Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 51 to 74 of 74

Thread: David Anthony on the Indo-Europeans-again

  1. #51
    Advisor bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,730


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    2 members found this post helpful.
    I don't think so. No pre-Yamna R1b-Z2103 has been found anywhere.
    I guess it is Repin which appeared in the Don-Volga area quite late, some 5.95 ka.
    It is not Khvalynsk, of which we have DNA.

    Khvalynsk has a touch of Siberian DNA, which is absent in Yamna.
    Pré-Yamna Dnjepr DNA has some EEF, which is absent in Yamna too.

  2. #52
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-06-19
    Posts
    270


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Cpluskx View Post
    Anybody has info on Arslantepe paper by Max Planck Institute? It's gonna be very important.
    What was the Max Planck Institute looking into at Arslantepe? Do you know?

  3. #53
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-03-18
    Posts
    139


    Country: United States



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by tyuiopman View Post
    What was the Max Planck Institute looking into at Arslantepe? Do you know?
    Here you can find it:
    https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...onference-2018

  4. #54
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-06-19
    Posts
    270


    Country: United States



    Thank you so much!

  5. #55
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-03-18
    Posts
    139


    Country: United States



    2 members found this post helpful.
    https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-5-rvA6IqH...nt_samples.jpg

    As expected, Reich has lots of unpublished data from Anatolia. This is why i've been thinking there will be no steppe ancestry in Anatolia. I think if there was even a small sign of it, Reich would write different things in his book, Lazaridis would write different things on Twitter etc. Or maybe with the newest data they found something? Hopefully they publish the samples quickly and we find out the answer.

  6. #56
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    05-01-18
    Location
    Seattle, Washington (Ballard)
    Posts
    303

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2a-Y31616>FT435332
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U2e1d

    Ethnic group
    Irish/Scottish/British/Scandi/C Euro
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    As always you know more than all the authors of these genetics papers and than David Anthony as well and in addition are more emphatic and arrogant about it.

    By all means write up a paper and see if a reputable journal will publish it. I'm all anticipation.
    And has poisoned any discussion of the topic here by continuously citing himself as an authority, while refusing to defend his methods when challenged.
    "I think Marija's 'kurgan hypothesis' has been magnificently vindicated by recent work." --Lord Colin Renfrew, 4/18/2018.

  7. #57
    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 Cpluskx View Post
    https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-5-rvA6IqH...nt_samples.jpg

    As expected, Reich has lots of unpublished data from Anatolia. This is why i've been thinking there will be no steppe ancestry in Anatolia. I think if there was even a small sign of it, Reich would write different things in his book, Lazaridis would write different things on Twitter etc. Or maybe with the newest data they found something? Hopefully they publish the samples quickly and we find out the answer.
    It probably goes along something like that, at least from the side of Reich. But that's the problem with Vulgarization of huge hypothesis like the I-E one. If you really think about it, taking all the matter on it. Anatolians and in particular their supposed and theorized Archaism, are not the answer of I-E hypothesis, neither is really the Steppe signal or any other admixture or the R1a-R1b relationship, or any archeological materials. It's the association of at least most of those, like " being in the [ supposed ] I-E spectrum ". And as i said, Anatolians are not that important for that matter because in that relationship, we only have the Linguistic part, wich itself is not fully known. We cannot based that entire hypothesis on " it's the most archaic IE language ".

  8. #58
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-03-18
    Posts
    139


    Country: United States



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Very interesting talk about Indo Europeans in Anatolia by Petra Goedegebuure.


  9. #59
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    20,520


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by Cpluskx View Post
    Very interesting talk about Indo Europeans in Anatolia by Petra Goedegebuure.

    Thanks for the link.


    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

  10. #60
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-03-18
    Posts
    139


    Country: United States



    On Eurogenes Davidski said he has seen unpublished Steppe Anatolian samples. If correct PIE question may be finally solved.

  11. #61
    Deird
    Guest


    About Laroche

    What is the reference where Laroche says that Hurrian is Indo-European?
    I've never read that in Laroche. Thanks.

  12. #62
    Deird
    Guest


    What is the substrate of Luvian?

    You know, one point that is never addressed in the PIE homeland issue is substrates.
    If Luvian does not originate in South-Western Anatolia where it is attested historically, then, which language was there before Luvian came there??
    As far as I know, nobody has ever provided a list of substratic words in Luvian. This language just has no substrate.
    For that matter, it must originate where it is attested.
    And as a consequence, PIE must originate in Anatolia.

  13. #63
    Deird
    Guest


    Quote Originally Posted by Shahmiri View Post
    However linguists talk about Hurrian, Hattic and Kaskian substrates in Anatolian languages but it is true that Luwian, Hittite and Palaic had a common origin (Proto-Anatolian) which had no substrate. Petra Goedegebuure who is a professor of Anatolian languages and cultures, believes the original Anatolian language was spoken in the south of Caucasus and northwest of Iran, not Anatolia, in fact she believes Kura–Araxes culture (4,000 - 2,000 BC) was the original culture of Anatolian speaking people.
    If we accept the idea that the Anatolian branch has no substrate, then it must have always been there in Anatolia from the start.
    So the only theory that works is the Anatolian origin of PIE.
    This is what I indeed think.

    As for Kura-Araxes, obviously, the area corresponds to Hurro-Urartian, so it cannot have been the original culture of the Anatolian branch.
    Last edited by Deird; 16-06-20 at 11:19.

  14. #64
    Deird
    Guest


    Mellaart is notoriously a scientific fraud and a crook.
    What he wrote is worthless in a scientific discussion.

  15. #65
    Deird
    Guest


    Quote Originally Posted by Shahmiri View Post
    The original land of Hurro-Urartians was in the south of Anatolia and north of Syria, we see no Hurro-Urartian name in the south of Caucasus and northwest of Iran before the 1st millennium BC, so it couldn't be related to Kura-Araxes culture.
    What you say applies only to Hurrian. Urartian occupies the area around Armenia, more to the east than Hurrian.
    To some extent, the present-day area of Kurdish roughly coincides with the ancient Hurro-Urartian area,
    so it's more or less the southern part of Kura-Araxes culture.

  16. #66
    Deird
    Guest


    Quote Originally Posted by Shahmiri View Post
    The fact is that Anatolian is a Centum language and Satem languages, like Indo-Iranian, could never been from Centum.
    It's false to claim that Anatolian as a whole is Centum. Hittite is centum but Luvian is satem ("horn" is sara-)
    Besides, what does the last part of your sentence mean? Are you denying that satem languages derive from an originally centum PIE language?
    Centum is fundamentally the absence of change, while satem is obviously an innovation.

  17. #67
    Deird
    Guest


    Quote Originally Posted by Shahmiri View Post
    Colin Renfrew has even revised his Anatolian hypothesis.
    It's a pity that he did that, because he was right about the Anatolian homeland !

  18. #68
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-05-18
    Posts
    216


    Country: Turkey



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Deird View Post
    It's false to claim that Anatolian as a whole is Centum. Hittite is centum but Luvian is satem ("horn" is sara-)
    Besides, what does the last part of your sentence mean? Are you denying that satem languages derive from an originally centum PIE language?
    Centum is fundamentally the absence of change, while satem is obviously an innovation.
    I think that satem speakers(R1a Y DNA) are not Proto-IE, but Proto-IEized. Proto-IE people lived in open steppe but R1a people live in forest steppe originally. Iranians, Indians, Slavic.... is from forest steppe. I think forest steppe people is not Proto-IE. But Proto-IEized. What is the original language of satem speakers? I wonder it.

  19. #69
    Deird
    Guest


    Quote Originally Posted by Shahmiri View Post
    Urartians were newcomers, even in the early Urartian sources the land of Urartu was called Nairi, Urartian conquered this region in the 1st millennium BC but Kura-Araxes culture dates back to 5th-3rd millennium BC, so they didn't relate to each other.
    There's absolutely no reason to think Urartians are newcomers.
    The rest is imagination.

  20. #70
    Banned
    Join Date
    15-06-20
    Posts
    512


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by kmak View Post
    I think that satem speakers(R1a Y DNA) are not Proto-IE, but Proto-IEized. Proto-IE people lived in open steppe but R1a people live in forest steppe originally. Iranians, Indians, Slavic.... is from forest steppe. I think forest steppe people is not Proto-IE. But Proto-IEized. What is the original language of satem speakers? I wonder it.
    Clearly R1a is Uralic.

    We already found R1a in Sredny Stog and Khvalynsk btw.

  21. #71
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-05-18
    Posts
    216


    Country: Turkey



    Quote Originally Posted by ratchet_fan View Post
    Clearly R1a is Uralic.

    We already found R1a in Sredny Stog and Khvalynsk btw.
    Uralic is N1c1.

  22. #72
    Regular Member xiongmao's Avatar
    Join Date
    31-03-17
    Posts
    39

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    O2a1c2-FGC3750
    MtDNA haplogroup
    D4

    Ethnic group
    Han
    Country: China



    interesting,thanks.

  23. #73
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-06-19
    Posts
    270


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Deird View Post
    There's absolutely no reason to think Urartians are newcomers.
    The rest is imagination.
    Shamiri is actually totally correct. According to Paul Zimansky, the Urartians came from either northern Iraq or the Lake Urmia region of northern Iran. So they were likely newcomers to the Armenian Highlands/Lake Van region. But they also seemed to have had both a centum and satem IE linguistic influence. The satem is Armenian (and not Indo-Iranian, such as Mitanni...the sounds were rendered as ts, not as j, as would be expected from Indo-Iranian). As for what the centum influence was, that's anybody's guess right now.

    And yes, in the earliest Urartian sources, they called themselves "Nairi." It was under the co-regency of Ishpuini and Menua that they switched over to calling their domain "Bianili." Ishpuini also introduced the Urartian language and the main god, Khaldi (who is thought to have been Akkadian originally, which also points toward a southern origin).

  24. #74
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-06-19
    Posts
    270


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Deird View Post
    If we accept the idea that the Anatolian branch has no substrate, then it must have always been there in Anatolia from the start.
    So the only theory that works is the Anatolian origin of PIE.
    This is what I indeed think.

    As for Kura-Araxes, obviously, the area corresponds to Hurro-Urartian, so it cannot have been the original culture of the Anatolian branch.
    It doesn't "obviously" correspond to Hurro-Urartian. It covered a huge swath of land. There's no reason to believe it was mono-lingual. That region isn't even mono-lingual today. The earliest KA sites are in the Ararat Plain or Georgia. The earliest Hurrian texts (from the end of the 3rd millennium) come from Syria. At least the northern regions of Kura-Araxes being Indo-European (early Anatolian) is supported by Reich, Wang, Goedegebuure, and some of the onomastics in Armenia and Georgia.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •