David Anthony on the Indo-Europeans-again

About Laroche

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

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.
 
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:
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 fort Kura-Araxes, obviously, the area corresponds to Hurro-Urartian, so it cannot have been the original culture of the Anatolian branch.

The fact is that Anatolian is a Centum language and Satem languages, like Indo-Iranian, could never been from Centum. Other than it, there is absolutely no genetic evidence which shows a migration from Anatolia to the South Asia, Central Asia and other lands where Indo-Iranians lived. Colin Renfrew has even revised his Anatolian hypothesis.

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. All evidences show that they were Indo-European who migrated from the south of Caucasus to Anatolia and Europe.

According to Mellaart, archaeological evidence shows that the cities of Erzerum, Sivas, Pulur Huyuk near Baiburt, Kultepe near Hafik, and Maltepe near Sivas were destroyed during the Middle Bronze Age. The great trading city of Kanesh (Level II) was also destroyed. From there in the hill country between Halys the destruction layers from this time tell the same story. Karaoglan, Bitik, Polatli and Gordion were burnt, as well as Etiyokusu and Cerkes. Further west near the Dardanelles the two large mounds of Korpruoren and Tavsanli, west of Kutahya, show the same signs of being destroyed. The destruction even crossed into Europe in what is now Bulgaria. The migration brought an end to Bulgaria's Early Bronze Age, with archaeological evidence showing that the Yunacite, Salcutza, and Esero centers had a sudden mass desertion during this time.

800px-Mass_migration_of_Greece_and_Turkey_in_1900BCE.svg.png
 
Mellaart is notoriously a scientific fraud and a crook.
What he wrote is worthless in a scientific discussion.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.

Neither Satem is from Centum, nor Centum from Satem. It is not just about random sound changes, in the Centum languages velars (k, g) and palatovelars (ḱ, ǵ) are not distinguishable and in the Satem languages, velars (k, g) and labiovelars (kʷ, gʷ) can not be distinguished.
Other than this thing, there are some other things which show Anatolian could not be the same Proto-Indo-European, for example we know aspirated sounds (bʰ, dʰ, ǵʰ, gʰ, gʷʰ) didn't exist in Anatolian, or we see "devoicing" in Anatolian, compare to Luwian taru "wood" from proto-Indo-European *doru "tree": https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/𒋫𒀀𒊒#Luwian
 
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.:rolleyes:

We already found R1a in Sredny Stog and Khvalynsk btw.
 
interesting,thanks.
 
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).
 
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.
 

This thread has been viewed 39038 times.

Back
Top