Post 4
More spam. On stuff from 2 posts up. The Palaeolithic Continuity Theory (of IE languages and the people speaking them)
The one thing that does not add up (in my mind) with other PIE hypotheses is that our African->European Stone Ager from 7000 years ago is already identifiably Scandinavian in genome at that early point in time. On its own - ignoring PIEism - this would mean nothing more than that Europe had already started getting a bit genetically diversified (or at least the Scandinavians did) all the way back 7000 yrs ago.
But when considering PIE, his genome being more Scandinavian than other European has a lot of implications. So unless I'm missing something:
- That means if he's post PIE, then PIE did not spread with neolithic farming, and indeed farming words would be local "IE" (post-PIE) developments (and not of shared PIE origins in a shared urheimat/homeland).
- If he's pre-PIE, then again: his genome goes into the PIE urheimat as mostly Scandinavian and comes out after the PIE urheimat as mostly Scandinavian (unless the Scandinavian genome is not of PIE and their language is borrowed)
- If he IS PIE, then - besides Spain being the unexpected urheimat (or the Scandinavian quarter of the urheimat?) - his peculiarly-Scandinavian genome is again distinct in PIE from other European genomes. Unless the Scandinavian genome is argued as the ancestral IE genome from which other Europeans derived. [I'm not even going to bother mentioning Indian and Iranian - they're always afterthoughts to European history telling anyway.]
(And other considerations that escape me now.)
- If he's non-IE (being Iberian/related to Basques or something, see the link to Oppenheimer 2 posts above again), then Scandinavians are not native IE speakers and borrowed IE.
What other options are there? Only those 4, right?
The only PIE theory that then still holds good at such an early time is the PCT one - the one about local IE continuity from before 10,000 BCE. Repeating:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_Urheimat_hypotheses
That way, if 7000 yrs back, the Stone Age hunter-gatherer in Spain had an identifiably Scandinavian genome, his language if it were IE need not have been borrowed: it just traces back to some older time.
Does it trace back to the Black Sea population from 10,000 yrs back where the blue eyes came from? (All we know is the Scandinavian Spanyard can be derived from there. But if white supremacists can't date PIE to white skin, they may want to date it to blue eyes: something Oryan being better than nothing. And so need to consider it.)
So was that Black Sea area PIE urheimat?
Again no clue, but if it was, it still does not work out all that great for oryanism/white supremacists:
+ it would not be all-white and is perhaps likely to have some unknown frequency of dark people (again: perhaps even all dark - gasp) and be as dark as the 7000 yr old Stone Ager or darker still, since he himself appears (and dark) 3000 years after the Black Sea population where the origins of blue-eyes are to have been attested
+ stone age accomplishments - not to knock them - are not what the Oryanists had in mind when dreaming up Oryanism. They saw their glorious all-founding ancestors with chariots and horses ("damn it!") and being all heroic with metal weapons etc and swooping in on -what was it- "Vedic Tanks" and stealing women (suppressing hysterical laughter) instead of as hunter-gatherer tribes till way after PIE (when the Stone Ager had moved into Spain).
And what about animal domestication skills and all, I ask you? No horsies, no moos, no sheep, no goats? No claims to fame? :Tragic:
+ And so if chariots and horses (and neolithic farming and a zillion post-Stone Age things etc) were later=post-PIE developments - since our 7000 year old hunter-gatherer was found to have moved off to Spain from the putative Black Sea PIE urheimat of 10,000 yrs Before Present where his tentatively PIE ancestors were from and was still being a hunter-gatherer with no contact with domesticated livestock - then all such post-PIE developments belong to their own local communities. Or else they are borrowed from later developments/radiations of farming knowledge and certain kinds of metal weaponry etc not associated with the spread of IE languages. [This is in contrast to the Anatolian PIE Hypothesis where IE Languages spread with neolithic farming.] Oh Boo-hoo.
That is to say, either the Scandinavian genome and the Scandinavian IE language branch go together or they don't and they borrowed the language if the Anatolian Hypothesis is still true. Unless I've missed something.
+ That means oh so much for local cultural developments of various peoples who were until now lumped into some PIE-ism.
Again, unless I'm overlooking the obvious, the PCT version of the PIE theory is the only one that still allows Scandinavians to own their own "IE" language while not contradicting the find of the 7000 yr old dude.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_Continuity_Theory
And if you note, all the talk above is about Europa onlee. There's no mention of India and Iran (C-Asia is regarded as Europa's backyard). So the same rules of "continuity from the Palaeolithic" won't apply for India (and probably Iran).
I'm sure they - or anyone who hereafter subscribes to PCT - will still insist on some later oryan invasion for India. Maybe the Kurgan Kultur. Oder etwas.
(You didn't think they'd let you off the hook, right? You're just brown people. You have no rights.
Besides, some modern Indians just *want* a Euro origin - something that I hadn't originally realised before
tupid me
More spam. On stuff from 2 posts up. The Palaeolithic Continuity Theory (of IE languages and the people speaking them)
The one thing that does not add up (in my mind) with other PIE hypotheses is that our African->European Stone Ager from 7000 years ago is already identifiably Scandinavian in genome at that early point in time. On its own - ignoring PIEism - this would mean nothing more than that Europe had already started getting a bit genetically diversified (or at least the Scandinavians did) all the way back 7000 yrs ago.
But when considering PIE, his genome being more Scandinavian than other European has a lot of implications. So unless I'm missing something:
- That means if he's post PIE, then PIE did not spread with neolithic farming, and indeed farming words would be local "IE" (post-PIE) developments (and not of shared PIE origins in a shared urheimat/homeland).
- If he's pre-PIE, then again: his genome goes into the PIE urheimat as mostly Scandinavian and comes out after the PIE urheimat as mostly Scandinavian (unless the Scandinavian genome is not of PIE and their language is borrowed)
- If he IS PIE, then - besides Spain being the unexpected urheimat (or the Scandinavian quarter of the urheimat?) - his peculiarly-Scandinavian genome is again distinct in PIE from other European genomes. Unless the Scandinavian genome is argued as the ancestral IE genome from which other Europeans derived. [I'm not even going to bother mentioning Indian and Iranian - they're always afterthoughts to European history telling anyway.]
(And other considerations that escape me now.)
- If he's non-IE (being Iberian/related to Basques or something, see the link to Oppenheimer 2 posts above again), then Scandinavians are not native IE speakers and borrowed IE.
What other options are there? Only those 4, right?
The only PIE theory that then still holds good at such an early time is the PCT one - the one about local IE continuity from before 10,000 BCE. Repeating:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_Urheimat_hypotheses
Quote:The Paleolithic Continuity Theory, with an origin [presumably of PIE] before the 10th millennium BCE.
That way, if 7000 yrs back, the Stone Age hunter-gatherer in Spain had an identifiably Scandinavian genome, his language if it were IE need not have been borrowed: it just traces back to some older time.
Does it trace back to the Black Sea population from 10,000 yrs back where the blue eyes came from? (All we know is the Scandinavian Spanyard can be derived from there. But if white supremacists can't date PIE to white skin, they may want to date it to blue eyes: something Oryan being better than nothing. And so need to consider it.)
So was that Black Sea area PIE urheimat?
Again no clue, but if it was, it still does not work out all that great for oryanism/white supremacists:
+ it would not be all-white and is perhaps likely to have some unknown frequency of dark people (again: perhaps even all dark - gasp) and be as dark as the 7000 yr old Stone Ager or darker still, since he himself appears (and dark) 3000 years after the Black Sea population where the origins of blue-eyes are to have been attested
+ stone age accomplishments - not to knock them - are not what the Oryanists had in mind when dreaming up Oryanism. They saw their glorious all-founding ancestors with chariots and horses ("damn it!") and being all heroic with metal weapons etc and swooping in on -what was it- "Vedic Tanks" and stealing women (suppressing hysterical laughter) instead of as hunter-gatherer tribes till way after PIE (when the Stone Ager had moved into Spain).
And what about animal domestication skills and all, I ask you? No horsies, no moos, no sheep, no goats? No claims to fame? :Tragic:
+ And so if chariots and horses (and neolithic farming and a zillion post-Stone Age things etc) were later=post-PIE developments - since our 7000 year old hunter-gatherer was found to have moved off to Spain from the putative Black Sea PIE urheimat of 10,000 yrs Before Present where his tentatively PIE ancestors were from and was still being a hunter-gatherer with no contact with domesticated livestock - then all such post-PIE developments belong to their own local communities. Or else they are borrowed from later developments/radiations of farming knowledge and certain kinds of metal weaponry etc not associated with the spread of IE languages. [This is in contrast to the Anatolian PIE Hypothesis where IE Languages spread with neolithic farming.] Oh Boo-hoo.
That is to say, either the Scandinavian genome and the Scandinavian IE language branch go together or they don't and they borrowed the language if the Anatolian Hypothesis is still true. Unless I've missed something.
+ That means oh so much for local cultural developments of various peoples who were until now lumped into some PIE-ism.
Again, unless I'm overlooking the obvious, the PCT version of the PIE theory is the only one that still allows Scandinavians to own their own "IE" language while not contradicting the find of the 7000 yr old dude.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_Continuity_Theory
Quote:General lines
The framework of PCT is laid out by Alinei in four main assumptions:[2]
1.Continuity is the basic pattern of European prehistory and the basic working hypothesis on the origins of IE languages.
2.Stability and antiquity are general features of languages.
3.The lexicon of natural languages, due to its antiquity, may be "periodized" along the entire course of human evolution.
4.Archaeological frontiers coincide with linguistic frontiers.
The continuity theory draws on a Continuity Model (CM), positing the presence of IE and non-IE peoples and languages in Europe from Paleolithic times and allowing for minor invasions and infiltrations of local scope, mainly during the last three millennia.[6]
Arguing that continuity is "the archeologist's easiest pursuit," Alinei deems this "the easiest working hypothesis," putting the burden of proof on competing hypotheses as long as none provide irrefutable counter-evidence. Alinei also claims linguistic coherence, rigor and productivity in the pursuit of this approach.[2]
Historical reconstruction
Associated with the Paleolithic Continuity Theory (PCT) is the historical reconstruction proposed by Alinei, which suggests that Indo-European speakers were native in Europe since the paleolithic. According to this reconstruction, the differentiation process of languages would have taken an extremely long time; by the end of the Ice Age the Indo-European language family had differentiated into proto Celtic/Italic/Germanic/Slavic/Baltic speakers occupying territories within or close to their traditional homelands. The rate of change accelerated when (Neolithic) social stratification and colonial wars began. Summarizing:[2]
1.The colonial expansion of the Celts started much earlier than La Tene and proceeded (generally) from West to East, not vice versa.
2.The Mesolithic cultures of Northern Europe are identified with already differentiated Celtic, Germanic, Baltic and Uralic groups.
3.Scandinavia was colonized by Germanic groups "only" after deglaciation, and was better able to preserve its original character in isolation. Germany, in contrast, suffered fragmentation as a result of the Neolithic appearance of the Linear Pottery culture, and developed a wealth of dialects.
4.The prehistoric distribution of proto-languages akin to Italic was an important factor underlying the current distribution of Romance languages throughout Europe.
5.The Slavic languages originated in the Balkans and became linked with the Neolithic expansion. This group would be especially identified by the Baden culture.[7]
The Paleolithic Continuity hypothesis reverses the Kurgan hypothesis and largely identifies the Indo-Europeans with Gimbutas's "Old Europe."[8] PCT reassigns the Kurgan culture (traditionally considered early Indo-European) to a people of predominantly mixed Uralic and Turkic stock. This hypothesis is supported by the tentative linguistic identification of Etruscans as a Uralic, proto-Hungarian people that had already undergone strong proto-Turkic influence in the third millennium BC,[7] when Pontic invasions would have brought this people to the Carpathian Basin. A subsequent migration of Urnfield culture signature around 1250 BC caused this ethnic group to expand south in a general movement of people, attested by the upheaval of the Sea Peoples and the overthrow of an earlier Italic substrate at the onset of the "Etruscan" Villanovan culture.[7]
Genetics
In introduction to PCT Mario Alinei argues, following Cavalli Sforza, that the distribution of genetic markers largely corresponds to that of languages. He further contends that 80% of Europe's human genetic material dates back to the Paleolithic, and cites Bryan Sykes in claiming that only a fifth of European DNA can be traced back to neolithic incomers.[2]
A 2009 study comparing mitochondrial DNA lineages of late hunter-gatherers, early farmers, and modern Europeans found large differences between the three groups. In particular, 82% of hunter-gatherers had maternal lineages that are rare in modern central Europeans.[9]
The origin of paternal lineages remains difficult to prove because modern science is unable to extract Y-DNA haplogroups from Paleolithic samples. However, the recent analysis of Arredi, Poloni and Tyler-Smith (2007) suggests that R1b-M269, the most common western European haplogroup, may have entered Europe only in the Neolithic.[10]
Reception
Alinei's Origini delle Lingue dââ¬â¢Europa was reviewed favourably in 1996 by Jonathan Morris in Mother Tongue, a journal dedicated to the reconstruction of Paleolithic language, judging Alinei's theory as being
Quote:"both simpler than its rivals and more powerful in terms of the insights it provides into language in the Meso- and Palaeolithic. While his book contains some flaws I believe that it deserves to be regarded as one of the seminal texts on linguistic archaeology, although given its lamentable lack of citation in English-language circles, it appears that recognition will have to wait until a translation of the original Italian appears."
Morris's review was reprinted as the foreword to the 2000 edition of Alinei's book.[11]
Renzi (1997) sharply criticized Alinei's book, refuting in particular the claim of the presence of Latin and of its different territorial forms in Italy in the 2nd millennium BC. Renzi argues that this theory would subvert firmly established concepts of Romance philology and dialectology, such as the concepts of substratum, vulgar Latin and so on.[12]
Alinei's theory was again critically reviewed by Adiego Lajara (2002):[13]
Quote:Although some of Alinei's reflections on linguistic change are very interesting, it should be said that certain conceptions in his work -- such as the excessive immobility of languages or the relationship between types of language and progress in the prehistoric lithic industry -- are very debatable. Alinei's core theory -- continuity from the Palaeolithic --, runs into a serious difficulty: it obliges us to deal with words traditionally reconstructed for Indo-European, referring to notions that did not exist in the Palaeolithic as loans, when from the formal standpoint they are indistinguishable from those Alinei sees as being Indo-European in the Palaeolithic period.[color="#800080"]("Ja, hoe zit dat nou?")[/color]
And if you note, all the talk above is about Europa onlee. There's no mention of India and Iran (C-Asia is regarded as Europa's backyard). So the same rules of "continuity from the Palaeolithic" won't apply for India (and probably Iran).
I'm sure they - or anyone who hereafter subscribes to PCT - will still insist on some later oryan invasion for India. Maybe the Kurgan Kultur. Oder etwas.
(You didn't think they'd let you off the hook, right? You're just brown people. You have no rights.
Besides, some modern Indians just *want* a Euro origin - something that I hadn't originally realised before
tupid me