Eastern-Hunter-Gatherer Spoke Proto-Indo-European?

kmak

Regular Member
Messages
266
Reaction score
22
Points
18
Anthony also suggests that the proto-Indo-European language formed mainly from a base of languages spoken by Eastern European hunter-gathers with influences from languages of northern Caucasus hunter-gatherers, in addition to a possible later influence from the language of the Maikop culture to the south (which is hypothesized to have belonged to the North Caucasian family) in the later neolithic or bronze age involving little genetic impact.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Europeans
 
My opinion is that the EHG were a genetic cluster that was already formed since many thousands of years before PIE was spoken, so they probably spoke various distinct languages and even language families. A very distant relationship between IE and Uralic could even be true, but so old that historical linguistic reconstruction can't prove anything about it conclusively. PIE in my opinion is more likely to have been related to the EHG than to the CHG (I find it harder to believe at least one of the Caucasian language families does not derive from the CHG, and none of them is even speculatively related to IE), but it had been profoundly influenced by the language families of the latter.
 
Last edited:
My opinion is that the EHG were a genetic cluster that was already formed since many thousands of years before PIE was spoken, so they probably spoke various distinct languages and even language families. A very distant relationship between IE and Uralic could even be true, but so old that historical linguistic reconstruction can't prove anything about it conclusively. PIE in my opinion is more likely to have been related to the EHG than to the CHG (I find it harder to believe at least one of the Caucasian language families does not derive from the CHG, and none of them is even speculatively related to IE), but it had been profoundly influenced by the language families of the latter.

Uralic speakers is not Easter-Hunter-Gatherers but Siberians who came from Nort-China.

Haplogroup N1c brought Uralic and Finnic languages. N1c is not Y DNA marker of Eastern-Hunter-Gatherer.
 
I ask that core of archaic Proto-Indo-European is language that spoken Eastern-Hunter-Gatherer. Various language is kin of each other formed archaic-Proto-Indo-European?
 
Uralic speakers is not Easter-Hunter-Gatherers but Siberians who came from Nort-China.

Haplogroup N1c brought Uralic and Finnic languages. N1c is not Y DNA marker of Eastern-Hunter-Gatherer.

That has not been established at all as you seem to imply. It's even more controversial and understudied than the issue of the IE homeland. N1c seems to have been spread in Proto-Uralic and early Uralic branches through a massive founder effect, which may have happened in the early stages of the language or its expansion. Virtually no society of the past was homogeneous in Y-DNA distribution, so N1c might have been just one lineage that became particularly successful in a mostly EHG population that had absorbed some Siberian ancestry. That's what early Northeastern European DNA samples seem to indicate. There's no definite reason to assume that N1c males (who certainly didn't come straight from North China, instead spreading gradually from there westward to the Urals and west of it) brought the language to Northeastern Eurasia and imposed it onto the natives instead of being absorbed linguistically by the locals. Autosomally, the large majority of the Uralic peoples are far more linked to an ancient EHG profile than to any East Asian/Siberian profile. Most Uralic peoples have only little Siberian ancestry, but a lot of EHG (including extra EHG besides steppe ancestry).
 
Additionally, a very remote relationship between IE and Uralic is more plausible linguistically (considering morphemes as basic as verb conjugation, pronouns, and some case particles) than with any East Asian despite the latters' agglutinative typology akin to Uralic (which is in fact a very common, perhaps the most common template throughout the world, so it doesn't mean that much).

See: https://www.academia.edu/36531957/Evidence_for_an_Indo-Uralic_Genetic_Relation
 

This thread has been viewed 3800 times.

Back
Top