User Tag List

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 59

Thread: So David Reich thinks Proto Indo-European came ultimately from Armenia/The South Caucausus452 days old

  1. #31
    Established Member
    Junior Member Arch Hades's Avatar
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 22:56
    Join Date
    2012-02-28
    Posts
    1,779
    Gender
    Age
    32
    Y-DNA
    J2b2*
    mtDNA
    H1
    Race
    Caucasoid
    Metaethnos
    White American
    Ethnicity
    Greco-Mediterranean
    Phenotype
    Pompeii frescoe
    Politics
    I don't do politics
    Religion
    Panentheism
    Germany Japan Italy

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Semitic Duwa View Post
    That statement actually contraditcs the data they put forth, in their own words:

    "Based on PCA and ADMIXTURE plots we observe two distinct genetic clusters: one cluster falls with previously published ancient individuals from the West Eurasian steppe (hence termed ‘Steppe’), and the second clusters with present-day southern Caucasian populations and ancient Bronze Age individuals from today’s Armenia (henceforth called ‘Caucasus’), while a few individuals take on intermediate positions between the two. The stark distinction seen in our temporal transect is also visible in the Y-chromosome haplogroup distribution, with R1/R1b1 and Q1a2 types in the Steppe and L, J, and G2 types in the Caucasus cluster (Fig. 3A, Supplementary Data 1). In contrast, the mitochondrial haplogroup distribution is more diverse and almost identical in both groups (Fig. 3B, Supplementary Data 1)."



    This leaves no room for fanciful theories placing the PIE homeland south of Caucasus... Unless you're able to demonstrate how Maykop or K-A track early IE dispersals, first on the steppe then in the Yamnaya-derived horizons.
    I don't see any contradiction...just cause there are two clusters? These groups could both be speaking Indo-European by this time. The steppe would have been more differentiated from the Caucusus earlier in time...when it was almost purely EHG. That's the migration i'm talking about.


    The strongest morphological links between IE and Uralic are especially abundant in the Anatolian branch.
    Like what? Because if you could point out the specifics that would help your case.

    "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.

    And these similarities can be explained by Uralic being in contact with Proto Indo-Iranian and Balto Slavic...he doesnt even mention Anatolian. He says himself it doesnt have to be PIE, but IE offshoots of PIE. Unless I'm missing something here I don't see any strong Uralic-Anatolian connection. Yes Proto Indo-Iranian has to come from the North but not Proto Anatolian.

    e]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."[/I]

    I could go into details here and show several of the morphological correspondences between Anatolian and Uralic languages, but I think this should do for now.
    Actually you should because I would like to learn.



    You might want to be more careful when quoting authors who oppose your pet theory
    This thread is not about the Anatolian hypothesis...that's not what David Reich is talking about in the OP. Also, I have no pet theory. I'm agnostic between the steppe and the South Caucasus. I do not believe in the Neolithic Anatolian Hypothesis at all these days. As I told Elias IE speaking South Asians don't even have Anatolian farmer admixture. It's a dead theory even on the genetics side.
    Last edited by Arch Hades; 2018-07-01 at 04:42.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Arch Hades For This Useful Post:

    voyager (2018-07-01)

  3. # ADS
    Advertisement bot
    Join Date
    2013-03-24
    Age
    2010
    Posts
    All threads
       
     

  4. #32
    Established Member
    Junior Member Arch Hades's Avatar
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 22:56
    Join Date
    2012-02-28
    Posts
    1,779
    Gender
    Age
    32
    Y-DNA
    J2b2*
    mtDNA
    H1
    Race
    Caucasoid
    Metaethnos
    White American
    Ethnicity
    Greco-Mediterranean
    Phenotype
    Pompeii frescoe
    Politics
    I don't do politics
    Religion
    Panentheism
    Germany Japan Italy

    Default

    I've been looking at some of the data from Wang. See these samples are a bit too late. They even post date Khvalynsk culture. The earliest steppe samples they have are of Yamnaya and Maykop culture.



    Notice the Yamnaya culture from Samara is only half EHG....I think it is dated to 3,300 BC. If we go 2 millenia earlier The Samara region was 100% EHG and shown by Haak et al 2015. So we can see in the genetic record the Caucasus influencing the steppe.

    The Anatolian branch of IE already has to break off from the other IE languages pre Yamnaya I believe.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Arch Hades For This Useful Post:

    voyager (2018-07-31)

  6. #33
    Wiki Editor
    Moderator
    Your favourite (((Skype))) Semitic Duwa's Avatar
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2010-02-26
    Posts
    3,411
    Location
    In your closet
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    J1-Z18271 (YSC234+)
    mtDNA
    J1c5
    Race
    Caucasoid
    Metaethnos
    (((Skype))) + British
    Ethnicity
    (((Canaanite)))
    Politics
    Pump & Trump
    Religion
    Jehovah's Fitness
    Israel Israel Star of David Israel Israel

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Hades View Post
    I don't see any contradiction...just cause there are two clusters? These groups could both be speaking Indo-European by this time. The steppe would have been more differentiated from the Caucusus earlier in time...when it was almost purely EHG. That's the migration i'm talking about.
    The further we go back in time, the closer the correlation between genes and languages will be. Your claim that both clusters comprised IE-speaking groups is bound to self-destruct, especially if we take the time to look at the uniparental lineages in the Caucasus cluster (it's very obvious that K-A is associated with the spread of NEC languages in the Caucasus for example).

    And these similarities can be explained by Uralic being in contact with Proto Indo-Iranian and Balto Slavic...he doesnt even mention Anatolian. He says himself it doesnt have to be PIE, but IE offshoots of PIE. Unless I'm missing something here I don't see any strong Uralic-Anatolian connection. Yes Proto Indo-Iranian has to come from the North but not Proto Anatolian.
    Does contact between Indo-Iranian, Balto-Slavic and Uralic explain the following?

    "In order to express possession, Hittite can use two constructions. Besides the genitive forms of personal pronouns (ammel ‘of me’, tuel ‘of you (sg.)’, apel ‘of him/her’, anzel ‘of us’, sumenzan ‘of you (pl.)’, apenzan ‘of them’), a series of enclitic possessive pronouns is used which are attached to the noun they belong to: 1sg. =mV- ‘my’, 2sg. =ttV- ‘your (sg.)’, 3sg. =ssV- ‘his/her’, 1pl. =summV- ‘our’, 2/3pl. =smV- ‘your (pl.) /their’.2 The enclitics are inflected and agree with the noun they are attached to.

    [...]

    This construction especially occurs in the oldest texts and its use declines throughout the Hittite period, which may indicate that we are dealing with an archaic formation. Within the older Indo-European languages, this system is unique: no other ancient IE language uses enclitic possessive pronouns.12 Instead, we find possessive adjectives that can formally be regarded as thematic derivatives of the personal pronouns: *h1mo- ‘my’, *t(e)uo- ‘your (sg.)’, *ns(m)o- ‘our’, *us(m)o- ‘your (pl.)’.13 Because of the absence of corresponding forms in the other IE languages the Hittite possessive enclitics are usually regarded as the result of an innovation within Hittite.

    [...]

    In the Uralic languages, the use of personal possessive suffixes attached to nouns is a wide-spread phenomenon.

    [...]

    If we look at the following scheme in which the Hittite and Proto-Uralic systems are given, we see that for ‘my’, ‘your (sg.)’ and ‘his/her’ these are very similar if not identical:

    Hittite Proto-Uralic
    1.sg. NOUN + ENDING + -mV + ENDING NOUN + CASE SUFFIX + -mV
    2.sg. NOUN + ENDING + -tV + ENDING NOUN + CASE SUFFIX + -tV
    3.sg. NOUN + ENDING + -sV + ENDING NOUN + CASE SUFFIX + -sV

    This similarity is too striking to be coincidental. Since Hittite (or Proto-Anatolian) was never spoken in an area neighbouring Uralic languages, it is impossible that the system was borrowed into Hittite from a Uralic source. We can therefore conclude that the similarity must be due to a genetic relation between Hittite and Proto-Uralic."


    Source: Alwin Kloekhorst; Some Indo-Uralic aspects of Hittite (Journal of Indo-European Studies)

    There are many other examples of the sort, especially in verbal and pronominal morphology... So no, it definitely isn't all about Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic, like I said the morphological links with Uralic are abundant in the Anatolian branch. This leads us to two possibilities, namely a genetic relationship (which is what the Leiden school supports) or prolonged contact-induced convergence (which I find more likely), in both cases Archaic PIE/Proto-Indo-Hittite has to be spoken in the vicinity of Uralic.

    Actually you should because I would like to learn.
    Refer to the above part I quoted. I can provide more if you want, there's no shortage of material on this issue, heck I have 84 papers, books and articles dealing specifically with IE linguistics on my computer.


    This thread is not about the Anatolian hypothesis...that's not what David Reich is talking about in the OP. Also, I have no pet theory. I'm agnostic between the steppe and the South Caucasus. I do not believe in the Neolithic Anatolian Hypothesis at all these days. As I told Elias IE speaking South Asians don't even have Anatolian farmer admixture. It's a dead theory even on the genetics side.
    Heggarty and Reich's theory is basically a mixture of Gamkrelidze & Ivanov's Armenian theory with Renfrew's secondary steppe homeland. Actually the Indo-Uralic links are the least problematic part, the huge problem with such a theory lies in the absence of ejectives (widespread in the Transcaucasus) and the intrusive nature of IE in the epigraphic record.

    You'll notice that even in this theory, the steppe is used as a secondary homeland for Proto-Nuclear-Indo-European (PIExAnatolian), that's because the evidence in favour of a steppe homeland is so massive and compelling that dismissing it is basically suicide at this point in time. On the other hand, you never see proponents of a steppe homeland (so a vast majority of linguists) describing Anatolia or the Transcaucasus as a secondary homeland, which underlines how underwhelming the evidence in favour of a South Caucasian homeland really is.
    Last edited by Semitic Duwa; 2018-07-01 at 16:23.


    Quote Originally Posted by MnM View Post
    Morocco is a western lapdog.
    Quote Originally Posted by NonFingo View Post
    Those Bronze Age samples are just red herrings to distract you from the actual arrivals of populations with Semitic ancestry. Don’t take the bait by focusing on the wrong samples, lol. He is passing off Bronze Age Levantines with no evidence of strong predynastic input, as “Semites“. This way, he can flip it around and say Proto-Semitic speakers and predynastics were more or less identical to the Bronze Age Levantines sampled so far.
    Quote Originally Posted by NonFingo View Post
    @Semitic Duwa

    Wonder what the resident Proto-Semite has to say about this. I thought unmixed Egyptians were supposed to be Abusir with less/zero Chl?

    In your view, does this prove you wrong, or is it just a coincidence () that M1 is absent in one of the three subsamples from Abusir, and rare overall?

    And don’t change your signature now, please. I’m looking forward to you looking more and more incompetent as more aDNA is published. Wish there was a way to speed this up. But the extra wait and seeing you with your pants down every day, kinda has its own appeal, too.

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

    Arch Hades (2018-07-04), EliasAlucard (2018-07-02), Huck Finn (2018-07-02), Power77 (2018-07-01)

  8. #34
    Senior Moderator
    Plant of Life = Biological Magic 麻 EliasAlucard's Avatar
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2009-10-22
    Posts
    14,709
    Location
    Sweden
    Gender
    Age
    34
    Y-DNA
    J1a2a1a2-P58+
    mtDNA
    H5a
    Race
    Caucasian
    Phenotype
    Alpinid
    Metaethnos
    proto-Semitic
    Ethnicity
    Assyrian/Armenian
    Politics
    Environment, Cannabis
    Religion
    Secular Agnostic
    Assyria Assyria 1913-1923 Armenia Lebanon Sweden Greece

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Hades View Post
    This is a matter of semantics.
    No it's not. What you call semantics, invalidates the Anatolian hypothesis you're championing

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Hades View Post
    For certain Anatolian is the first to split from the other Indo-European languages. Almost every single Indo-European phylogenetic tree has shown as Anatolian the first to split from the rest.
    If Anatolian split from PIE, then Anatolian came from the Pontic-Caspian steppe. So QED.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Hades View Post
    The horse was domesticated on the steppe. We could easily have a non steppe homeland where the PIE people simply KNEW of the horse. Half the world knew of the horse around this time. The commonalities could be just because of the people in the Caucasus being familiar with wild horses...i mean like duhh.
    It's clear that you haven't done your homework on PIE. If you had, you wouldn't be pushing such nonsense.

    If the proto-Anatolians were a different community than (as in separated from), they wouldn't have used the same word for horse; it wouldn't be a cognate. And no, half the world didn't know about the horse. If it did, other non-IE language groups would also have domesticated the horse, and we'd see Afro-Asiatic languages all over the place, as a case in point.

    In fact, the domestication of the horse is one of the main linguistic palaeontology arguments for the Pontic-Caspian steppe as the PIE urheimat (you would know this also, if you had done your homework). Horses were mainly around in the steppe and some parts of central Asia, at the time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Hades View Post
    Iran and/or Caucasus is NOT the Mediterranean...
    That's just your racial inferiority comples talking. Iran and especially Caucasus, are more or less part of that world. They're a lot more part of the Mediterranean than northern Europe is, for example.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Hades View Post
    it'll have flora and fauna quite similar to what's on the steppe.
    So when was the last time you heard about olives or dates being grown in the Pontic-Caspian steppe? Arguably they can grow that stuff there now, but in the prehistoric era?

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Hades View Post
    I;d have to see specific examples found in Anatolian IE languages and then compare the two locations. All I'll say on this matter is there's gonna be tons of overlap between the flora and fauna found on the Pontic-Caspian steppe vs that found in the Caucasus.
    Unlikely. And even if there was, you'd be hard pressed to match all the pieces required for a Caucasus or Iranian PIE homeland.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Hades View Post
    Secondly Are you lost? Did you not read the OP?
    I did actually.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Hades View Post
    This thread has nothing to do with the hypothesis of Proto Indo-European being from Neolithic Anatolia...that's been debunked via genetics alone. Pakistan and Indo-Iranian speaking South Asians do not even have the Anatolian farmer component that Europeans and Levantines have.[if they do it's so low it's to be less than trivial/noise]...they do have another farmer component that is drastically different from the Neolithic Anatolian one. This alone discredits the Neolithic Anatolian hypothesis from a genetic aspect.
    Who cares? Pakis, Indians and Baloch are very bad examples of PIE genetics. You shouldn't expect to find PIE genetics when they're that mixed with Australoids.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Hades View Post
    Reich is talking about the Caucasus/Iranian farmer component present in all Indo-European speaking groups from modern South Asia to modern Northern Europe and everything in between. He is contemplating a slightly later PIE homeland in the Caucasus or possibly Northern Iran. He's just saying ancient genomes of supposed Indo-European Anatolian speakers so far have not shown Steppe or Eastern European Hunter Gatherer genes/input.
    It doesn't matter. Modern IE-speaking populations aren't genetic proto-Indo-Europeans. If this Caucasus/Iranian farmer component can be found in Yamnaya or related archaeological horizons, then it's a match for PIE I guess. If it's not found in Yamnaya (or Khvalynsk etc), then it's not PIE autosomal DNA.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Hades View Post
    Ohh I forgot David Reich from Harvard has been paid off by Dienekes.
    Of course he hasn't. It's just that he's suffering from the erroneous Dienekes-mentality when he POV-pushes nonsense like this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Hades View Post
    You silly goose, Reich is just looking at the data objectively.
    No he's not. He's overemphasizing genetics, just like Dienekes. He's looking at the genetic data (which can only match the linguistic evidence; the genetic data can never change the linguistic evidence, or decide where a linguistic urheimat was spoken).

    This is an all too common error, among you n00bs. Because you fools don't understand linguistics (which is actually a lot more difficult topic, than genetics, because you have to know lots of difficult words obscure words and cognates, and on top of that, match them with a prehistoric context), you stick to what you anti-intellectuals know and argue the easiest way possible: "we found a genetic component, so now the PIE urheimat must be somewhere else, we're just being objective yo!"

    This is how morons argue. It was the same thing with that silly ANE component, I remember @Awale and @ZephyrousMandaru constantly bringing up the ANE component every five seconds when we were trying to discuss the proto-Afro-Asiatic homeland, as if it had any relevance. Obviously it's easier to appear erudite on a subject by autistically focusing on a genetics component than to actually showing off some relevant language skills. That's how you n00bs roll.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Hades View Post
    And his opinion is more credible than yours i might add [though i'm not saying he's right and you're wrong though because I honestly don't know and am humble and objective enough to say that].
    I'm right and he's wrong, and just because he has a PhD in genetics and publishes his stuff in accredited journals, doesn't mean he knows what he's talking about, in a field he has no expertise or education in. That's not to say that I'm this linguistic guru or anything, but this is pure and simple logic: a linguistic homeland, is decided by matching the preserved cognates in its daughter languages, with prehistoric archaeology. This is not a rule I made up or anything like that; this is what all the Indo-Europeanists and other experts say. And this method has worked very well for PIE. It's no coincidence that the Yamnaya genomes matched so well with a major exodus from Yamnaya into Europe. Linguistic palaeontology matched with Yamnaya long before ancient DNA was a thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Hades View Post
    Secondly I don't get your beef with Dienekes, he's hardly posted the last 3 years and probably doesn't even know who you are. lol..you act as if Dienekes is the boogey man or slept with your wife or something.
    Don't be silly, Dienekes knows very well who I am, I've even argued with him on his blog a couple of times, he called me "delusional" in regards to the PIE urheimat, lol. How ironic, the most delusional anthro blogger, accuses someone else of being delusional. Anyway, Dienekes is a faggot and he's barely been blogging the past 3 years because the Yamnaya study by Haak et al. 2015, shut him up for good. It totally devastated his credibility on anything anthropology and genetics, because Dienekes had been obsessed with Indo-Europeans for over 10 years, before that paper, constantly arguing about the Anatolian hypothesis and plenty of other crackpot PIE homelands, any and all of them, but Yamnaya, which he always fought against. And so came the final genetics verdict by Haak and his crew in 2015, and Dienekes became a quiet bird after that.

    As such, I think Reich is only hurting himself by picking up where Dienekes left off. It's understandable that a delusional blogger can POV-push nonsense like this, but an academic dude really should know better.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Hades View Post
    Anyway, all I'll say is if we eventually get Hittite elite genomes and even they don't show any steppe or Eastern European Hunter Gatherer genetic input..the Pontic-Caspian hypothesis for actual PIE [and not just a later offshoot] will have to be taken on little more than faith.
    The Hittites (and other IE-speaking Anatolians) are irrelevant, because they were an elite dominance culture.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Hades View Post
    You seriously believe Indo-European Anatolian speaking Hittite Kings would have 0% PIE ancestry? That's a huge stretch.
    Perhaps not 0%, bu the Hittites, Luwians etc., will show about the same levels of IE admixture as modern Anatolians, give or take a few percentages (maybe modern Anatolian pseudo-Turks have gotten some extra European admixture over the centuries, from all those Muslim harems and such, who knows).

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Hades View Post
    And that's exactly what we would have to believe if such data eventually comes in to keep on believing in the Steppe hypothesis as the ultimate homeland for all IE languages.
    It's not a "belief". The Kurgan theory is the real deal. If you wish to believe in other PIE fantasies, that's up to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Hades View Post
    I think the jury is still out until we get those genomes in but if we do it'll be a tough pill for me to swallow.
    Whatever makes you sleep at night

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Hades View Post
    Other than that though, the Pontic-Caspian hypothesis for the other IE languages looks just fine.
    Of course it does, because it's legit. And it's no longer a hyptohesis; it's a scientific theory, aka fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Hades View Post
    I don't have any dog in this fight but it looks to me like the Anatolian Indo-Europeans are a big thorn in the steppe hypothesis' side.
    I think anyone at this point who champions anything other than the Pontic-Caspian steppe for the PIE homeland, has a dog in this fight.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Hades View Post
    Hell even the Mycenaean Greeks had like 1/7th of their ancestry from the Eearly Bronze Age steppe...but so far the Anatolians show none. There's no reason for the Greeks to have it and not the Hittites or Luwians if PIE was really from the steppe. It would be a very bizarre turn of events that would have to have unfolded.
    Actually, there's a very good reason for the Greeks to have it and not the Anatolians. Ask me why and I'll spoon-feed the obvious to you.
    ReactOS <--- support this project so that we can get rid of Windows!
    Ubuntu MATE 16.04.1 LTS | PRISM-Break! | Windows7sins

    “A wise man makes his own decisions; an ignorant man follows public opinion.” ― Chinese proverb

    “Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under.” ― H. L. Mencken

    “The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance.” ― Socrates

    “Damnant quod non intelligunt.” ― Latin proverb

    Quoted for truth:
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaron View Post
    Anatolian Urhemait supporters are mostly butthurt Meds.
    For the lulz:
    Quote Originally Posted by drgs View Post
    Poland is a misunderstanding. It is a country which lies on the frontier between western and slavic world, and which combines elements of both.
    In fact, they are not even the Europeans in strict sense, meaning European as in bearing the responsibility and understanding of European interests. Poland has always been an subordinate country, on one side sucking German dick, on the other side -- Russian one, some kind of "novice" europeans, who are full of inferiority complexes, hysteria and obsessity neuroses. This is also true for all Baltic countries

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to EliasAlucard For This Useful Post:

    Power77 (2018-07-31)

  10. #35
    Established Member
    Junior Member Arch Hades's Avatar
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 22:56
    Join Date
    2012-02-28
    Posts
    1,779
    Gender
    Age
    32
    Y-DNA
    J2b2*
    mtDNA
    H1
    Race
    Caucasoid
    Metaethnos
    White American
    Ethnicity
    Greco-Mediterranean
    Phenotype
    Pompeii frescoe
    Politics
    I don't do politics
    Religion
    Panentheism
    Germany Japan Italy

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EliasAlucard View Post
    No it's not. What you call semantics, invalidates the Anatolian hypothesis you're championing

    If Anatolian split from PIE, then Anatolian came from the Pontic-Caspian steppe. So QED.

    It's clear that you haven't done your homework on PIE. If you had, you wouldn't be pushing such nonsense.

    If the proto-Anatolians were a different community than (as in separated from), they wouldn't have used the same word for horse; it wouldn't be a cognate. And no, half the world didn't know about the horse. If it did, other non-IE language groups would also have domesticated the horse, and we'd see Afro-Asiatic languages all over the place, as a case in point.

    In fact, the domestication of the horse is one of the main linguistic palaeontology arguments for the Pontic-Caspian steppe as the PIE urheimat (you would know this also, if you had done your homework). Horses were mainly around in the steppe and some parts of central Asia, at the time.

    That's just your racial inferiority comples talking. Iran and especially Caucasus, are more or less part of that world. They're a lot more part of the Mediterranean than northern Europe is, for example.

    So when was the last time you heard about olives or dates being grown in the Pontic-Caspian steppe? Arguably they can grow that stuff there now, but in the prehistoric era?

    Unlikely. And even if there was, you'd be hard pressed to match all the pieces required for a Caucasus or Iranian PIE homeland.

    I did actually.

    Who cares? Pakis, Indians and Baloch are very bad examples of PIE genetics. You shouldn't expect to find PIE genetics when they're that mixed with Australoids.

    It doesn't matter. Modern IE-speaking populations aren't genetic proto-Indo-Europeans. If this Caucasus/Iranian farmer component can be found in Yamnaya or related archaeological horizons, then it's a match for PIE I guess. If it's not found in Yamnaya (or Khvalynsk etc), then it's not PIE autosomal DNA.

    Of course he hasn't. It's just that he's suffering from the erroneous Dienekes-mentality when he POV-pushes nonsense like this.

    No he's not. He's overemphasizing genetics, just like Dienekes. He's looking at the genetic data (which can only match the linguistic evidence; the genetic data can never change the linguistic evidence, or decide where a linguistic urheimat was spoken).

    This is an all too common error, among you n00bs. Because you fools don't understand linguistics (which is actually a lot more difficult topic, than genetics, because you have to know lots of difficult words obscure words and cognates, and on top of that, match them with a prehistoric context), you stick to what you anti-intellectuals know and argue the easiest way possible: "we found a genetic component, so now the PIE urheimat must be somewhere else, we're just being objective yo!"

    This is how morons argue. It was the same thing with that silly ANE component, I remember @Awale and @ZephyrousMandaru constantly bringing up the ANE component every five seconds when we were trying to discuss the proto-Afro-Asiatic homeland, as if it had any relevance. Obviously it's easier to appear erudite on a subject by autistically focusing on a genetics component than to actually showing off some relevant language skills. That's how you n00bs roll.

    I'm right and he's wrong, and just because he has a PhD in genetics and publishes his stuff in accredited journals, doesn't mean he knows what he's talking about, in a field he has no expertise or education in. That's not to say that I'm this linguistic guru or anything, but this is pure and simple logic: a linguistic homeland, is decided by matching the preserved cognates in its daughter languages, with prehistoric archaeology. This is not a rule I made up or anything like that; this is what all the Indo-Europeanists and other experts say. And this method has worked very well for PIE. It's no coincidence that the Yamnaya genomes matched so well with a major exodus from Yamnaya into Europe. Linguistic palaeontology matched with Yamnaya long before ancient DNA was a thing.

    Don't be silly, Dienekes knows very well who I am, I've even argued with him on his blog a couple of times, he called me "delusional" in regards to the PIE urheimat, lol. How ironic, the most delusional anthro blogger, accuses someone else of being delusional. Anyway, Dienekes is a faggot and he's barely been blogging the past 3 years because the Yamnaya study by Haak et al. 2015, shut him up for good. It totally devastated his credibility on anything anthropology and genetics, because Dienekes had been obsessed with Indo-Europeans for over 10 years, before that paper, constantly arguing about the Anatolian hypothesis and plenty of other crackpot PIE homelands, any and all of them, but Yamnaya, which he always fought against. And so came the final genetics verdict by Haak and his crew in 2015, and Dienekes became a quiet bird after that.

    As such, I think Reich is only hurting himself by picking up where Dienekes left off. It's understandable that a delusional blogger can POV-push nonsense like this, but an academic dude really should know better.

    The Hittites (and other IE-speaking Anatolians) are irrelevant, because they were an elite dominance culture.

    Perhaps not 0%, bu the Hittites, Luwians etc., will show about the same levels of IE admixture as modern Anatolians, give or take a few percentages (maybe modern Anatolian pseudo-Turks have gotten some extra European admixture over the centuries, from all those Muslim harems and such, who knows).

    It's not a "belief". The Kurgan theory is the real deal. If you wish to believe in other PIE fantasies, that's up to you.

    Whatever makes you sleep at night

    Of course it does, because it's legit. And it's no longer a hyptohesis; it's a scientific theory, aka fact.

    I think anyone at this point who champions anything other than the Pontic-Caspian steppe for the PIE homeland, has a dog in this fight.

    Actually, there's a very good reason for the Greeks to have it and not the Anatolians. Ask me why and I'll spoon-feed the obvious to you.
    Elias your 'arguments' pretty much all come down to just bold assertions.

    A. We can agree that PIE people knew of horses, and that horses were domesticated on the steppe. However the similar cognates don't need to strickly imply domesticated horses. Simply knowledge of horses is all that's required.

    B. The Kurgan hypothesis is not a scientific fact because linguistic paleontology is way too soft a science. And even that field there is at least some disagreement. Might as well call a dominant theory in sociology a scientific fact.

    C. No, the Caucasus is not the Mediterranean. Southern Europe, the Levant, and North Africa border the Mediterranean...the Caucasus does not. If 'Mediterranean world' doesn't mean nations that border the Mediterranean then I don't know what you mean by it and you certainly have and odd definition most people don't use. Might as well say Siberia is part of the Mediterranean world.

    D. And as I told you I don't champion any particular hypothesis. I'm agnostic and have been so for 4 years now.

    E. If Hittite and Luwian elites show as much steppe ancestry as modernn Anatolians that's fine and will help support the Kurgan hypothesis...but so far all Bronze age Anatolian samples yield 0%. Steppe ancestry. Modern Turks show like 20% on various mixture runs. Which hurts the hypothesis. That's the point of Reich and this thread.
    Last edited by Arch Hades; 2018-07-31 at 16:47.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Arch Hades For This Useful Post:

    voyager (2018-07-31)

  12. #36
    Senior Moderator
    Plant of Life = Biological Magic 麻 EliasAlucard's Avatar
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2009-10-22
    Posts
    14,709
    Location
    Sweden
    Gender
    Age
    34
    Y-DNA
    J1a2a1a2-P58+
    mtDNA
    H5a
    Race
    Caucasian
    Phenotype
    Alpinid
    Metaethnos
    proto-Semitic
    Ethnicity
    Assyrian/Armenian
    Politics
    Environment, Cannabis
    Religion
    Secular Agnostic
    Assyria Assyria 1913-1923 Armenia Lebanon Sweden Greece

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Hades View Post
    Elias your 'arguments' pretty much all come down to just bold assertions.
    No, it's more like, I'm sticking to the facts, whereas you're being delusional

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Hades View Post
    We can agree that PIE people knew of horses but the similar cognate don't need to imply domesticated horses. Simply knowledge of horses is all that's required.
    There's no such thing as "similar cognate". Either it is a cognate, or it's not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Hades View Post
    A. The Kurgan hypothesis is not a scientific fact because linguistic paleontology is way too soft a science. And even that field there is disagreement.
    Okay, Mr. Delusional

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Hades View Post
    No, the Caucasus is not the Mediterranean. Southern Europe, the Levant, and North Africa border the Mediterranean...not the Caucasus.
    It's close enough to be culturally very similar. and to a large degree also genetically similar. You do agree that Caucasus folks are genetically more similar to Greeks and Italians, than Berbers are, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Hades View Post
    And as I told you I don't champion any particular hypothesis. I'm agnostic and have been so for 4 years now.
    Being agnostic on a scientific fact is definitely championing one or more hypotheses.

    Honestly, at this point, one has to suffer from a major racial inferiority complex, to hold any other position on the PIE homeland question, than the Kurgan theory (and yes, it's a scientific theory, not a hypothesis, at this point, and if you say otherwise, it's because of a racial inferiority complex ).

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Hades View Post
    If Hittite and Luwian elites show as much steppe ancestry as modernn Anatolians that's fine and will help support the Kurgan hypothesis...but so far all Bronze age Anatolian samples yield 0%. Steppe ancestry. Modern Turks show like 20% on various mixture runs. Which hurts the hypothesis. That's the point of Reich and this thread.
    The Kurgan theory is not dependent on any steppe admixture in ancient Anatolians, lol. Various anthropologists have always been of the opinion that what went down in the Indo-Europeanization of ancient Anatolia, was always a matter of elite dominance (meaning, language shift with little to no gene replacement).

    This is typical of you genome bloggers anyway (it's not just Dienekes, but he is in fact the worst offender): genetics as the theory of everything explanation. This is because you really don't understand other anthropological topics, and you're constantly trying to sound more intellectual than you actually are, and so you're trying to discuss topics that are way over your head, with genetics this, genetics that. Try to understand that population genetics is just one part of the puzzle.
    ReactOS <--- support this project so that we can get rid of Windows!
    Ubuntu MATE 16.04.1 LTS | PRISM-Break! | Windows7sins

    “A wise man makes his own decisions; an ignorant man follows public opinion.” ― Chinese proverb

    “Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under.” ― H. L. Mencken

    “The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance.” ― Socrates

    “Damnant quod non intelligunt.” ― Latin proverb

    Quoted for truth:
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaron View Post
    Anatolian Urhemait supporters are mostly butthurt Meds.
    For the lulz:
    Quote Originally Posted by drgs View Post
    Poland is a misunderstanding. It is a country which lies on the frontier between western and slavic world, and which combines elements of both.
    In fact, they are not even the Europeans in strict sense, meaning European as in bearing the responsibility and understanding of European interests. Poland has always been an subordinate country, on one side sucking German dick, on the other side -- Russian one, some kind of "novice" europeans, who are full of inferiority complexes, hysteria and obsessity neuroses. This is also true for all Baltic countries

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to EliasAlucard For This Useful Post:

    Power77 (2018-07-31)

  14. #37
    Established Member
    Slayer of Bullshit
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2009-10-23
    Posts
    3,191
    Gender
    Phenotype
    Mediterranid
    Metaethnos
    European
    Phenotype
    UP/Atlanto-Med
    Religion
    All's fair in love&war

    Default

    I think many people on this website should take a look at the "Indo-European.eu" website to see real science at work.
    METALLURGY CAME FROM ANATOLIA AND THE LEVANT.

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

    Power77 (2018-07-31)

  16. #38
    Established Member
    Your Friend
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2009-10-23
    Posts
    9,652
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    R1a-Z282
    mtDNA
    H7
    Metaethnos
    Slavic
    Ethnicity
    Polish
    Phenotype
    Barbarian
    Religion
    Crop Circles
    Poland

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by voyager View Post
    I think many people on this website should take a look at the "Indo-European.eu" website to see real science at work.
    Hahaha.

    You mean kooky Carlos? He's totally insane. Have you actually read any of this work? I guess not.

    If you want real, academic, non-crazy, no stupid shit, then here you go...

    http://homeland.ku.dk/

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to Polako For This Useful Post:

    Power77 (2018-07-31)

  18. #39
    Established Member
    Junior Member Arch Hades's Avatar
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 22:56
    Join Date
    2012-02-28
    Posts
    1,779
    Gender
    Age
    32
    Y-DNA
    J2b2*
    mtDNA
    H1
    Race
    Caucasoid
    Metaethnos
    White American
    Ethnicity
    Greco-Mediterranean
    Phenotype
    Pompeii frescoe
    Politics
    I don't do politics
    Religion
    Panentheism
    Germany Japan Italy

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EliasAlucard View Post
    No, it's more like, I'm sticking to the facts, whereas you're being delusional
    That's just another bold assertion.

    There's no such thing as "similar cognate". Either it is a cognate, or it's not.
    Sure it's the same cognate which then evolved into similar spoken words. Point is domesticated horses is not a requirement for the cognate of 'horse', Duhh. Simple knowledge of horses is all that's required.

    Okay, Mr. Delusional
    Sociology is considered a science but it's too soft for me to consider a brute fact. Linguistic paleontology is a laughably soft and obscure science. The confidence we can have in it compared to hard sciences is very large.

    It's close enough to be culturally very similar. and to a large degree also genetically similar. You do agree that Caucasus folks are genetically more similar to Greeks and Italians, than Berbers are, right?
    How is it close culturally? Aside from Armenia, The languages of most the Caucuses are completely different than the IE languages of Southern Europe, the Afro-Asiatic languages of the Levant and North Africa. Genetically Greeks are closer to people of the Caucasus than to Berbers but genetically Greeks are also closer to Englishmen than to Berbers so genetics doesn't work here. Plus there's no reason for Greeks to be considered the prototype "Mediterraneans".

    Being agnostic on a scientific fact is definitely championing one or more hypotheses.
    Asserting as fact a favored hypothesis in linguistic paleontology is a joke. Secondly you don't seem to know what the word 'agnostic' nor 'championing' means. Perhaps Reich champions the Caucuses homeland but I don't...I merely consider it, not champion it. Do you understand the difference?


    The Kurgan theory is not dependent on any steppe admixture in ancient Anatolians, lol. Various anthropologists have always been of the opinion that what went down in the Indo-Europeanization of ancient Anatolia, was always a matter of elite dominance (meaning, language shift with little to no gene replacement).

    This is typical of you genome bloggers anyway (it's not just Dienekes, but he is in fact the worst offender): genetics as the theory of everything explanation. This is because you really don't understand other anthropological topics, and you're constantly trying to sound more intellectual than you actually are, and so you're trying to discuss topics that are way over your head, with genetics this, genetics that. Try to understand that population genetics is just one part of the puzzle.
    I didn't say the Kurgan hypothesis was dependent upon this...your scenario is plausible. But if we get Hittite Elite genomes and even they don't any steppe admixture a very bizarre scenario will have had to have taken place.

    Honestly, at this point, one has to suffer from a major racial inferiority complex, to hold any other position on the PIE homeland question, than the Kurgan theory (and yes, it's a scientific theory, not a hypothesis, at this point, and if you say otherwise, it's because of a racial inferiority complex.
    Yeah, I the man who genetically clusters in Switzerland and around populations of the modern Alps region has an inferiority complex to the guy who clusters in modern Syria and TUrkey. Riiigghhhttt
    Last edited by Arch Hades; 2018-07-31 at 17:19.

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

    voyager (2018-07-31)

  20. #40
    Established Member
    Slayer of Bullshit
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2009-10-23
    Posts
    3,191
    Gender
    Phenotype
    Mediterranid
    Metaethnos
    European
    Phenotype
    UP/Atlanto-Med
    Religion
    All's fair in love&war

    Default

    Obviously many on this site think they know more than a real scientist such as Reich.
    METALLURGY CAME FROM ANATOLIA AND THE LEVANT.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 90
    Last Post: 2019-01-20, 22:31
  2. Replies: 544
    Last Post: 2017-09-02, 02:37
  3. R1b not proto-Indo-European
    By EliasAlucard in forum y-DNA Haplogroups
    Replies: 212
    Last Post: 2017-06-22, 12:18
  4. Ydna of Proto Indo-Europeans/later Indo-European groups
    By newtoboard in forum y-DNA Haplogroups
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2012-09-23, 15:23
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2012-09-20, 23:46

Posting Permissions

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