Page 1 of 31 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 309

Thread: About PIE craddle. Why the anatolian theory is insane.

  1. #1
    Moderator
    Posts
    4,732
    Sex
    Location
    Normandy
    Ethnicity
    northwesterner
    Y-DNA
    U152>L2>Z367
    mtDNA
    H5a1

    Normandie Netherlands Friesland Finland

    About PIE craddle. Why the anatolian theory is insane.

    The whole linguistics literature is full of pieces of evidence against any model which advocates a cradle of PIE south of Caucasus. In spite of that, a handful of supporters of a "new algorithmic linguistics" (Bouckaert, Gray, Atkinson, and others) made themselves known by promoting such models, which seem resuscitate some theories for a long time more or less completely dismissed, in particular, the Armenian model of Gamkrelidze and Ivanov. Asya Pereltsvaig and Martin Lewis's precious book (1) not only explains with exemplary clarity and accessibility why the "Bayesian" project is a fiasco but also summarizes all elements of the IE case. My only aim on this thread is to give access to these elements, as they are presented by P. and L., without any comment from myself. In those times of active "anatolist" propaganda inside the blogs and forums by some individuals who never opened a linguistics book, I think that such a quotations thread will be useful for all people mainly concerned about the scientific truth.

    (1) https://www.amazon.com/Indo-European...an+controversy (29.99$)

    Opening miscues: the Hittite fallacy

    The following passage aims at the maps from Bouckaert et al. (2012). Its reading is needed for the understanding of what follows:

     
    The animated map indicates that by 6500 bce Anatolia, the Balkan Peninsula,
    and the northern Fertile Crescent were occupied by peoples speaking Indo-
    European languages (within 95 percent probability parameters), although the
    static map largely limits the spread of the family at this time to Anatolia, while
    other maps on the website indicate a smaller homeland in south-central Anatolia.
    Restricting our analysis to the animated map, we note that it shows no lines
    of linguistic divergence into subfamilies in the opening frames. One might
    therefore assume that the model indicates that a largely undifferentiated Indo-
    European-speaking population occupied all of Anatolia and the Balkans at the
    time. If so, the depiction is almost certainly fanciful, as this region is much too
    large to have been dominated by such closely related Neolithic languages.
    Expansive zones of tightly related languages are generally encountered only
    in particular social environments, such as when migrational streams quickly
    overrun large expanses of land and then begin to differentiate. According to
    John Robb (1993), the territories of single or closely related languages could
    have been relatively broad among Paleolithic hunter–gatherers, knit together
    by social networks necessitated by low population density, but in sedentary
    Neolithic farming communities, areas of relative linguistic homogeneity would
    have been highly restricted, counting relatively few speakers. Robb further
    contends that language group size and territory would have generally increased
    in the late Neolithic and into the Bronze Age, due to enhanced social integration
    and political centralization. But in his well-theorized model, language
    diversity and territorial fragmentation would have been at their height in
    Anatolia around 6500 bce. At that time, one would expect to find scores of
    languages belonging to several different families in central Anatolia alone,
    rather than the barely differentiated Indo-European languages spanning
    Anatolia and the Balkans depicted in the Gray–Atkinson model


    IE and non IE anatolian languages

     
    But even if one limits Proto-Indo-European (PIE) at this time to a much smaller
    centralAnatolian core, serious problems are still encountered. The main issue here
    involves the complex mixture of languages attested in this region in the Bronze
    Age.
    Based on written records that go back as far as the seventeenth century bce,
    we know that Hittite and its related languages in the Anatolian branch of Indo-
    European coexisted with several non-Indo-European tongues. If, as postulated
    by the Gray–Atkinson model, Indo-European languages had blanketed this
    homeland for thousands of years prior to the emergence of the Hittite Empire,
    the local non-Indo-European languages would have to be regarded as intrusive,
    having diffused into the area from elsewhere
    . Yet everything that we know of
    Anatolian history indicates that the opposite situation obtained.
    From royal archives at Hattusa and other historical sources, we know that
    Hittite was the official language of a powerful empire that dominated central
    Anatolia in the middle centuries of the second millennium bce. It was
    presumably the main tongue of its ruling aristocracy and merchant class, but
    not of the bulk of its peasantry. The Hittite Empire was a multilingual polity,
    although as the eminent Anatolian linguist H. Craig Melchert (2003:13) notes,
    we know little of its “true socio-linguistic situation”. But it does seem clear that
    even in the imperial core, Luvian, another Anatolian (hence Indo-European)
    language, vied with Hittite and eventually largely supplanted among the elite
    (Yakubovitch 2010). More to the point, many if not most subjects of the Hittite
    state spoke Hattic, a non-Indo-European language that may have been related to
    the languages of the Northwest Caucasian family. A few Hattic texts have
    survived, largely of a ritual nature (Bryce 1998: 11). Broader Hattic cultural
    elements were clearly evident in the Hittite realms of art and mythology, but not
    in those of administration, law, or diplomacy (Bryce 1998: 16). A few Hittite
    political terms, however, were borrowed from Hattic, including those for
    “administrative district”, “crown prince”, and “throne” (Melchert 2003: 20).
    The Hurrians, another non-Indo-European-speaking people found in the
    Empire – and outside of it, in opposing states – also contributed to Hittite culture.
    As Wilhelm (2008: 103) informs us, “Hurrian played an important role in
    [Bronze-Age] Anatolia as a language of learning and ritual”, yet it appears to
    have borrowed little if anything from the Indo-European tongues of the region
    In fact, the very name “Hittite” derives, by way of the Hebrew Bible, from the
    non-Indo-European Hattic people. TheHittites referred to themselves as the Nesa,
    and their own language as Nesili, often rendered Nesite, a term derived from the
    town of Nesa, or Kanes, located in central Anatolia roughly 150 kilometers
    southeast of the imperial capital of Hattusa (cf. Yakubovitch 2010). Nesa was
    evidently the first seat of Hittite power, and the Hittites continued to regard it as
    their homeland, as reflected in their own ethnonym. But they called their country
    as a whole “Hatti”, or the land of the Hattic people, referencing not themselves
    but rather one of the groups they ruled over (Collins 2008: 31). Neighboring
    peoples such as the Assyrians also used a term derived from “Hatti” to refer to
    this state, and by extension its Nesa rulers as well. We, of course, do the same.
    To the extent that this widely accepted understanding of the term “Hittite”
    is correct, the Anatolian hypothesis loses credibility, as it would require an
    extraordinarily unlikely chain of events. The Gray–Atkinson model tells us
    that the Nesili (Hittite) language can be traced back to stateless, Neolithic
    farmers living in central Anatolia, a people whose language family had
    diffused throughout Anatolia millennia before the establishment of the Hittite
    Empire. It would further require us to believe that thousands of years later, the
    Nesa people established a state ruling over a non-Indo-European-speaking
    Hattian peasantry that must have “diffused” into the land from elsewhere, given
    the hypothesized early Indo-Europeanization of the Anatolian Peninsula. These
    subordinated newcomers, moreover, would have referred to their new territory
    as their own country, and their indigenous rulers would have agreed, renaming
    their land in reference to this relatively powerless population.
    The Nesa would
    also have massively borrowed religious and artistic motifs from the hapless
    Hattians, perhaps including their own tutelary deity (Collins 2008: 175), while
    largely ignoring their political and legal systems.
    Such a scenario defies logic, common sense, and historical precedence
    . But
    had the Nesa (or Hittites proper) been a people of foreign origin who migrated
    into Anatolia, intermingled with and eventually established rule over the
    indigenous Hattic and Hurrian speakers, then the situation would be perfectly
    reasonable. Similar processes, after all, have played out in many other ancient
    civilizations the world over. Powerful newcomers often adopted cultic elements
    from indigenous populations while imposing their own political and legal
    systems on them and spreading their own languages as well. The fact that the
    Hittites also borrowed terms for much of the native Anatolian flora and fauna
    from the non-Indo-European languages in the region (Melchert 2003: 17) is
    further evidence against their autochthonous origin.
    As a result of these and other lines of evidence, virtually all Hittite specialists
    view the Hattians and the Hurrians as the indigenous elements, and the
    Nesa and other Anatolian speakers such as the Luvians as relative newcomers
    .
    In the current consensus view, the Indo-European speakers are seen as having
    gradually infiltrated into the region and then amalgamated with the indigenes,
    rather than having massively invaded and conquered them in a single event. As
    Trevor Bryce (2002: 8) summarizes, “Indo-European speakers may have first
    entered Anatolia during the third millennium, or even earlier. After their arrival
    one branch of them intermingled with a central Anatolian people called the
    Hattians [. . . such that] the Hittite population and civilization were primarily
    an admixture of Indo-European and Hattian elements.” Or as Melchert (2003: 23)
    starkly puts it, “Weemphatically reject the claim[. . .] for Indo-European speakers
    in Anatolia since 7000 bce [. . .] The virtual complete absence of evidence
    for linguistic contact between Proto-Indo-European [. . .] and the known
    ancient languages of the area (Hattic, Akkadian, and Sumerian) also preclude
    an Indo-European linguistic continuity in Anatolia of five thousand years.”
    The non-Indo-European Hurrian people, it must also be noted, occupy a
    prominent place in Indo-European studies by virtue of the fact that a number of
    their rulers and deities evidently had Indo-European, and more specifically
    Indo-Aryan, names. By the same token, words of Indo-Aryan origin, particularly
    ones pertaining to horses, are also found in their lexicon. The best-known
    example of such terms comes from the Hittite horse-training manual of
    Kikkuli, a master horse trainer from the Hurrian kingdom of Mitanni, which
    is “still” in print (Nyland 2009). Despite the fact that Kikkuli wrote in Hittite
    (Nesite) and was from a Hurrian-speaking land, he used many Indo-Aryan
    terms with obvious affinities to Sanskrit. Scholars of earlier generations
    thus tended to attribute the formation of the Hurrian kingdom of Mitanni to
    Indo-European-speaking, chariot-driving invaders who established themselves
    as a ruling aristocracy. More recent work, however, downplays this element,
    stressing instead the preponderance of the indigenous Hurrian component in
    the Mitanni state. As Eva von Dassow (2008: 84) concludes, “The linguistic
    evidence suggests that speakers of an Indo-Aryan language were few, at most,
    even in Mittani”. But even if few in numbers, they were nonetheless present, and
    a number of them were politically significant. More to the point, the presence of
    Indo-Aryan speakers in the Bronze-Age Middle East indicates long-distance
    migration of Indo-European speakers into the region, one that was not associated
    with the much earlier spread of the Hittite (Nesite) language
    En North alom, de North venom
    En North fum naiz, en North manom

    (Roman de Rou, Wace, 1160-1170)

  2. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to anglesqueville For This Useful Post:

     Agamemnon (07-05-2018), Camulogène Rix (07-05-2018), Celt_?? (07-06-2018), George (07-05-2018), jdean (07-06-2018), K33 (07-05-2018), Noa (07-17-2018), Osiris (07-05-2018), Power77 (07-10-2018), rms2 (07-06-2018), Silesian (07-05-2018)

  3. #2
    Moderator
    Posts
    4,732
    Sex
    Location
    Normandy
    Ethnicity
    northwesterner
    Y-DNA
    U152>L2>Z367
    mtDNA
    H5a1

    Normandie Netherlands Friesland Finland
    Cradle and diversification

     
    Regardless of this Mitanni controversy, the peculiarity of Hittite and its
    related languages plays a crucial role in the Gray–Atkinson scheme. Their
    model generates an Anatolian heartland for the language family in part because
    Anatolian is the most distinctive branch of Indo-European, having branched
    off from the main trunk before any of the other languages did. For the Indo-
    European family as a whole, the deepest diversity is thus encountered when
    one examines the Anatolian languages in relation to the family’s other
    branches. Such deep diversity, in turn, often indicates a place of origin, both
    in regard to linguistic evolution and to biological evolution as well. Geneticists
    are thus able to trace the origins of crop species to their genetic diversity
    centers, places where highly distinctive cultivars as well as wild progenitors
    can be found. In such areas, long periods of selective breeding have ensured
    the emergence of numerous distinctive strains, only some of which subsequently
    spread out of the original zone of domestication.
    The same logic does indeed work well for determining the place of origin
    of some language families. Austronesian, which includes most languages of
    Insular (island) Southeast Asia, Madagascar, and the islands of the Pacific
    Ocean, is traceable to Taiwan on this basis. Here, diversity near the root of the
    family is overwhelming: of the eleven primary branches of Austronesian, ten
    are limited to the so-called Taiwanese Aborigines, now largely restricted to the
    rugged eastern highlands (Blust 1999; inter alia). The ancestral Proto-
    Austronesian language split into separate families long ago on Taiwan, only
    one of which successfully spread outside of the island. This non-Taiwanese
    Malayo-Polynesian subfamily, however, expanded over a larger portion of the
    Earth’s surface than any other language group, provided that one counts seaspace
    as well as land. In doing so, it diversified magnificently, but its diversity
    over most of its expanse is relatively superficial, limited to the smaller
    branches and leaves. Austronesian’s deep diversity in Taiwan thus firmly links
    its origin to the island, as Russell Gray has himself concluded from a detailed
    study (Gray et al. 2009). In this case, Bayesian phylogenetic analysis accords
    well with traditional inquiry in historical linguistics
    According to Gray and his co-authors, the same situation is encountered in
    regard to Indo-European, where the deepest division separates the long-extinct
    Anatolian subfamily from the main stem. Yet in this case, the diversity center
    principle does not apply. Whereas in the Austronesian case, ten out of eleven
    major branches are found in Taiwan, its proposed homeland, in the Indo-
    European situation the ratio reversed. Here only one of ten major branches –
    Anatolian – was once spoken in the area postulated as the family’s birthplace,
    and as far as we know it was never a “bushy” branch with numerous distinctive
    languages. Although Anatolian is indeed the oldest Indo-European subfamily,
    we have no reason to assume that it simply stayed put at its point of origin. It is
    instead quite likely that the Anatolian languages were differentiated from the
    so-called Nuclear Indo-European (i.e. non-Anatolian) languages by losing
    contact with them through the process of migration.

    If anything, the diversity center principle suggests someplace other than
    Anatolia as the PIE homeland, as the non-Anatolian “half” of the family is the
    one that developed numerous distinctive branches. An even deeper problem
    concerns the near impossibility of non-Anatolian Indo-European languages
    diffusing simultaneously to the east and west of Anatolia, yet at the same time
    sharing a number of significant innovations that the Anatolian branch missed
    ,
    as discussed in Chapter 9 below.


    About Gamkrelidze and Ivanov’s Armenian hypothesis

     
    Gamkrelidze and Ivanov’s Armenian hypothesis is based largely on presumed
    contacts with languages spoken to the south of the formidable Great
    Caucasus Mountain Range. It also relies on proposed PIE reconstructions for the
    names of plants and animals that suggest a southern latitude, such as ‘panther’,
    ‘lion’, and ‘elephant’ (see Gamkrelidze and Ivanov 1995: 420–431, 443–444).
    Most of these reconstructions, however, have been discredited since
    Gamkrelidze and Ivanov first put forward their theory (see Beekes 1995 for
    details).


    Borrowings? The "wine" case.

     

    Some of Gamkrelidze and Ivanov’s alleged exchanges of loanwords
    between PIE and languages in other families are problematic as well. The
    key difficulty is ascertaining the direction of borrowing: which languages
    borrowed a given loanword from which other tongue. Consider the controversy
    surrounding the word for ‘wine’. Since similar forms are found in
    Anatolian languages (Hittite wiyana-, Luwian winiyant-, Hieroglyphic Luwian
    wiana-), as well as in non-Anatolian languages (e.g. Homeric Greek (w)oinos,
    Armenian gini, Albanian v?në, Latin u?num, Gothic wein, Old Church
    Slavonic vino, etc.), Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1995: 557–564) reconstruct it
    back to PIE as *w(e/o)ino-.5 Similar terms are found in a number of ancient
    Near Eastern languages. The Proto-Semitic form, for example, is reconstructed
    as *wayn-‘wine’ (cf. Akkadian ?nu-, Arabic wayn-, Ugaritic yn, Hebrew
    yayin). Similarly, the South Caucasian (Kartvelian) form *?wino- ‘wine’ can
    be reconstructed on the basis of Georgian ?wino, Mingrelian ?win-, Laz ?(w)in-,
    and Svan ?winel. Gamkrelidze and Ivanov regard this term as a Wanderwort, a
    word that spreads among numerous languages and cultures in connection with
    trade or cultural diffusion. This particular word for ‘wine’, they argue, “must
    have passed from one language to another at a protolanguage level, i.e. prior to
    the breakup of each protolanguage into separate dialects” (Gamkrelidze and
    Ivanov 1995: 559). But which proto-language did this word originate in?
    Based both on the formal phonological/morphological characteristics of
    their PIE reconstruction and on the importance of grapes and wine in early
    Indo-European traditions, Gamkrelidze and Ivanov classify the word as a PIE
    native that spread into Semitic and Kartvelian.6 The idea that the word for
    ‘wine’ is native to PIE and borrowed by Proto-Kartvelian is likewise adopted
    by Dolgopolsky (2000: 406). Gamkrelidze and Ivanov further derive the word
    for ‘wine’ from the verb root *u?ei?H-~ *u?iH- ‘weave, plait, twist’, the connection
    being the root for ‘grapevine’, *u?iH-ti-. Based on the work of other Soviet
    scholars (Vavilov 1959–1965; Kušnareva and ?ubinišvili 1970), Gamkrelidze
    and Ivanov place the center of grape (Vitis vinifera) domestication in southwestern
    Asia, south of the Caucasus. Consequently, they locate the Indo-
    European homeland in that area as well.
    However, this analysis is highly contentious, and the more recent research
    supports a different analysis. According to McGovern (2007), the Eurasian
    wine grape was probably domesticated in the south Caucasus (in modern-day
    Georgia and Armenia) some 8,000 years ago. It is therefore possible, and
    perhaps even likely, that Kartvelian was the ultimate source of the ‘wine’ root,
    and that PIE (as well as the Semitic languages) borrowed it, possibly at a
    significantly later date. Another possibility is that the forms found in various
    Indo-European languages are not reflexes of a shared ancestral PIE root, but
    are rather loanwords borrowed separately into the daughter languages (James
    Clackson, personal communication). This view is supported by the fact that
    the Latin word for ‘wine’ is neuter, whereas its Greek counterpart is masculine,
    as well as other morphological discrepancies.


    About the Glottalic theory

     

    The strongest argument put forward by Gamkrelidze and Ivanov in favor of
    the Armenian hypothesis was based on Gamkrelidze’s Glottalic theory, stemming
    from the work of Pedersen (1951: 10–16) and Martinet (1953: 70).
    According to this theory, PIE had glottalized (i.e. ejective) consonants p?, t?,
    and k? instead of voiced stops b, d, and g.8 To pronounce ejective stops, in
    addition to creating a closure in the mouth, the space between the vocal cords,
    the “glottis”, is closed and then sharply opened as well.9 English speakers are
    familiar with this glottal closure, as it occurs in the middle of uh-oh (speakers
    of certain English dialects, particularly Cockney and Estuary English, use
    the “glottal stop” in place of t in words such as bottle, better, and the like).

    The additional closure of the glottis during the articulation of ejectives creates
    the dramatic burst of air that distinguishes an ejective sound from a plain one
    and gives it a certain “spat out” quality. Cross-linguistically, ejective sounds
    are fairly common, found in 92 out of 567 languages in the World Atlas
    of Linguistic Structures Online (WALS) sample (see Maddieson 2013).10
    But languages of the Caucasus are particularly well known for their ejective
    sounds. For example, Georgian (a member of the Kartvelian family) has four
    ejective stops and two ejective affricates: p?, t?, k?, q?, ts?, and t? ?.
    According to Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, the hypothesized presence of glottalic
    consonants in PIE provides a unified explanation for both Lachmann’s
    Law for Latin (proposed by the German Latinist Karl Lachmann in the middle
    of the nineteenth century) and Winter’s Law for Balto-Slavic (advanced by
    Werner Winter in 1978). Both of these laws describe a similar phenomenon in
    the languages under consideration: a reflex of the PIE unaspirated voiced stop
    b d g gw before a consonant lengthened a preceding vowel. For example, a
    reflex of the PIE g in PIE *ph2g-to- ‘fortified’ is responsible for lengthening
    the preceding vowel in the Latin p?ctus (the original short vowel is observable
    in Sanskrit pajrás). Similar process of vowel lengthening is also observed
    before PIE laryngeals, which are assumed to have included a glottal stop.
    Assuming that PIE had glottalic sounds thus allows for a unified analysis of
    various instances of vowel lengthening.
    The Glottalic theory has also been used to rationalize the analysis under
    which the PIE phoneme inventory was reconstructed to have three series of
    stops (consonants produced by a complete closure of articulators, such as p, t,
    and k, and their voiced counterparts b, d, and g). Consider the labial series:
    prior to the Glottalic theory, it was assumed that PIE had a three-member labial
    series including p, b, and bh. Such a system, however, presents a mysterious
    anomaly in light of the fact that typologically languages have either ph instead
    of bh (i.e. they have p, b, and ph), or both ph and bh together. Under the
    Glottalic theory, the typologically uncommon system p, b, bh was reformulated
    as a more expected one: p, p?, ph. In other words, the essence of the Glottalic
    theory is that the sound originally reconstructed as a voiced b was reinterpreted
    as a voiceless glottalized p?. While glottalic/ejective articulation is phonetically
    different from voicing, both processes involve vocal cords and the space
    between them, the glottis. Moreover, it has been noted that voiced stops are
    equivalent to the glottalic series of other language families with respect to
    sound symbolism (Swadesh 1971: 219).
    The Glottalic theory, however, has its own problems. Its most serious
    challenge concerns the typological commonality of the PIE consonant system
    if the system were typologically common, as proposed by the Glottalic theory,
    then it would be expected to be stable and, therefore, to have been preserved
    in at least some Indo-European daughter languages. Such preservation, however,
    did not occur: no Indo-European language has retained ejective sounds
    where the Glottalic theory postulates them
    . Both Ossetian (a member of the
    Iranian branch) and some dialects of Armenian do have glottalic sounds, but
    they reflect relatively recent borrowing from neighboring languages in the
    Caucasus. Significantly, Ossetian is the only Iranian language with such
    phonetic characteristics. More important is the fact that the distribution of
    ejectives in modern Armenian and Ossetian does not fit the Glottalic theory.
    If, in contrast, we assume that PIE had a typologically unusual system, as
    postulated by the traditional reconstruction, then it might be expected to have
    been replaced by more typical sound inventories, possibly with different
    solutions achieved in its various daughter languages, which is exactly what
    one does find. Because of these and other objections, the Glottalic theory has
    been rejected by most Indo-Europeanists
    , though it still has some adherents, such
    as Robert S. P. Beekes, Frederik Kortlandt, and A. M. Lubotsky (cf. Beekes
    1995; Kortlandt 1995, 2010; Lubotsky 2007). Alan Bomhard (2008, 2011)
    supports the Glottalic theory in connection with the controversial Nostratic
    hypothesis, which posits a “mega” language family that would include the
    Indo-European, Uralic, Altaic, Afro-Asiatic, Kartvelian, and Dravidian families.
    Gamkrelidze and Ivanov’s argument for the Armenian hypothesis rests
    heavily on the Glottalic theory. These authors further maintain that PIE
    originally borrowed its ejective consonants from Proto-Kartvelian, a language
    that was presumably spoken south of the Caucasus Mountains. They are
    certainly correct in contending that sounds can be “borrowed” from one
    language into another. Examples from the more recent history of Indo-
    European languages include the “borrowing” of retroflex consonants by many
    Indo-Aryan languages from their Dravidian neighbors and the “borrowing” of
    pharyngealized consonants by Domari, another Indo-Aryan language (see
    Chapter 3 above), from Arabic (Matras 2012: 42–43). However, even if we
    assume, following Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, that the Glottalic theory is correct
    and that PIE acquired ejective sounds from some neighboring language,
    Gamkrelidze and Ivanov’s argument rests on two crucial yet implicit and not
    necessarily valid assumptions: that Proto-Kartvelian had ejective sounds as its
    descendants do, and that it was spoken in the same area where its descendants
    have been spoken in historical times. In effect, Gamkrelidze and Ivanov
    project properties of modern Kartvelian languages (both phonological and
    geographical) onto Proto-Kartvelian, a step that needs to be at least acknowledged
    explicitly. But even if we make all these assumptions, the conclusion –
    that PIE “borrowed” glottalic/ejective sounds from Proto-Kartvelian – is not
    the only possible one. In addition to the Kartvelian languages spoken to the
    south of the Great Caucasus crest, languages found on the northern side of
    the mountains, and historically into the adjacent lowlands as well, also have
    ejective sounds, including languages in both the Northwest Caucasian family
    (e.g. Abkhaz) and the Northeast Caucasian family (e.g. Tsez, Avar). One must
    therefore consider possible connection between PIE and the ancestral forms of
    languages indigenous to the North Caucasus.

    The existence of common typological features in PIE and Proto-Northwest
    Caucasian (Proto-NWC) has long been noted.12 For instance, Matasovi?
    (2012: 283) notes that although no “certain proofs of lexical borrowing
    between PIE and North Caucasian” were ever found, “there are a few undeniable
    areal-typological parallels in phonology and grammar”. Those features
    include “the high consonant-to-vowel ratio, tonal accent, number suppletion in
    personal pronouns, the presence of gender and the morphological optative and,
    possibly, the presence of glottalized consonants and ergativity” (2012: 283).
    Those features are generally attributed to PIE but are not found in the majority
    of languages of North and Northeastern Eurasia, yet they are common, or
    universally present, in the languages of the Caucasus (especially the North
    Caucasus). Therefore, linguists have generally analyzed such commonalities as
    evidence of linguistic contact between the two proto-languages (Kortlandt 1990,
    1995). In addition to the above-mentioned glottalic sounds, PIE and Proto-NWC
    are said to have developed labiovelars (e.g. kw) in a similar fashion: by reassigning
    a vowel feature to adjacent consonants. In other words, an ancestral ku may
    have become kw?; Northwest Caucasian languages may have done the same thing
    with respect to palatalization, turning an ancestral ki into k j?. Taken to an extreme,
    this sort of historical change reduces vowel inventories and generates large
    numbers of consonants. The ultimate example of such a process is Ubykh, a
    now-extinct Northwest Caucasian language, which had 81 consonant phonemes
    (Colarusso 1992) and a mere two vowels. Yet it is not entirely clear whether PIE
    and Proto-NWC acquired labiovelars via horizontal transmission (presumably,
    from Proto-NWC into PIE) or from parallel developments. Kortlandt (1995:
    93–94) takes the former position, buttressing his argument by arguing that “the
    area around Majkop [. . .] was a cultural center in the formative years of the
    Indo-European proto-language. It is therefore easily conceivable that the Indo-
    European sound system originated as a result of strong Caucasian influence.”
    Such strong evidence of linguistic contact between the early Indo-Europeans
    and the linguistic ancestors of the present-day Abkhaz, Adyghe, and Kabardian
    peoples makes the Pontic steppes to the north of the Caucasus Mountains
    a more likely candidate for the Indo-European homeland than either the
    Armenian Highlands or central Anatolia. To begin with, the Great Caucasus
    Range forms a formidable physical barrier, making it likely that speakers of
    Proto-NWC were in much closer contact with groups to the north than with
    those to the south. We must also consider Nichols’s (1992) contention that
    both Proto-NWC and Proto-NEC must have been spoken in more northerly
    areas of subdued topography and low altitude than their modern descendants.
    Later arrivals of other peoples, chiefly those speaking Turkic languages,
    pushed the speakers of Northwest Caucasian and Northeast Caucasian
    languages into their highland refuges. As a consequence, the homelands of
    Northwestern and Northeastern Caucasian languages were probably adjacent
    to the hypothesized Indo-European homeland in the Pontic steppes, which
    would promote considerable linguistic borrowing between the two families.
    All such theorizing, however, is muddled by the complex linguistic history and
    geography of the region. For example, it has been suggested that in remote
    antiquity Northwest Caucasian languages were spoken in present-day Adjara
    along the Black Sea Coast, where they may have left substrate traces on
    Kartvelian toponyms. Moreover, the position of the extinct Hurro-Urartian
    languages, which may have been related to the Northeast Caucasian family, is
    uncertain. We should therefore regard the linguistic connections between PIE
    and the languages found to the north of the Caucasus with some skepticism,
    although the existing evidence is suggestive.
    En North alom, de North venom
    En North fum naiz, en North manom

    (Roman de Rou, Wace, 1160-1170)

  4. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to anglesqueville For This Useful Post:

     Agamemnon (07-05-2018), Camulogène Rix (07-05-2018), ffoucart (07-05-2018), jdean (07-06-2018), Power77 (07-10-2018), rms2 (07-06-2018), Silesian (07-05-2018)

  5. #3
    Moderator
    Posts
    4,732
    Sex
    Location
    Normandy
    Ethnicity
    northwesterner
    Y-DNA
    U152>L2>Z367
    mtDNA
    H5a1

    Normandie Netherlands Friesland Finland
    For the most courageous:

    Indo-european / Uralic linkage

    I was tempted to cut into this very long extract, but I ultimately renounced. Everything here is crucial. In particular, for the sake of objectivity, I didn't touch to the passage where A.P. expresses her scepticism against the Indo-Uralic model (which I tend to support myself despite some glottalic problems, but it's another story).

     

    Much better documented are the linkages between PIE and Uralic, which
    also support a more northerly PIE homeland (Ringe 1998; Dolgopolsky 2000:
    407; Janhunen 2000, 2001; Kallio 2001; Koivulehto 2001; Salminen 2001;
    Katz 2003). Morphological and lexical resemblances between the two language
    families are so numerous and striking that some scholars have proposed
    an Indo-Uralic macro-family, which would encompass all Indo-European and
    Uralic languages (e.g. Kortlandt 1995). Most linguists, however, believe that
    such similarities resulted from extensive contact rather than common descent,
    attributing many resemblances, especially the lexical ones, to borrowing –
    usually from Indo-European into Uralic. Still, the issue remains disputed,
    as the border between “good evidence” of contact and evidence “too good”
    to substantiate mere contact, instead implying common descent, can be a
    fine line indeed.

    In many cases, borrowings into Uralic can be identified because either
    their phonology or their morphology is “out of place” for the family. An
    often-cited example is the word *pork̑ o-‘pig, piglet’ in Proto-Finno-Ugric.
    The palatalization suggests that this word was borrowed from Proto-Iranian
    rather than PIE itself. However, crucial to our discussion is the fact that
    this word bears traces of Indo-European (i.e. non-Finno-Ugric) morphology.
    Specifically, *-os (which became *-as in Finno-Ugric due to an independent
    sound change) is an Indo-European masculine nominative singular ending,
    but it has no meaning in Uralic languages. We can therefore conclude
    that the whole word was borrowed as a unit and is not part of the original
    Uralic vocabulary, which is unsurprising, as speakers of Proto-Uralic had
    no domesticated animals other than dogs. In other cases, the evidence is
    even less clear. For example, Kortlandt (1989) argues that verbs commonly
    taken to be Indo-European loanwords in Uralic (e.g. Rédei 1986), including
    ‘to give’, ‘to wash’, ‘to bring’, ‘to drive’, ‘to do’, ‘to lead’, and ‘to take’,
    were actually inherited from an ancestral language common to both families,
    Indo-Uralic.
    Several significant conclusions can be drawn from borrowings between
    Indo-European and Uralic languages. First, the contact between the two
    language groups must have taken place over a long period of time. In a study
    of the earliest contacts between the two families, Rédei (1986) divides his list
    of sixty-four words supposedly borrowed from Indo-European into Uralic into
    three groups based on their presence or absence in major subfamilies of the
    two groups. He finds that seven Indo-European words are attested in both
    Finno-Ugric and Samoyedic, eighteen Indo-European or Indo-Iranian words
    are attested in Finno-Ugric but not in Samoyedic, and thirty-nine Indo-Iranian
    words are found only in the Finnic branch. Given the history of Uralic, the first
    set of words must have been borrowed in the earliest period, the second set in a
    more recent period, and the third set in a more recent period still. Similarly,
    Häkkinen (2012) differentiates four layers of borrowings from Indo-European
    into Uralic, listed below from the oldest to the newest. Note that all these
    borrowings originated from the Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European, not
    from PIE. However, such layered borrowings indicate that Uralic languages
    must have been in contact with Indo-European languages, particularly the
    Indo-Iranian ones, for millennia.
    1. Early Proto-Indo-Iranian *g̑ ug̑ heu- ‘to pour, libate’ ! Early Proto-Uralic
    *juxi-/jôwxi- ‘to drink’
    < IE *g̑ heu-
    2. Middle Proto-Indo-Iranian (Pre-Iranian dialect) *dzen-! Middle Proto-Uralic
    *sen-ti- ‘to born’
    < IE *g̑ enh-
    3. Late Proto-Indo-Iranian *ćatam ! Late Proto-Uralic *śeta ‘100’
    < IE *k̑ m
    ˚
    tóm
    4. Early Iranian zaranya ! Late Proto-Uralic *serńa ‘gold’
    < Late Proto-Aryan *źhar- < IE *g̑ h(o)l(H)-

    Wiik (2000: 469) distinguishes ten layers of Indo-European loanwords in
    Finnish, starting from PIE loanwords (circa 4000 bce) and continuing to most
    recent borrowings from English (circa 1960). At least four of the layers date
    before Common Era: borrowings from PIE (e.g. jyviä ‘grains’), Proto-Indo-
    Iranian (e.g. varsalle ‘for the foal’), Pre-Baltic (e.g. puuro- ‘porridge’), and
    Proto-Germanic (e.g. ruokaa ‘food’).
    Importantly, similarities between Indo-European and Uralic are not limited to
    lexical items; elements of morphology are shared as well
    . Examples of shared
    morphemes include the pronominal roots (*m- for first person; *t- for second
    person; *i- for third person), case markings (accusative *-m, ablative/partitive
    *-ta), interrogative pronouns (*kw- ‘who?, which?’), and the negative particle ne.
    Other, less obvious correspondences have been suggested, such as the Indo-
    European plural marker *-es and its Uralic counterpart *-t. This same word-final
    assibilation of *-t to *-s may also be present in Indo-European second-person
    singular *-s in comparison with Uralic second-person singular *-t. Some similarities
    have also been noted between the verb conjugation systems of Uralic
    languages (e.g. that of Finnish) and of several Indo-European languages (e.g.
    those of Latin, Russian, and Lithuanian). As mentioned in Chapter 3, although
    it is common for a language to borrow heavily from the vocabulary of another
    language, it is extremely unusual for a language to borrow its basic system of
    verb conjugation from another tongue. In fact, such deep grammatical
    borrowings are so rare that they are generally interpreted as either evidence for
    extremely intense and prolonged contact, or for common descent.

    All told, such linguistic evidence suggests deep and extended contact
    between the Uralic and Indo-European language families, likely with a high
    incidence of intermarriage, which would imply close proximity in the period
    when the borrowings occurred. Proto-Uralic is generally accepted as having
    been a language of foragers living in the forests to the north of the Pontic
    Steppes, who, as mentioned above, had no domesticated animals other than
    dogs. Assuming that the early Indo-Europeans maintained contact with
    speakers of Proto-Uralic, they must have lived in an area bordering the forest
    zone.
    The large number of reconstructed PIE roots for various tree species,
    discussed in the previous section, points in the same direction.
    Although Uralic undoubtedly borrowed heavily from Indo-European, it
    does not follow that such borrowings came directly from the ancestral protolanguage
    itself rather than from a descendant language (or languages) of PIE.
    In fact, most linguists reject the idea that PIE served as the source of these
    transmissions, favoring instead Proto-Indo-Iranian, one of the main Indo-
    European branches. Here, however, the evidence is solid. We can therefore
    deduce that speakers of Proto-Indo-Iranian, as well as peoples speaking later
    forms of the languages in this subfamily, lived in close proximity to the Uralic
    peoples inhabiting the forest zone just to the north of the Pontic Steppes.

    But even if PIE itself had no direct contact with Uralic, the demonstrated
    relationship between Uralic and Proto-Indo-Iranian still runs counter to the
    Anatolian hypothesis of Gray and Atkinson.
    Recall that their model posits
    Proto-Indo-Iranian genesis on the Iranian plateau, many hundreds of miles to
    the south of the likely Uralic homeland, with a subsequent eastward migration.
    Such a scenario maintains a significant distance between the two
    language groups during the crucial period of linguistic exchange, and is
    therefore highly unlikely if not outright impossible. It must be admitted,
    however, that Colin Renfrew’s modified Anatolian hypothesis is not contradicted
    by the evidence of close contacts between the Uralic and Indo-Aryan
    language groups. Although Renfrew regards PIE as having been limited to
    the Anatolian Plateau, he speculates that the early Indo-Iranians moved north
    into the steppe zone, where they could have had close contact with Uralic
    speakers.
    The evidence of contact between these two language families also sheds
    new light on the problem of the Uralic homeland, which is by no means
    completely resolved either. Some scholars place the Uralic homeland to the
    east of the Ural Mountains in western Siberia, others to the west, in European
    Russia. The Siberian hypothesis was based on two main arguments. The first
    one concerned the family’s highest-order split, which was thought to have
    separated Samoyedic and Finno-Ugric; more recent analyses, however,
    take the highest-order split of Uralic to be between the Finno-Permic and the
    Ugro-Samoyedic branches (Häkkinen 2007 and his later work). The second
    argument was based on paleolinguistic evidence pertaining to two coniferous
    tree names in Proto-Uralic (Abies sibirica and Pinus cembra), but these trees
    have also long been present in easternmost Europe. Because of these problems,
    most scholars now reject the Siberian theory of Uralic origins. For example,
    Carpelan and Parpola (2001: 79) associate Proto-Uralic with the archeologically
    attested Pit-Comb Ware culture found to the west of the Urals. Thus, both
    the Indo-Iranian and Uralic homelands were probably located in what is
    now European Russia and environs. Neither the Gray–Atkinson thesis of
    Indo-Iranian development on the Iranian plateau nor the postulated Siberian
    homeland of early Uralic makes sense in light of the evidence of linguistic
    contact between the two language families. It remains possible, however, that
    PIE originated to the south of the Black Sea and that the initial homeland of
    Proto-Uralic was in western Siberia, with subsequent migrations generating
    the proximity necessary for intensive language exchange. According to this
    scenario, the Indo-Iranian speakers would have moved north into the southern
    Russian steppes while the speakers of the Finno-Ugrian branch of Uralic
    simultaneously spread from the east into the forest belt located to the north
    of the steppes. Note, however, that such large-scale migrations are precluded
    by the Gray–Atkinson model, as discussed in Chapter 7.



    Conclusion

     

    To recap, evidence of linguistic contact with other language families, though
    copious, does not yield firm conclusions. The etymologies of some putative
    borrowings remain unclear. In many cases, we cannot be sure whether the
    word in question is shared via borrowing or because of inheritance from a
    common ancestral language; in other cases, we are not certain which language
    family generated a shared word, or how it spread to the other languages.
    Conclusions about language contact often depend on the precise reconstructions
    of proto-languages, which have not yet been definitively established.
    Drawing undisputable conclusions about PIE based on evidence of contact
    requires certainty about the development not only of Indo-European, but also
    of the other language families with which it interacted. However, we are no
    more certain about the deep past of the Uralic, Semitic, and Caucasian
    languages than we are about the history of the Indo-European tongues. Thus,
    conclusive proof of the area of language-family origination cannot be drawn
    from information about the interaction of language families. But even if firm
    conclusions cannot be reached, the existing evidence is still strongly suggestive,
    pointing in the direction of the Steppe hypothesis and away from the
    Anatolian model of Gray and Atkinson.


    En North alom, de North venom
    En North fum naiz, en North manom

    (Roman de Rou, Wace, 1160-1170)

  6. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to anglesqueville For This Useful Post:

     Agamemnon (07-05-2018), ffoucart (07-05-2018), jdean (07-06-2018), Observer (07-06-2018), Power77 (07-10-2018), rms2 (07-06-2018)

  7. #4
    Registered Users
    Posts
    99
    Sex

    A good display of the dilemma linguistic alone faces:

    According to McGovern (2007), the Eurasian
    wine grape was probably domesticated in the south Caucasus (in modern-day
    Georgia and Armenia) some 8,000 years ago. It is therefore possible, and
    perhaps even likely, that Kartvelian was the ultimate source of the ‘wine’ root,
    and that PIE (as well as the Semitic languages) borrowed it, possibly at a
    significantly later date.
    So McGovern finds that grapes originates south of the Caucasus and Kartvelian becomes the likely source for the word? The modified MPI model 2018 tells exactly that --> IE originated south of the Caucasus so the switch of urheimat from outdated Anatolia to south Caucasus would make wine back IE?

    This why linguistics is poor to prove anything of this kind... One author that supports one theory can say it is "likely Kartvelian" another "it is likely south Caucasus IE". No hard data to grasp. All up in the air.

    The next dilemma:

    We can therefore
    deduce that speakers of Proto-Indo-Iranian, as well as peoples speaking later
    forms of the languages in this subfamily, lived in close proximity to the Uralic
    peoples inhabiting the forest zone just to the north of the Pontic Steppes.

    But even if PIE itself had no direct contact with Uralic, the demonstrated
    relationship between Uralic and Proto-Indo-Iranian still runs counter to the
    Anatolian hypothesis of Gray and Atkinson.
    Source could in theory be PIE or proto Indo-Iranian. Yes and the difference is that the former would put IE urheimat in the steppe and the latter would put a early Indo-Iranian stage dialect into the steppe. The latter would put the urheimat south of the Caucasus and one IE (Indo-Iranian) expansion to the north (Maykop --> Yamnaya --> proto-Uralics), more or less the current MPI model.

    But despite the critics here a way forward:

    I prefer to identify the genetics of early attested IE people such as Mycenaean, Hittite and Mitanni and then see where they come from and what they have in common at what stage. This is a direct approach made possible recently that avoids linguistic constructs or bias by specific scholars.

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Patarames For This Useful Post:

     ms85 (07-05-2018), persian (07-09-2018)

  9. #5
    Gold Member Class
    Posts
    3,275
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Jewish & British
    Y-DNA
    J1-YSC234 (Z18271+)
    mtDNA
    J1c5

    Israel Israel Jerusalem United Kingdom England Scotland Isle of Man
    Quote Originally Posted by Patarames View Post
    A good display of the dilemma linguistic alone faces:



    So McGovern finds that grapes originates south of the Caucasus and Kartvelian becomes the likely source for the word? The modified MPI model 2018 tells exactly that --> IE originated south of the Caucasus so the switch of urheimat from outdated Anatolia to south Caucasus would make wine back IE?

    This why linguistics is poor to prove anything of this kind... One author that supports one theory can say it is "likely Kartvelian" another "it is likely south Caucasus IE". No hard data to grasp. All up in the air.

    The next dilemma:



    Source could in theory be PIE or proto Indo-Iranian. Yes and the difference is that the former would put IE urheimat in the steppe and the latter would put a early Indo-Iranian stage dialect into the steppe. The latter would put the urheimat south of the Caucasus and one IE (Indo-Iranian) expansion to the north (Maykop --> Yamnaya --> proto-Uralics), more or less the current MPI model.

    But despite the critics here a way forward:

    I prefer to identify the genetics of early attested IE people such as Mycenaean, Hittite and Mitanni and then see where they come from and what they have in common at what stage. This is a direct approach made possible recently that avoids linguistic constructs or bias by specific scholars.
    The PIE homeland issue (not even a debate at this point since a consensus has already been reached) is an essentially linguistic one, the very validity of the IE family is linguistic in nature. So linguistic data will always enjoy primacy over genetic data as far as the homeland issue is of concern, while genetics can provide useful clues one cannot reach a conclusion on linguistic matters by looking at the genetic data alone.

    The only reason you want to do the opposite is because your pet theory directly contradicts the overwhelming majority of the linguistic data.

    Furthermore, one cannot reduce the Indo-Uralic links to contact with Proto-Indo-Iranian, as there is an abundance of morphological correspondences with Uralic in the Anatolian branch. These morphological correspondences are extremely significant when it comes to the homeland's location and unambiguously enables us to place Archaic PIE/Proto-Indo-Hittite north of the Caucasus.
    Last edited by Agamemnon; 07-05-2018 at 07:17 PM.
    ᾽Άλλο δέ τοι ἐρέω, σὺ δ᾽ ἐνὶ φρεσὶ βάλλεο σῇσιν:
    κρύβδην, μηδ᾽ ἀναφανδά, φίλην ἐς πατρίδα γαῖαν
    νῆα κατισχέμεναι: ἐπεὶ οὐκέτι πιστὰ γυναιξίν.


    -Αγαμέμνων; H Οδύσσεια, Ραψωδία λ

  10. The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to Agamemnon For This Useful Post:

     anglesqueville (07-05-2018), Camulogène Rix (07-05-2018), Celt_?? (07-06-2018), ffoucart (07-05-2018), George (07-05-2018), Helves (07-05-2018), jdean (07-06-2018), msmarjoribanks (07-05-2018), Noa (07-17-2018), Observer (07-06-2018), Osiris (07-05-2018), Power77 (07-10-2018), rms2 (07-06-2018), Silesian (07-05-2018), Titane (07-05-2018)

  11. #6
    Moderator
    Posts
    4,732
    Sex
    Location
    Normandy
    Ethnicity
    northwesterner
    Y-DNA
    U152>L2>Z367
    mtDNA
    H5a1

    Normandie Netherlands Friesland Finland
    Furthermore, one cannot reduce the Indo-Uralic links to contact with Proto-Indo-Iranian, as there is an abundance of morphological correspondences with Uralic in the Anatolian branch.
    http://kloekhorst.nl/KloekhorstIndoUralicAspects.pdf : I've many times quoted this very important text by the greatest young specialist of Hittite, but once more is not once too much.
    En North alom, de North venom
    En North fum naiz, en North manom

    (Roman de Rou, Wace, 1160-1170)

  12. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to anglesqueville For This Useful Post:

     Agamemnon (07-05-2018), Celt_?? (07-06-2018), jdean (07-06-2018), Observer (07-06-2018), Power77 (07-10-2018), rms2 (07-06-2018)

  13. #7
    Registered Users
    Posts
    83
    Y-DNA
    I2c2
    mtDNA
    T2e1

    Ok, but it's a shame that Anatolians are still undetectable, we are only finding commoner Hattians and Hurrians.

  14. #8
    Registered Users
    Posts
    83
    Y-DNA
    I2c2
    mtDNA
    T2e1

    Alright folks, what cultural sequence of events lead from the Steppe to Anatolia but are pre-Yamnaya, since you're going by the linguistic argument at least respect the evidence of the Ebla records mentioning Anatolian names in the 25th-century bc.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to IronHorse For This Useful Post:

     ms85 (07-05-2018)

  16. #9
    Gold Member Class
    Posts
    3,275
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Jewish & British
    Y-DNA
    J1-YSC234 (Z18271+)
    mtDNA
    J1c5

    Israel Israel Jerusalem United Kingdom England Scotland Isle of Man
    Quote Originally Posted by IronHorse View Post
    Alright folks, what cultural sequence of events lead from the Steppe to Anatolia but are pre-Yamnaya, since you're going by the linguistic argument at least respect the evidence of the Ebla records mentioning Anatolian names in the 25th-century bc.
    I don't see how any of this makes an Anatolian or Transcaucasian homeland more likely. It's roughly equivalent to the appearance of Akkadian (ergo [East] Semitic) names in Sumerian texts or the appearance of Amorite (ergo NW Semitic) names in Akkadian and Eblaite texts roughly at the same time, that is to say the second half of the 3rd millennium BCE. In these cases, the appearance of these names clearly highlights the intrusive nature of early Semitic speakers in Mesopotamia, likewise the onomastic data from Ebla is merely highlighting the intrusive nature of early IE speakers in the region.

    Moreover, I don't see how it makes an origin of Proto-Anatolian speakers in the Yamnaya horizon less likely, I can think of other arguments which would but the onomastic data certainly isn't one of them.
    ᾽Άλλο δέ τοι ἐρέω, σὺ δ᾽ ἐνὶ φρεσὶ βάλλεο σῇσιν:
    κρύβδην, μηδ᾽ ἀναφανδά, φίλην ἐς πατρίδα γαῖαν
    νῆα κατισχέμεναι: ἐπεὶ οὐκέτι πιστὰ γυναιξίν.


    -Αγαμέμνων; H Οδύσσεια, Ραψωδία λ

  17. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Agamemnon For This Useful Post:

     anglesqueville (07-05-2018), ffoucart (07-06-2018), jdean (07-06-2018), Power77 (07-10-2018), rms2 (07-06-2018)

  18. #10
    Registered Users
    Posts
    83
    Y-DNA
    I2c2
    mtDNA
    T2e1

    Quote Originally Posted by Agamemnon View Post
    I don't see how any of this makes an Anatolian or Transcaucasian homeland more likely. It's roughly equivalent to the appearance of Akkadian (ergo [East] Semitic) names in Sumerian texts or the appearance of Amorite (ergo NW Semitic) names in Akkadian and Eblaite texts roughly at the same time, that is to say the second half of the 3rd millennium BCE. In these cases, the appearance of these names clearly highlights the intrusive nature of early Semitic speakers in Mesopotamia, likewise the onomastic data from Ebla is merely highlighting the intrusive nature of early IE speakers in the region.

    Moreover, I don't see how it makes an origin of Proto-Anatolian speakers in the Yamnaya horizon less likely, I can think of other arguments which would but the onomastic data certainly isn't one of them.
    I promise I'll be open to intrusive natures of Anatolian, but not that they derive from Yamnaya, I see it more likely that they derive from earlier Steppe cultures.

    First, the lack of genetic indications for an intrusion into Anatolia refutes the classical notion of a Yamnaya-derived mass invasion or conquest. However, it does fit the recently developed consensus among linguists and historians that the speakers of the Anatolian languages established themselves in Anatolia by gradual infiltration and cultural assimilation. Second, the attestation of Anatolian Indo-European personal names in 25th century BCE decisively falsifies the Yamnaya culture as a possible archaeological horizon for PIE-speakers prior to the Anatolian Indo-European split. The period of Proto-Anatolian linguistic unity can now be placed in the 4thmillennium BCE and may have been contemporaneous with e.g. the Maykop culture (3700–3000 BCE), which influenced the formation and apparent westward migration of the Yamnaya and maintained commercial and cultural contact with the Anatolian highlands (Kristiansen et al. 2018). Our findings corroborate the Indo-Anatolian Hypothesis, which claims that Anatolian Indo-European split off from Proto-Indo-European first and that Anatolian Indo-European represents a sister rather than a daughter language. Our findings call for the identification of the speakers of Proto-Indo-Anatolian as a population earlier than the Yamnaya and late Maykop cultures
    The names do falsify Yamnaya, they're contemprary with them, look for earlier Steppe cultures.

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to IronHorse For This Useful Post:

     ms85 (07-05-2018)

Page 1 of 31 12311 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. I2a in Yamna: a clue about IE anatolian branch?
    By ffoucart in forum Ancient (aDNA)
    Replies: 141
    Last Post: 06-05-2017, 11:20 PM
  2. Anatolian Arab auDNA
    By raspberry in forum Autosomal (auDNA)
    Replies: 101
    Last Post: 03-07-2017, 09:42 PM
  3. Central Anatolian Neolithic aDNA
    By royking in forum Ancient (aDNA)
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 08-09-2016, 11:19 AM
  4. Central Anatolian Neolithic DNA
    By J1 DYS388=13 in forum Ancient (aDNA)
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-14-2016, 06:55 PM
  5. Replies: 35
    Last Post: 12-19-2013, 10:44 AM

Posting Permissions

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