Are R1a and R1b really Indo-Europeans ?

[Kentel]

(I might also bring up warrior/military terminology, but I'm somewhat sceptical with this: how 'peaceful' were Neolithic societies really?)

Very good question. I think that you put the finger on a critical issue here.

 

[Kardu]

urvolk :

To be a bit provocative (as I like to be and as Sparkey rightly stated ), I would also add : are we sure that a PIE urvolk ever existed ? We have clear linguistic convergences (although many of them are based upon heavily distorted interpretations), is it sufficient to declare that you had an urvolk and an urheimat and horses and bronze swords and conquest and the like ? Well, I don't think so. I don't discard the hypothesis of a PIE urvolk, I am just wondering, this is after all only a hypothesis.

I have similar doubts about all those proto-peoples as well, theories about existence of which are based on linguistic reconstructions. Based solely on language data one could argue that 'urvolk' of Latin Americans are Romans etc...

 

[Kentel]

I have similar doubts about all those proto-peoples as well, theories about existence of which are based on linguistic reconstructions. Based solely on language data one could argue that 'urvolk' of Latin Americans are Romans etc...

And if you reconstruct proto-Romance on the basis of the Romance languages, you don't find Latin but something very different.

Moreover, a significant amount of convergences is uncertain : here are a few objections as far as the lexicon is concerned :

1-How much etymons have been heavily distorted, both semantically and phonetically (not talking about the supposed "echoic" and "taboo" words), in order to make them coincidate with their alleged reflexes ? At a glance, I would say more than 50%, maybe 70 or 80, it would be worth counting.

2- How much regular evolutions are shared with OTHER language families (*do, to give, found in Ancient Egyptian, *h2ter, father, found in Inuit, etc)

3- How much etymons are really shared by all the IE languages ? Very few, I think no more than 20 or 30.

4- How much of these common roots were in fact wandering words ?

If you take all these objections into consideration (and the Academia has never done it), you reduce dramatically the volume of the PIE lexicon. As for the grammar, there are obvious convergences...and huge discrepancies. See f.ex. the verb paradigm wich cannot really be reconstructed, and so many other issues of that kind.

There are indeed a lot of convergences between the IE languages, this is not an hallucination. It cannot be coincidences, something happened, no doubt about that, but what ?

 

[Yetos]

@ Kentel

Gibutas model was working good until new discoveries.

After Leyla teppe and Varna Necropolis archaological discoveries, only Arsenic bronze road from North Iran to Maykop to central Balkans is valid, since kurgans seems to be balkanic or minor Asia custom,
but DID anyone ever notice the Gold mettalurgy road?
DID anyones notice the burry with weapons culture road?
these 2 are enough to reject kurgans as steppe culture

now I said about Summerian and Akkadian in IE but was called a magician of words,
but in my post in offtopic simmilar thread i give a good example on how Summerian and Uralian and IE have something strange,

Post #62
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...Europeans-quot?p=402943&viewfull=1#post402943

that is a qood linguistic question,

as also tthis. since Hettits were IE how come they had deity Illuwanka after Akkadian Semitic Illu (Greek Απολλων can be also from Akkadian-Semitic Illu?)
finaly word Illum is IE or Phaun Φαεθων Φως or Sol Selios etc?

 

[LeBrok]

I have similar doubts about all those proto-peoples as well, theories about existence of which are based on linguistic reconstructions. Based solely on language data one could argue that 'urvolk' of Latin Americans are Romans etc...

Actually the American model, how IE spread over the whole America, is a great and well documented example how language, culture and DNA can take over a whole continent, and in scale of 500 years. We can even see the local differences, like different IE languages in geographical areas, coming in different waves and from different regions of Europe; English and French in North, Spanish and Portuguese in South. Still some local languages surviving in secluded areas. We see almost complete native population replacement in US, Canada, Argentina, Urugway. Still, majority of native people in many South american countries, but minority of IE's in power, politics and business, and slowly blending and mixing.
How hard is it to imagine that this was a possible and valid scenario in Europe sometime in the past?

That's Gimbutas theory (the connection with the Yamna Culture) but the horseriders' story is probably a myth based upon a misinterpretation of the Rig-Veda : Renfrew demonstrated on the basis of archaeologic finds that Kurgan people were not horsemen. At the best they used horses to bring material but they didn't ride them ; among other things, no stirrups nor snaffle bits have been found in the graves nor anywhere else. And these two pieces are a condition sine qua non for horseriding.

That's true, and it probably doesn't matter much who invented what. The real advantage of inventions goes to the people who can improve it to the point of popularizing and mass use inventions on "industrial scale", either horses, wagons and bronze weapons. There is much better documented IE's move south to Middle East and India around 2,000 BC. Therefor there is no doubt that they were able to move West if chosen so.

 

[Kentel]

@Kentel
I mean considering that basquez is R1b population and Basquez language is Not IE, what do you believe? that Basquez is older or younger in Europe than IE?

could R1b or R1a learn IE language at the past outside steppe?? and then spread it?

That's an interesting question. Basque is undoubtedly not and IE language, it is undoubtedly indigeneous, and is massively R1b. Moreover I and G frequencies are very low in the area.

Then, logically R1b is not IE, unless you find a bias to explain it.

I think we should open a thread about Basque.

 

[Kardu]

Actually the American model, how IE spread over the whole America, is a great and well documented example how language, culture and DNA can take whole over a continent, and in scale of 500 years. We can even see the local differences, like different IE languages in geographical areas, coming in different waves and from different regions of Europe; English and French in North, Spanish and Portuguese in South. Still some local languages surviving in secluded areas. We see almost complete native population replacement in US, Canada, Argentina, Urugway. Still, majority of native people in many South american countries, but minority of IE's in power, politics and business, and slowly blending and mixing.
How hard is it to imagine that this was a possible and valid scenario in Europe sometime in the past?

But those Europeans who took over Americas were not themselves genetically uniform, not even Englishmen, Spaniards or French taken apart were/are genetically homogenous and in case of proto-IE speakers people usually imply closely-tied community living on a restricted territory.

 

[LeBrok]

Then, logically R1b is not IE, unless you find a bias to explain it.

.

Globally R1b is partially IE. R1b entered Europe in few waves through couple of millenia, possibly not all IE.

 

[LeBrok]

But those Europeans who took over Americas were not themselves genetically uniform, not even Englishmen, Spaniards or French taken apart were/are genetically homogenous and in case of proto-IE speakers people usually imply closely-tied community living on a restricted territory.

Don't you think that people in past were mixed on lesser scale than today? The big mixing and big movements started with steady growth of population of farmers and herders and really accelerated through chalcolithinc, bronze and iron ages till present, where people from Africa can travel to Australia in 24 hours and start mixing. This is a clear evidence that with rise of civilizations that bring inventions, people travel more, more people travel, faster, further, mixing and mixing. One can follow this curve and end up with conclusion that in about a thousand years all world will be nicely mixed together.

 

[Kardu]

Don't you think that people in past were mixed on lesser scale than today? The big mixing and big movements started with steady growth of population of farmers and herders and really accelerated through chalcolithinc, bronze and iron ages till present, where people from Africa can travel to Australia in 24 hours and start mixing. This is a clear evidence that with rise of civilizations that bring inventions, people travel more, more people travel, faster, further, mixing and mixing. One can follow this curve and end up with conclusion that in about a thousand years all world will be nicely mixed together.

Mixing is a fact of historical process (in the past peaceful mixing was rare btw) and by itself neutral, seeing it as nice or not is a matter of taste. But this is not the point. What I mean is that proto-IE, if it existed as such was just a lingua franca not a strictrly tribal/ethnic language...

 

[LeBrok]

What I mean is that proto-IE, if it existed as such was just a lingua franca not a strictrly tribal/ethnic language...

I don't see a problem with this. What we have to remember is that lingua franca when used intensively for few hundreds of years becomes a new tribal/ethnic language. Look at Latin turning into Spanish/French/Romanian. English and Spanish in America. English in Singapore and India. Colonial languages in Africa. Some examples are done deal, some showing ongoing process.
Of course it is not simple and pure transformation. There is always a twist on lingua franca from local substratum, changes in grammar, pronunciation, melody, etc.

 

[Kardu]

I don't see a problem with this. What we have to remember is that lingua franca when used intensively for few hundreds of years becomes a new tribal/ethnic language. Look at Latin turning into Spanish/French/Romanian. English and Spanish in America. English in Singapore and India. Colonial languages in Africa. Some examples are done deal, some showing ongoing process.
Of course it is not simple and pure transformation. There is always a twist on lingua franca from local substratum, changes in grammar, pronunciation, melody, etc.

On this we agree

 

[Kentel]

Globally R1b is partially IE. R1b entered Europe in few waves through couple of millenia, possibly not all IE.

Interesting ! Do we know which subclade is suspected to be pre-IE ? The highest frequency in the Basque country seem to be L176.2 and M153, but maybe you are referring to previous waves ?

By the way, a very good link for those who got lost in the R haplogroup (like me) : http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpR.html

 

[Taranis]

So many very interesting, and again, thought-provoking ideas, I am not sure where to start.

First of all this, because the two are related:

And if you reconstruct proto-Romance on the basis of the Romance languages, you don't find Latin but something very different.

I agree on this. In particular, going from the modern Romance languages (French "cheval", Italian "cavallo", Portuguese "cavalo", Spanish "caballo"), you'd reconstruct *kaballo- as the Proto-Romance word for "horse".

And I would had an argument : contrary to Taranis, I state that the word for "horse" is generally different in the IE languages. The *ekwos etymon doesn't work in many languages : English "horse" is "of unknown origins", Spanish "caballo" (= French "cheval, = Irish "capall", = Welsh "cefyll"), Danish "heste", Breton "marc'h" (= Welsh "march") as well. I am not sure but the Albanian kalë would not fit in *ekwos without dramatic manipulations. It tends to indicate that the PIE urvolk did not have a specific horse culture.

This is very clever from the examples that you have chosen! :grin:

With regard for *ek´wos though, it should be pointed out that Old Irish had "ech", and Scottish Gaelic and Manx have "each" and "eagh" respectively. In a similar fashion, Welsh and Breton have "ebol" and "ebeul" respectively (which mean "foal", rather than "horse") as derivatives. In the same fashion, Anglo-Saxon had "eoh". The point is, of course, that the original word fell out of usage.

Moreover, a significant amount of convergences is uncertain : here are a few objections as far as the lexicon is concerned :

1-How much etymons have been heavily distorted, both semantically and phonetically (not talking about the supposed "echoic" and "taboo" words), in order to make them coincidate with their alleged reflexes ? At a glance, I would say more than 50%, maybe 70 or 80, it would be worth counting.

2- How much regular evolutions are shared with OTHER language families (*do, to give, found in Ancient Egyptian, *h2ter, father, found in Inuit, etc)

3- How much etymons are really shared by all the IE languages ? Very few, I think no more than 20 or 30.

4- How much of these common roots were in fact wandering words ?

If you take all these objections into consideration (and the Academia has never done it), you reduce dramatically the volume of the PIE lexicon. As for the grammar, there are obvious convergences...and huge discrepancies. See f.ex. the verb paradigm wich cannot really be reconstructed, and so many other issues of that kind.

There are indeed a lot of convergences between the IE languages, this is not an hallucination. It cannot be coincidences, something happened, no doubt about that, but what ?

Well, I'm personally objecting the idea to wholly discard a word as reconstructable for the proto-language if it's not attested in every language, but I would put it this way. There are 12 main branches of Indo-European (Albanian, Anatolian, Armenian, Baltic, Celtic, Germanic, Greek, Indic, Iranic, Italic, Slavic, Tocharian), which if one accepts the two most undisputed higher-order groupings, can be conflated to 10 branches (Albanian, Anatolian, Armenian, Balto-Slavic, Celtic, Germanic, Greek, Indo-Iranic, Italic, Tocharian), but this is mainly a cosmetic effect. I would argue that if a word is attested in the majority of branches (or lacking that, branches are located at geographically opposing ends - because that makes it unlikely for it to have travelled from one end to the other), and can be derived from a common proto-form via the "native" sound laws of the respective branch, then the probably that this word was in the proto-language should be regarded as high. For me, the word *ek´wos fulfills this condition because it is attested in 9 out of the 12 branches (Anatolian, Armenian, Baltic, Celtic, Germanic, Greek, Indic, Iranic, Italic and Tocharian).

This method, of course, is not bullet-proof, but in my opinion it's a nudge into the right direction, because:

I have no idea how things happened. I am only convinced of one thing : the substrata played a great role in the story, and this fact is considered by none of the three academic hypothesis.

I very much agree with the importance of substrata. Because the exact reversal from the above holds true: if a word is only found amongst a hand full of branches in one region, the likelihood that the word should be reconstructed for the proto-language must be regarded as low. The examples you gave earlier, *kaballo- and *marko- for instance fall into that direction.

Very good question. I think that you put the finger on a critical issue here.

The flip side of the "warrior supermen" is the perception that Neolithic societies were particularly peaceful. I'm not really convinced, and if the argument is really a weak one, then the "warrior" or "military" terminology could be easily older. Or, the word acquired the 'warlike' meaning only later:

To pick a provocative example (you're coloring off here ), Old Irish "cuire", Gothic "harjiz", German "Heer" all mean "troop" or "army". There is also, certainly related, Latvian "karš", Lithuanian "karas" which mean "war", and ancient Greek "koiranos" - meaning 'ruler' or 'leader'. But what if the original meaning wasn't "army" or "troop", but "herd"? And that this meaning is preserved in the Finnish borrowing "karja" (which certainly looks like a cognate), but means 'cattle' or 'livestock' instead.

 

[Kentel]

To pick a provocative example (you're coloring off here ), Old Irish "cuire", Gothic "harjiz", German "Heer" all mean "troop" or "army". There is also, certainly related, Latvian "karš", Lithuanian "karas" which mean "war", and ancient Greek "koiranos" - meaning 'ruler' or 'leader'. But what if the original meaning wasn't "army" or "troop", but "herd"? And that this meaning is preserved in the Finnish borrowing "karja" (which certainly looks like a cognate), but means 'cattle' or 'livestock' instead.

Thank you for this mind-challenging answer I will go within the details later, just one remark regarding the "war" question : I am currently within the process of reading through Trask's Etymological Dictionary of Basque and I bumped into an interesting "akar" meaning "quarell, dispute", apparently not a loanword. I reproduce the notice hereunder :

ahakar (L), akar (HN S), ãkar (R), aaka (Múg.) n. ‘quarrel, dispute’. 1643.
The R form leads M. (**** BAP 6: {1950b:}499) to propose *anakar, OUO, by P1. But
AT (s.v.) prefer a derivative of aho ‘mouth’, and see the R nasalization as secondary;
they cite in support an adverbial ahakan ‘arguing’ from S.P. See aharra.
ahakartu (old L), ahakatu (S.P.) v. [diathesis unrecorded] ‘dispute, argue’. + -tu VFS.

 

[Yetos]

Actually the American model, how IE spread over the whole America, is a great and well documented example how language, culture and DNA can take over a whole continent, and in scale of 500 years. We can even see the local differences, like different IE languages in geographical areas, coming in different waves and from different regions of Europe; English and French in North, Spanish and Portuguese in South. Still some local languages surviving in secluded areas. We see almost complete native population replacement in US, Canada, Argentina, Urugway. Still, majority of native people in many South american countries, but minority of IE's in power, politics and business, and slowly blending and mixing.
How hard is it to imagine that this was a possible and valid scenario in Europe sometime in the past?

That's true, and it probably doesn't matter much who invented what. The real advantage of inventions goes to the people who can improve it to the point of popularizing and mass use inventions on "industrial scale", either horses, wagons and bronze weapons. There is much better documented IE's move south to Middle East and India around 2,000 BC. Therefor there is no doubt that they were able to move West if chosen so.

le brok why we don't use the American model in case of Tocharians and steppe people?

 

[Yetos]

I don't see a problem with this. What we have to remember is that lingua franca when used intensively for few hundreds of years becomes a new tribal/ethnic language. Look at Latin turning into Spanish/French/Romanian. English and Spanish in America. English in Singapore and India. Colonial languages in Africa. Some examples are done deal, some showing ongoing process.
Of course it is not simple and pure transformation. There is always a twist on lingua franca from local substratum, changes in grammar, pronunciation, melody, etc.

But what comes to Latin in Poland and Germany?
latin was also lingua franca of Germanic and in some Slavic countries like Poland,
religion, state Codex, advocats, notorius, science, medicine doctors etc did change polish People to Latin speakers?
did it change byzantine? did it change Germanic speaking,
NO

then we must search other reasons, why Romanians accept Latin and not the rest Byzantines,
why Poland and Germanic denied Latin while Spain accept it.

 

[Kentel]

But what comes to Latin in Poland and Germany?
latin was also lingua franca of Germanic and in some Slavic countries like Poland,
religion, state Codex, advocats, notorius, science, medicine doctors etc did change polish People to Latin speakers?
did it change byzantine? did it change Germanic speaking,
NO

then we must search other reasons, why Romanians accept Latin and not the rest Byzantines,
why Poland and Germanic denied Latin while Spain accept it.

Hispania and Dacia were administrated directly by Rome as parts of the empire, which was not the case for the Germanic and Slavic speaking areas. I guess it explains the poor impact of Latin in these regions.

 

[LeBrok]

Hispania and Dacia were administrated directly by Rome as parts of the empire, which was not the case for the Germanic and Slavic speaking areas. I guess it explains the poor impact of Latin in these regions.

That's right, plus latin was used by all trades people, roads and building builders, merchants financial transactions, by soldiers in roman armies. You wanted a good job, you had to speak latin. Again it wasn't the case in Poland or Germany.

Similar situation in America for native peoples. You want a job, you have to learn Spanish or English.
Change of language through economic forcing.

 

[Yetos]

That's right, plus latin was used by all trades people, roads and building builders, merchants financial transactions, by soldiers in roman armies. You wanted a good job, you had to speak latin. Again it wasn't the case in Poland or Germany.

Similar situation in America for native peoples. You want a job, you have to learn Spanish or English.
Change of language through economic forcing.

so through economic force Dacia and Spain change language,
but East Roman empire Germanic states Poland did not,

so why IE expand all over Europe but did not had phenomena like Poland or germany or Greece?

simply by sword?
did people need a job that time?
wasn't life outside in country?
did arsenic bronze change economy of agricultural people? I think no.

on the other hand by watching catalan quards and Varrangian guards in recent history in Byzantine and in Russia we see that warlords change their language and not the language of people,