http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/science/indo-european-languages-originated-in-anatolia-analysis-suggests.html?_r=1&hp
Already saw. Implausible.
Actually a fairly decently writen article. It does show the opposing viewpoint as well. But I agree with Spellus--I don't find the "new" evidence compelling at all.
It's not that implausible, it's based on a linguistic technique - mass comparison - that is controversial but was used in the 50s and 60s to recharacterize African language families in a way that is now generally accepted. As for Tokharian, clearly it is plausible for migration or cultural transmission to take place from the Pontic Steppes to western China. it's also possible to have similar movement or transmission from Anatolia to the steppes. Transitivity . . .
Doesn't seem to solve the problems with the Anatolian hypothesis. If it was true you would expect more overlap with Sumerian and Afro-asiatic languages and archaeological evidence of a culture in Anatolia with horses and bronze 9,000 years ago.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 23, 2012, 05:35:57 PM
Doesn't seem to solve the problems with the Anatolian hypothesis. If it was true you would expect more overlap with Sumerian and Afro-asiatic languages and archaeological evidence of a culture in Anatolia with horses and bronze 9,000 years ago.
Why would you expect any of these things?
Semitic languages came out of Africa and there would be reason to expect overlap. Sumerian is a isolate and a problem for classification regardless of one's PIE theory. It is certainly possible to postulate a PIE pre-horse domestication. Horses and wheels are such specutacular innovations that cognates could have spread from the place of origin even after PIE had split off - i.e. the fact that the German and Japanese words for tobacco are similar doesn't necessarily imply that the Japanese and German languages have a common origin in a language spoken by mobile tobacco merchants. The Pontic theory that takes the opposing position is based on application of a comparative method that is just as contestible and speculative, because its hard to distinguish true cognates derived out of common liniguistic parentage from loan words for new concepts.
1) There's a lot of very, very early borrowings in the Uralic languages from Indo-European. In addition, there's some evidence of an extremely old genetic relationship, including some very basic vocabulary terms and grammar features. This is mentioned but not addressed in the article. I'd argue that you see something with the Altaic (or at least Turkic) group, but that's like 15,000 years or more back and thus impossible to determine.
2) I don't really see how this works in the context of Copper Age Anatolia. We know of a ton of likely autochthonous peoples of Anatolia, and there is a relatively large amount of evidence that the oldest Anatolian Indo-European language was introduced to the region. I suppose it is possible that the Hatti and other peoples related to modern Northwest Caucasians conquered and replaced the native Indo-Europeans, but this seems unlikely, and would need substantial evidence. I'd expect there to be a layer of pre-Hittite Indo-European toponymy and hydonymy that just isn't there.
3) Are they proposing some kind of secondary expansion from the Steppe? There's really a substantial amount of evidence for this. I think this is possible-there's already some evidence of a relationship between the Caspain Steppe and the Fertile Crescent, and in the Kurgan Hypothesis this is one of the most important factors leading to the Indo-European expansion.
Quote from: Queequeg on August 23, 2012, 05:54:33 PM
2) I don't really see how this works in the context of Copper Age Anatolia. We know of a ton of likely autochthonous peoples of Anatolia, and there is a relatively large amount of evidence that the oldest Anatolian Indo-European language was introduced to the region. I suppose it is possible that the Hatti and other peoples related to modern Northwest Caucasians conquered and replaced the native Indo-Europeans, but this seems unlikely, and would need substantial evidence. I'd expect there to be a layer of pre-Hittite Indo-European toponymy and hydonymy that just isn't there.
The theory would be that the original IE language was an ancient Anatolian language all of whose local variants went extinct during the Hittite period. Whether that happened as a result of the Hittites spreading their own IE variant, or whether the Hittites took on one of the old Anatolian variants and the rest were crowded out by the Hatti imperium, hard to say.
There's a lot of evidence that there was early interaction with North-East Caucasian peoples (proto-Circassians), but not what one would expect to see in Anatolia-with the Hatti (who spoke something likely related to a North-East Caucasian language, a kind of proto-Chechen). Now in the Kurgan hypothesis this happens with the movement to the Pontic-Caspian, and helps to explain what is called "Satemization", a process that happened to the Indo-Iranian and Slavic languages, as well as Armenian and Albanian.
I really liked Anthony's book BTW. Well written and argued.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 23, 2012, 06:02:40 PM
The theory would be that the original IE language was an ancient Anatolian language all of whose local variants went extinct during the Hittite period. Whether that happened as a result of the Hittites spreading their own IE variant, or whether the Hittites took on one of the old Anatolian variants and the rest were crowded out by the Hatti imperium, hard to say.
There's no evidence of these hypothetical pre-Hittite Indo-European Anatolians. We know that the Hatti-a people likely related to modern Chechens-were there. We know the Hurrians and the Urartians were there. That's two completely different language groups in Anatolia that don't have any plausible genetic connection to these hypothetical pre-Hittite Indo-Europeans, don't reveal signs of borrowing, and have established, ancient toponymy.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 23, 2012, 06:06:12 PM
I really liked Anthony's book BTW. Well written and argued.
Same. Best book I've read on the subject.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 23, 2012, 05:51:06 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 23, 2012, 05:35:57 PM
Doesn't seem to solve the problems with the Anatolian hypothesis. If it was true you would expect more overlap with Sumerian and Afro-asiatic languages and archaeological evidence of a culture in Anatolia with horses and bronze 9,000 years ago.
Why would you expect any of these things?
Semitic languages came out of Africa and there would be reason to expect overlap. Sumerian is a isolate and a problem for classification regardless of one's PIE theory. It is certainly possible to postulate a PIE pre-horse domestication. Horses and wheels are such specutacular innovations that cognates could have spread from the place of origin even after PIE had split off - i.e. the fact that the German and Japanese words for tobacco are similar doesn't necessarily imply that the Japanese and German languages have a common origin in a language spoken by mobile tobacco merchants. The Pontic theory that takes the opposing position is based on application of a comparative method that is just as contestible and speculative, because its hard to distinguish true cognates derived out of common liniguistic parentage from loan words for new concepts.
Well Sumerians were building cities and were in the neighborhood. You would expect some loan words. The Afro-asiatic speakers show up in the mid-east at an early date so you would expect loan words from them as well. Instead you have loan words with the Uralic languages. That is pretty damn odd if they the PIE guys were all hanging around Anatolia with their hos. The thing with wheels is that you don't see the words adopted by all branches of other languages. Such as Sino-Tibetan or Afro-Asiatic. Why PIE?
There's some shared vocabulary relating to domesticated animals and early trade goods. "Wine" is the most obvious. These are shared in Southeast Caucasian languages, though, too.
If this is to be the designated Spellus/Ancient Anatollia thread, I have to ask, what do you think of Göbekli Tepe and how it's revolutionized our understanding of the birth of civilization.
That seems like a loaded question.
Quote from: Queequeg on August 23, 2012, 06:10:06 PM
There's no evidence of these hypothetical pre-Hittite Indo-European Anatolians.
I-E is a language grouping not a race or nation. And since all of our evidence about PIE is hypothetical the same could be send for the Anthony's postulated PIE-speaking steppe peoples.
We do know that there were pre-Hittite Anatolians and lots of them. We know they spoke some language. And the statistical analysis points in the direction of being the original PIE.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 23, 2012, 06:20:23 PM
Well Sumerians were building cities and were in the neighborhood.
Hundreds of miles across mountains and desert is not in the same neighborhood. There is also the matter of thousands of years of time passing in the interim.
QuoteThe Afro-asiatic speakers show up in the mid-east at an early date so you would expect loan words from them as well.
Early is relative. In this case, it is about 5000 years later.
QuoteInstead you have loan words with the Uralic languages. That is pretty damn odd if they the PIE guys were all hanging around Anatolia with their hos.
The thing with wheels is that you don't see the words adopted by all branches of other languages. Such as Sino-Tibetan or Afro-Asiatic. Why PIE?
Timing, timing.
The Uralic loan words all stem from thousands of years after the postulated Anatolian PIE, at a time when I-E languages had already spread out of the initial homeland.
The Anatolian theory is perfectly compatible with the aspect of the Pontic theory that postulates horse domestication and charioteering arises in that area and the words being adopted by surrounding areas - the difference is that by that time the A-theory postulates I-E languages has already been spreading for thousands of years in those areas. So it re-use the analogy it would be like the word "tabak(o)" being adopted by lots of already related European languages. The new words don't spread to certain some other language families because they are more resistant to taking on the loan words intact.
QuoteWe do know that there were pre-Hittite Anatolians and lots of them. We know they spoke some language. And the statistical analysis points in the direction of being the original PIE.
The problem is that we know of multiple, unrelated non Indo-European groups that appear to be native to Anatolia and cover most of the region. The Hatti (who, again, were more Chechen than Indo-European) and the Hurrians (also not Indo-European) were both in the area prior to the Hittites moving in. Now, it's possible that these languages replaced or co-existed with a non-Hittite Indo-European language, but I'd expect this to be reflected in a layer of toponymy and hydronymy, and a number of agriculture or other language borrowings from this Indo-European language. I don't see that there. More than that, I don't think there is evidence of a close relationship with these languages. They would have co-existed in relatively close proximity for thousands of years, and you would expect to see some evidence of a relationship.
Now, I think there is substantial evidence of a pre-Indo-European agricultural culture that expanded from Anatolia, but I'm not convinced this group spoke an Indo-European language. We know a lot about ancient Anatolia, and I'm not sure there is enough room in our picture for this hypothetical pre-Hittite Indo-European people.
Quote
The Uralic loan words all stem from thousands of years after the postulated Anatolian PIE, at a time when I-E languages had already spread out of the initial homeland.
I'm arguing-and Anthony argued-that there are two different periods of a relationship between the Uralic and Indo-European languages. The first, and most obvious, is what we can both agree on-certain terms relating to domesticated animals and other terms. The other is evidence that there was an extremely early genetic relationship between the groups, as evidence by the most basic terms in the vocabulary-emä for mother, *weti for water, mun for I. It's not enough that the Indo-Uralic is taken seriously as a language group by most experts, but it's there, and it's more than any relationship with the paleo-Anatolians.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 23, 2012, 09:39:58 PM
If this is to be the designated Spellus/Ancient Anatollia thread, I have to ask, what do you think of Göbekli Tepe and how it's revolutionized our understanding of the birth of civilization.
I don't know enough about the Neolithic to make meaningful contributions to this discussion.
However, I was lucky enough to visit Gobekli in April 2010. It was one of the most memorable moments of my entire time in Turkey, and tbh one of the greatest moments of my life. It's a fascinating place. Really astonishing that a non-agricultural group of people were able to construct such a monument.
However, what I remember most was what I found-and still find-extremely disquieting. Scattered throughout the temple are glyphs of animals-foxes, oxen, various birds, deer, none of which may be found within hundreds of miles of the spot today. The area around Gobekli Tepe is almost entirely treeless, and resembles some of the more desolate regions of Oaklahoma or the Dakotas. The first known site of permanent human settlement has been transformed from a lush forest in to barren prairie by human action.
Quote from: Queequeg on August 24, 2012, 01:26:05 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 23, 2012, 09:39:58 PM
If this is to be the designated Spellus/Ancient Anatollia thread, I have to ask, what do you think of Göbekli Tepe and how it's revolutionized our understanding of the birth of civilization.
I don't know enough about the Neolithic to make meaningful contributions to this discussion.
However, I was lucky enough to visit Gobekli in April 2010. It was one of the most memorable moments of my entire time in Turkey, and tbh one of the greatest moments of my life. It's a fascinating place. Really astonishing that a non-agricultural group of people were able to construct such a monument.
So jealous!
And you didn't even know that I went three with three cute Venetian girls.and a gorgeous Turk. :cool:
Quote from: Queequeg on August 25, 2012, 09:36:20 AM
And you didn't even know that I went three with three cute Venetian girls.and a gorgeous Turk. :cool:
:bleeding:
Quote from: Queequeg on August 24, 2012, 01:26:05 PMThe first known site of permanent human settlement has been transformed from a lush forest in to barren prairie by human action.
Not just human action. Climate has changed plenty in the last dozen millenia.
Can't both theories be true?
Indo-European languages slowly spread out from Anatolia 10,000 BP and reach the Pontic Step. There in 6000 BP an Indo-European speaking people domestic the horse and invent the chariot and spread everywhere.
Quote from: Iormlund on August 25, 2012, 02:25:12 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on August 24, 2012, 01:26:05 PMThe first known site of permanent human settlement has been transformed from a lush forest in to barren prairie by human action.
Not just human action. Climate has changed plenty in the last dozen millenia.
Willfully obtuse. This area was the heart of civilization for 8,000 years. No trees. I doubt that a sunspot did most of the damage.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 27, 2012, 12:38:19 AM
Can't both theories be true?
Indo-European languages slowly spread out from Anatolia 10,000 BP and reach the Pontic Step. There in 6000 BP an Indo-European speaking people domestic the horse and invent the chariot and spread everywhere.
I was going to suggest something like this, but I'd still like evidence of this in Anatolian toponymy or surrounding languages.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flanguage.cs.auckland.ac.nz%2Ffiles%2F2012%2F08%2F2011Diffusion.png&hash=7dc44807b3153c61e46c1582ff4c3bbd08d92248)
Why the hell are the Northern Indo-Iranians not on the map? Why are all of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and most of Uzbekistan listed as non-Indo-European forever?
Quote from: Queequeg on August 27, 2012, 12:42:38 AM
Quote from: Iormlund on August 25, 2012, 02:25:12 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on August 24, 2012, 01:26:05 PMThe first known site of permanent human settlement has been transformed from a lush forest in to barren prairie by human action.
Not just human action. Climate has changed plenty in the last dozen millenia.
Willfully obtuse. This area was the heart of civilization for 8,000 years. No trees. I doubt that a sunspot did most of the damage.
No, not willfully obtuse. The changes to several areas that were hotbeds of horticulture/early agriculture altered immensely in the period of 14kya to 2kya. Sure, some of it was human caused, but if you are poo-pooing the gradual changes regionally in the interglacial (it didn't just happen, it happens slowly) then you once again being overly romantic.
Hey Spellus, you might be interested in this study.
There's lots of nice graphs and figures, so you should head of there and check it out.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/files/2012/09/eur1.jpg
Here's the main bits.
QuoteAcross the sea of grass: how Northern Europeans got to be ~10% Northeast Asian
The Pith: You're Asian. Yes, you!
A conclusion to an important paper, Nick Patterson, Priya Moorjani, Yontao Luo, Swapan Mallick, Nadin Rohland, Yiping Zhan, Teri Genschoreck, Teresa Webster, and David Reich:
In particular, we have presented evidence suggesting that the genetic history of Europe from around 5000 B.C. includes:
1. The arrival of Neolithic farmers probably from the Middle East.
2. Nearly complete replacement of the indigenous Mesolithic southern European populations by Neolithic migrants, and admixture between the Neolithic farmers and the indigenous Europeans in the north.
3. Substantial population movement into Spain occurring around the same time as the archaeologically attested Bell-Beaker phenomenon (HARRISON, 1980).
4. Subsequent mating between peoples of neighboring regions, resulting in isolation-by-distance (LAO et al., 2008; NOVEMBRE et al., 2008). This tended to smooth out population structure that existed 4,000 years ago.
Further, the populations of Sardinia and the Basque country today have been substantially less influenced by these events.