Eneolithic samples totally replace them, or admixture from a population with a high CHG ancestry.

    It's really difficult that cultural flow from Maykop (e.g. Kurgans) and genetic increase in CHG ancestry coupled with lack of EHG ancestry in BA Anatolia and the existence of these Ebla records translates to Anatolians deriving from a Steppe migration.

    I've read some of Anthony's "the horse the wheel and language" I don't remember too much of it though, aren't connections with Uralic on the level of borrowing words from IE speaking Steppe culture, right ? they're not descended from a common language.

  23. #23
    Moderator
    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    2,253


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by IronSide View Post
    @Ygorcs, good argument

    But isn't the Eneolithic Steppe samples of the last Maykop paper really just north of the Caucasus mountains ? not on the actual northern Steppe ? like in Samara or Khalynsk.
    I'm not completely sure, but some days ago I read about a purported Samara Eneolithic sample, who already harbored lots of CHG, too. Also, that Caucasus paper argued that the genetic makeup of the steppe had a clear genetic boundary in relation to the North Caucasus slopes (a lot more EHG in the steppe coupled with virtually no ANF, for instance), and the Y-DNA makeup particularly was completely different.

    The Caucasian influx into the steppes, if it did happen, couldn't have happened in the Copper Age or Bronze Age, because by then the samples already showed a lot of ANF, which is negligible in the steppe until the Bronze Age and when it appears comes together with WHG in an admixture that fits an EEF origin much better than a direct ANF one. If Caucasus cultures like Maykop or even others a bit earlier had brought PIE into the steppes, it would've brought a significant amount of ANF together... but apparently they didn't. The CHG influx was probably earlier.

    So it doesn't seem likely, according to the scientists' own results, that the steppes close to the North Caucasus were very shifted toward North Caucasian populations, and in any case the relation between both regions certainly dated to before the Late Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age, otherwise we'd probably see a lot more CA/BA Caucasian influence in the southern part of the steppe. I think that two possibilities are at stake: either PIE is much older than linguists and archaeologists thought (a bit unlikely, given their shared vocabulary for CA technology), or PIE may even have been brought from the Caucasus, but it developed mostly in or near the steppes, maybe with some outliers also adopting the language...

    AFAIK the supposedly distant connections between PIE and Uralic aren't only on the level of vocabulary (borrowings), but also of a few grammatical similarities, including some pronouns and verb conjugations. The typological and lexical similarities of PIE with other language families are assumed to include Kartvelian, Northwest Caucasian, Uralic and even Semitic, but by far the evidences point to a longer and more intense relationship with Uralic. Being located in the Pontic-Caspian area, between the North Eurasian forest/forest-steppe and the Caucasus/North Iran, would make sense considering those ancient borrowings and shared features.

  24. #24
    Elite member
    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,378

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    The date "3000 years old" in the original post doesn't really make sense to me. Eblaite, an East Semitic language closest related with Akkadian of Mesopotamia, is attested from roughly the later part of the 3rd millennium BC (circa 2600-2200BC), until the destruction of the city. It was written with the cuneiform script, which was originally invented by the (non-Semitic) Sumerians of (southern) Mesopotamia.

    Now, Anatolian names from 1000 BC (3000 BC) would be hardly controversial, given how Hittite and Hieroglyphic Luwian are older than that (actually 1000 BC would be after the Bronze Age collapse, meaning Hittite would be already extinct at that point).
    On the other hand, 3000 BC would be weird (as in: it wouldn't make any sense) because the Sumerians themselves, the inventors of the cuneiform script, were barely literate at that point.

    Regardless, I would like to point out that it's still unclear where the Proto-Anatolian homeland was located.

  25. #25
    Regular Member berun's Avatar
    Join Date
    24-11-15
    Posts
    1,085


    Country: Spain - Catalonia



    This case of "Ol' Hittite" is quite absurd, the paper says 30 names have typical Hittite endings (which in fact are two endings forgetting moreover to which PIE suffixes are related)... so that the roots of such names must be no IE, even forgetting to link such names to any known language of the area. I think that my WC paper has more reliable info about Hittites than that "paper".
    "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

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •