Indo-european

[Goga]

Dude, it's a FACT that Yamna was influenced by cultures (MAYKOP) from the Caucasus. Scythians and Cimmerians (they were mixed with Steppes Peoples) were not fully Iranic but got Iranised from Iranic tribes from Central Asia that advanced into the West. Scythians, Cimmerians were MIXED people! Fully Iranic poepl at that time were Bactrians, Sogdians, Parthians, Persians and of course the Medes. ALL those Iranic tribes lived in the Iranian Plateau and were native to the Iranian Plateau. ALSO, Indo-Iranians were NOT PROTO-Indo-European, and were already very different form their Indo-Europised European cousins by language! Modern-day Europeans have nothing to do with Indo-Iranians! Prof. Mr. C. C. Lamberg is not the only persons that speaks the true and doesn’t believe in fairytales from 17 century. There’re many more contemporary scholars that support Lamberg.

 

[Nobody1]

Dude, it's a FATC that Yamna was influenced by cultures from the Caucasus. Scythians and Cimmerians (they were mixed with Steppes Peoples) were not fully Iranic but got Iranised from Iranic tribes that advanced into West. Scythians, Cimmerians were MIXED people! Fully Iranic poepl at that time were Bactrians, Sogdians, Pathians, Persians and of course the Medes. ALL those Iranic tribes lived in the Iranian Plateau and were native to the Iranian Plateau. ALSO, Indo-Iranians were NOT PROTO-Indo-European, and were already very different form their Indo-Europised European cousins by language! Modern-day Europeans have nothing to do with Indo-Iranians! Prof. Mr. C. C. Lamberg is not the only persons that speaks the true and doesn’t believe in fairytales from 17 century. There’re many more contemporary scholars that support Lamberg.

No; Prof. Lamberg doesnt believe in Archaeological facts from the 20th century;
And thats the problem with those theories;

Scythians and Cimmerians - are Archaeologically and Historically documented;
No mystery or doubts surround them or their origin; and even you know thats the case;
Let me know i will gladly post all the sources again;

 

[Goga]

Huh, what is your problem? So are the Medes, Persians, Parthians, Sogdians, Bactrians. The Medes are also ‘archaeologically and historically documented’ in Kurdistan. The thing is that Scythians and Cimmerians were not 'pure' Iranic. Scythians & Cimmerians were already too much mixed with native foragers in the steppes. Some even say that the Cimmerians were not even Iranic at all or that they didn't speak an 'Iranic' dialect. Cimmerians were also partly I2a folks. Also Scythians & Cimmerians were NOT proto-something, lol. They were mongrel people mixed between Iranic tribes and steppes people. Also, I’m not sure if you know it, but the Medes annihilated the Scythians (their kings) in Kurdistan. And the Yamna culture was influenced by the Maykop culture:

 

[Nobody1]

Indo-Iranian is a branch of Indo-European;
Whether Steppe origin or Anatolian origin all agree on that;
All Indo-European branches have a common origin and root in proto-Indo-European and an Urheimat;

We know (Historically recorded) that the Scythians and Cimmerians (both Indo-Europeans) emerged from the Steppes and invaded Anatolia and Iranian plateau via the Caucasus [beg. late 8th cen BC / Urartu]

So what makes you think that all other Indo-Europeans [Hittites + Indo-Iranic branches] had a diff. place of origin and migration route as the Scythians and Cimmerians? Despite all sharing a common origin;
And most of all Archaeology (as well as Linguistics) also overwhelmingly points to the Steppe (Caspian-Pontic) as the Indo-European Urheimat;

PS: the Medes were allied with Cimmerians and Scythians [Siege of Nineveh late 7th cen BC]

Scythian rider - 4th cen BC

 

[Sile]

Huh, what is your problem? So are the Medes, Persians, Parthians, Sogdians, Bactrians. The Medes are also ‘archaeologically and historically documented’ in Kurdistan. The thing is that Scythians and Cimmerians were not 'pure' Iranic. Scythians & Cimmerians were already too much mixed with native foragers in the steppes. Some even say that the Cimmerians were not even Iranic at all or that they didn't speak an 'Iranic' dialect. Cimmerians were also partly I2a folks. Also Scythians & Cimmerians were NOT proto-something, lol. They were mongrel people mixed between Iranic tribes and steppes people. Also, I’m not sure if you know it, but the Medes annihilated the Scythians (their kings) in Kurdistan. And the Yamna culture was influenced by the Maykop culture:

Map fits exactly with the Circassians and Kabardin peoples as well as

Abaza, Abkhaz, Adyghe, Kabardian, Karachay-Balkar, Ossetic, Ubykh [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circassia The ancients rarely moved from these areas [/URL]

 

[Jaska]

in August 2013 an abstract put in Dienekes Blog seems affirmating the proto-I-E language would fit more to a mountainous region when the proto-Uralic one would fit more to a steppic one: very important for us if I had correctly red the abstract and if the basis of the analysis is correct (only if...) - it is true we see so different points of view concerning archeolinguistics

When doing palaeolinguistic analysis, only words with very specific meanings are relevant. There is no basis to claim that words for 'mountain' would testify for the mountainous homeland, or that words for 'ice' and 'snow' would testify for northern or mountainous homeland. There are probably no languages which wouldn't have a word for 'mountain/hill', even though most languages are not spoken in the mountainous area.

Also Finno-Ugrian has nothing to do with PIE. Current knowledge of migration waves and archaeological finds destroyed this hypothesis already 30 years ago!

Uralic has much to do with PIE; please google "Problems in the method and interpretations of the computational phylogenetics based on linguistic data - An example of wishful thinking: Bouckaert et al. 2012" and "Uralic evidence for the Indo-European homeland".
http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/Problems_of_phylogenetics.pdf
http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/UralicEvidence.pdf

Shulaveri-Shomu culture in the Southern Caucaus that influenced Trialeti culture and therefore Yamnais much older than Sredny Stog//Khvalynsk. Shulaveri-Shomu culture was in turn influenced by the Sumerian cultures.

So? Cultures are multirooted, all cultures have been influenced by many other cultures. Cultural continuity alone cannot prove anything about linguistic continuity; please google " Studying the Uralic proto-language". The only reliable way is to take the linguistic results as the basis.
http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/Uralic.html

EDIT: I can now add links, so I added links.

 

[LeBrok]

When doing palaeolinguistic analysis, only words with very specific meanings are relevant. There is no basis to claim that words for 'mountain' would testify for the mountainous homeland, or that words for 'ice' and 'snow' would testify for northern or mountainous homeland. There are probably no languages which wouldn't have a word for 'mountain/hill', even though most languages are not spoken in the mountainous area.

You are right for many single words. But if we treat issue statistically certain patterns will show. For example people who live in Arctic will have 10 or more names for snow (different types) where people from south will have only one. Bedouins will have tens of words describing sand, but few for trees or wheats. Likewise people who live in mountains will have names for all different types of mountains and rocks.
Now if IE moved from steppes to different geographical areas they obviously didn't have rich vocabulary for native environment. Why would they invent new names for things if the names already existed in local languages. Therefore if they moved to mountains they obviously picked up few names for types of mountains, plants and wild animals. If they moved to the sea you'll find local names for sea conditions and fish. If they moved to arctic you'll find many non IE names for snow and ice. Often river names transfer from language to language. Although it is hard to decipher after 4k years of IE presence, and long evolution of changes in pronunciacion.

 

[Jaska]

You are right for many single words. But if we treat issue statistically certain patterns will show. For example people who live in Arctic will have 10 or more names for snow (different types) where people from south will have only one. Bedouins will have tens of words describing sand, but few for trees or wheats. Likewise people who live in mountains will have names for all different types of mountains and rocks.

True. But all the words denoting to the "original" environment are not necessarily old, because words disappear and get replaced.

There are no more mountain words in Proto-Indo-European than there are swamp words, sea words etc. On this basis we cannot claim that the speakers of the protolanguage were living on the mountainous terrain. They just knew mountains, seas and swamps. Anna Dybo's conclusion contradicts her own data:
http://jolr.ru/files/(108)jlr2013-9(69-92).pdf

 

[LeBrok]

True. But all the words denoting to the "original" environment are not necessarily old, because words disappear and get replaced.

There are no more mountain words in Proto-Indo-European than there are swamp words, sea words etc. On this basis we cannot claim that the speakers of the protolanguage were living on the mountainous terrain. They just knew mountains, seas and swamps. Anna Dybo's conclusion contradicts her own data:
http://jolr.ru/files/(108)jlr2013-9(69-92).pdf

Sure, but what I meant was that, if IEs moved from steppes to mountains, arctic or sea, one could find non IE new vocabulary, and from this deduct who lived there before IEs, and that IE were the invaders, and that their homeland was somewhere else. One could even attempt statistical comparison of all IE languages to figure out original vocabulary (by subtracting foreign influence) and from this possibly the geographic location of their starting point, and the migration route.
I know it is extremely difficult task, but slowly we can get their. Statistical computer analyzes are already being attempted with interesting results.

 

[MOESAN]

True. But all the words denoting to the "original" environment are not necessarily old, because words disappear and get replaced.

There are no more mountain words in Proto-Indo-European than there are swamp words, sea words etc. On this basis we cannot claim that the speakers of the protolanguage were living on the mountainous terrain. They just knew mountains, seas and swamps. Anna Dybo's conclusion contradicts her own data:
http://jolr.ru/files/(108)jlr2013-9(69-92).pdf

WORDS DO NOT DISAPPEAR SO EASILY IN A LANGUAGE AND WHEN THEY DO, THEY ARE REPLACED BY OTHER WORDS CREATED FROM THE SAME LINGUISTIC FOUND, UNLESS TWO CULTURES ARE IN PERMANENT CONTACT - IF NEW SHAPES OR MATERIALS HAVE TO BE NAMED, THERE ARE LOANS ONLY WHEN THE NEW DWELLING REGION WAS DENSILY ENOUGH INHABITED BEFORE, AS A RULE - VERY OFTEN LOAN WORDS ARE ADOPTED WHEN THE THING AND ITS NAME LACKED BEFORE IN A MORE ANCIENT ENVIRONMENT OR DEGREE OF EVOLUTION, OR WHEN TWO POPULATIONS ARE IN PERMANENT CONTACT (SNOBISM: BUT THEN, THE WORD PASSES FROM THE "SUPERIOR" CULTURE TO THE "INFERIOR" ONE -
BUT YOUR REMARK IS NOT UNBASED IF A POPULATION LEAVES A REGION TO GO TO DWELL IN AN OTHER ONE AND THAT A RICH PANEL OF PRECISE WORDS BECOME UNUSEFUL AND SO FORGOT AT LONG -
BASED ON YOUR REMARK WE COULD SAY (I do'nt express my opinion here) : PROTO-I-Eans COULD HAVE LEFT SOON ENOUGH A STEPPIC REGION TO GO TO LIVE IN A MOUTAINOUS ONE? (NEW URHEIMAT?) - WHATEVER THE EARLIER STAGE YOU COULD CONSIDER A LONG ENOUGH STAYING PLACE IN WHAT? N-IRAN? ALTAY? CAUCASUS?

 

[MOESAN]

The antropologic new surveys about Maikop and the Catacombs culture attributed to Cimmerians, and the cultural ones too seem confirm ademic introgression of southern types North the Caucasus - the link would be (by instance but perhaps it is not so limited in space) with ancient populations of the Armenian Highlands (in a region less poor than the surroundings concerning Y-R1b), a mountainous region by the way - not far from somme places considered by some scholars (not all of them) as possible "cradle" for proto-I-Ean - but these "Armenians" showed also to be akin to the male population or Cucuteni-Tripolje culture (not all the females: these last ones show some brachycephaly, some of them closer to a part of the Yamna population types, the others, I believe, could have some link with the more ancient population of Carpathians): was Cucuteni-Tripolje an I-E fondation??? it is not the general thought, so ... we have some permanent contacts over milleniums between ECaspian
we could believe we have here a proof more of an anatolian or southern caspian origin of I-E? are we sure? not! material contacts between several populations can perdure without a change in the core of the languages (unless some loans) -
the only thing that can

 

[MOESAN]

damned!!! sh...!!! too long my nails! error!
I was writing: between Eastern Caspian, Altai, Hindu Kush ad Steppes...
(...)
the only thing which can help the southern theory (non steppic one) is the level of culture: it is only a presumption, not a proof: wait an see, yet! as sais by some scholars, maybe I-E is the result of the melting of two cultures where an uralic speaking steppic one could have mixed with a more southern one: linguistically I need more evidence concernng grammar, syntax... because I-E at first stage does not seem a 'creole'